Costs and Consequences: Understanding the Impact

of Fostering on Carers

by

Marilyn McHugh

BSW

Thesis submitted to the University of New South Wales

in fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Social Science and Policy

Sydney 2007 Originality Statement

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

i Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted

Albert Einstein (attributed) (Physicist) (1879-1955)

ii Abstract

This thesis reports on a study examining the direct and indirect costs to volunteer carers of providing a fostering service in Australia. The study highlights the current difficulties in carer recruitment and retention, the increases in the challenging and complex needs of the children coming into care, and the growing professionalism of fostering. The study uses a budgetary approach to estimate the direct costs of fostered children. In-depth interviews and focus groups with carers are instrumental in providing a range of perspectives that assist our understanding of how the direct costs of fostered children are different from (higher than) the costs of other children. The study found the costs of fostered children were 40 per cent higher than the costs of children not in care. The thesis indicates that, to maintain and retain a volunteer workforce, an adequate carer remuneration system to meet the direct costs of fostered children is critical.

To examine the indirect costs of fostering, the study uses a multi-method approach providing a monetary value of the opportunity costs (foregone earnings model) and time costs (proxy good or market replacement model) for foster carers. The emotional and psychological dimensions of fostering are also examined, though no monetary value is assigned to these costs. Carers’ vivid and contrasting stories from the interviews explain how ‘money’ fits with carer motivation and fostering’s more professional role, how carers perceive the nature of fostering (job or parenting), and whether carers should be paid to foster. Revelations of fostering’s emotional and time dimensions and restricted employment opportunities (indirect costs) highlight the impact fostering has on carers and their families. The study found that the indirect costs of fostered children were around four times the value of the direct costs.

In light of the growing professionalism of contemporary foster care, difficulties in carer recruitment/retention, and the demanding nature of fostering, the thesis examines whether carers should be paid for the service they provide (compensation for indirect costs). Using a number of theoretical concepts developed by feminist economists and social theorists on paying for caring labour, the thesis found support for the contention that altruism (‘love’) and carer pay (‘money’) are not incompatible, and ambiguities and tensions for foster mothers around money and love can be resolved. Studies of countries where carers receive a wage component as part of their iii remuneration package provide insights into wage levels, perceived adequacy of the wage, and the impact of wages on carer recruitment/retention. The study found that, due to the profoundly gendered nature of fostering, the compensatory aspects of remuneration (fee/wage or salary) are generally poor. The implications for government welfare spending of paying Australian carers are discussed, and the savings to governments of using a volunteer workforce are demonstrated.

iv Acknowledgements

This report is dedicated to all foster carers

No researcher could hope to understand the day-to-day life of fostering without first appreciating a carer’s role in it. To the carers go my warmest thanks and appreciation for the time they took out of their busy lives to provide me with a wealth of information of the costs of caring. The extensive material and emotional costs they take on board in their caring role cannot be overstated. The skills, insights and knowledge they bring to the profession of fostering are remarkable.

I would like to thank those people from the Aboriginal State-wide Foster Carer Support Services, the New South Wales Foster Care Association, the Foster Parent Support Network and non-government agencies for inviting carers to participate in the study. I would also like to acknowledge the financial and in-kind contribution provided by the industry partner, ACWA and my personal thanks to Nigel and Eric at ACWA for their continuing support and interest.

I am indebted to my supervisors, Professor Peter Saunders, Dr Rogelia Pe-Pua and Dr Deb Oxley. Their guidance, support and supervision over the years provided me with the energy and inspiration to complete the project. Peter and Rogee brought complementary skills and expertise in defining the shape and direction of the thesis and for their input and professionalism I am truly grateful.

My colleagues and friends at the SPRC have been tremendous in the interest they have shown in the topic and in my ongoing progress. I am indebted to all but especially to Denise Thompson at the Centre who assisted with tape transcriptions, editing and feedback on the thesis content; her contribution has been substantial. Solutions to my word processing problems and other IT support were provided by Duncan – many thanks.

Thanks to my family (especially Tony) and friends who also travelled this long and winding road from beginning to end – without their support and encouragement I would not have made it to the finish.

v Table of Contents

Originality Statement ...... i

Abstract… iii Acknowledgements ...... v Table of Contents ...... vi List of Tables ...... x List of Figures ...... xi

Glossary.… ...... xii Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Research aims and questions ...... 2 1.2 Key concepts ...... 4 1.3 Research rationale ...... 8 1.4 Structure of the thesis ...... 9

Chapter 2 The Evolving Nature of Australian Foster Care ...... 13 2.1 The importance of foster care ...... 13 2.2 Key components in the rationale for studying carer costs ...... 15 2.3 Historical perspective ...... 21 2.3.1 Indigenous historical perspective ...... 31 2.4 Contemporary foster care ...... 33 2.5 Changing nature of foster care ...... 37

Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework: Estimating Fostering’s Direct and Indirect Costs and Determining a Carer Wage ...... 42 3.1 Direct Costs ...... 42 3.1.1 Household Expenditure Survey approach ...... 47 3.1.2 Budgetary approach ...... 51 3.1.3 Developing Indicative Budget Standards for Australian households ...... 56 3.1.4 Using the budgetary approach to develop estimates of children’s costs ... 65 3.2 Indirect Costs ...... 71 3.2.1 Estimating the indirect costs of children ...... 71 3.2.2 Opportunity costs or earnings foregone ...... 74 3.2.3 Proxy good method (market replacement cost) ...... 77 3.2.4 Psychological and emotional costs of care work ...... 82 3.3 Determining a Carer Wage ...... 87 3.4 Approaches in theorising about paying for caring labour ...... 90 vi 3.4.1 Concept of caring labour: ...... 91 3.4.2 Motivational aspects ...... 92 3.4.3 Dualisms and dichotomies ...... 94 3.4.4 Commodification ...... 96 3.4.5 Public good aspect of children: ...... 97 3.4.6 Comparative studies on countries paying foster carers a wage component ...... 98 3.5 Theoretical and conceptual framework of the thesis...... 99 3.5.1 Direct costs ...... 99 3.5.2 Indirect Costs: ...... 101 3.5.3 A Carer Wage ...... 102

Chapter 4 Study Methodology ...... 103 4.1 Approach for studying direct costs ...... 103 4.1.1 Approach for studying indirect costs ...... 105 4.2 Qualitative interviews for studying fostering’s costs ...... 105 4.2.1 Sampling ...... 109 4.2.2 Interview schedule design and carer form ...... 112 4.2.3 Conducting the interviews ...... 114 4.2.4 Analysing interview data ...... 115 4.3 Research issues and challenges – reliability, validity, objectivity and ethics ..... 117

Chapter 5 Direct Costs of Fostering ...... 121 5.1 Estimating the direct costs of fostering ...... 121 5.1.1 Costs study in 2001-02 ...... 121 5.1.2 Carer perception of the BSU child estimates (2000) ...... 125 5.1.3 Methods for adjusting the BSU MBA budgets...... 126 5.2 Using budget standards methodology to estimate of the costs of fostered children in Australia ...... 128 5.2.1 Housing ...... 131 5.2.2 Energy ...... 136 5.2.3 Food ...... 137 5.2.4 Clothing and footwear ...... 138 5.2.5 Household Goods and Services ...... 141 5.2.6 Health ...... 142 5.2.7 Transport ...... 145 5.2.8 Leisure ...... 148 5.2.9 Personal care ...... 150 vii 5.2.10 The extra costs of fostered children ...... 152 5.3 Impact of the 2000 Carer Payment Scheme in New South Wales ...... 154 5.4 Adequacy of carer payments in 2005 ...... 156 5.5 Claiming for expenses in 2005 ...... 159 5.6 Updating the foster care estimates 2000-2006 ...... 162 5.7 Carer concerns around associated costs of fostering...... 167

Chapter 6 Indirect Costs of Fostering ...... 175 6.1 The motivation of carers ...... 178 6.2 The role of foster carers ...... 183 6.2.1 Parenting or a job? ...... 186 6.3 Being paid to care ...... 188 6.4 Emotional and psychological costs of fostering ...... 192 6.5 Time costs ...... 202 6.5.1 Personal care time ...... 205 6.5.2 General household activities time ...... 209 6.5.3 Travel time ...... 210 6.5.4 Therapeutic activities time ...... 211 6.5.5 Time for administration of placements ...... 214 6.5.6 Time supporting foster children ...... 219 6.6 Measuring fostering’s extra time ...... 222 6.6.1 Proxy good (replacement cost) model ...... 228 6.7 Opportunity costs ...... 231 6.8 Opportunity costs of foster mothers ...... 233 6.8.1 Methodological issues in valuing the opportunity costs of foster mothers ...... 236 6.8.2 Applying the opportunity costs model ...... 237 6.9 Combining direct and indirect costs ...... 243

Chapter 7 Paying a Wage to Foster Carers ...... 250 7.1 Being paid to foster ...... 250 7.2 Care labour – Linking theoretical concepts with practical aspects ...... 252 7.3 Countries where carer wages are paid ...... 257 7.3.1 Impact of a carer fee in the UK ...... 259 7.3.2 Development of a two-tiered system in the UK ...... 260 7.4 Implications of a carer wage in Australia ...... 262

Chapter 8 Conclusion and Implications ...... 266

viii 8.1 Summary of findings ...... 266 8.2 Contribution to method and theory ...... 270 8.2.1 Methodological framework for developing direct costs ...... 270 8.2.2 Methodological framework for developing indirect costs ...... 272 8.3 Contribution to theory ...... 274 8.3.1 Standard-of-living measurements ...... 274 8.3.2 Feminist economist theory and discourse on paying for caring labour ... 275 8.4 Policy implications...... 275 8.5 Future research ...... 276 8.6 Concluding remarks ...... 277

Appendix A.1: Invitation to Participate and Mini-Diary ...... 280 Appendix A.2: Time Diary ...... 281

Appendix B.1: Interview Schedule ...... 282 Appendix B.2: Foster Carer Form (2005) ...... 289

Appendix C: Information Statement and Consent Form for Interview Participants .....291

Appendix D: Financial Support for Foster Carers in NSW ...... 294

Appendix E: Essential Clothing/Footwear Items, 14 Year-old Girl (December 2000) ... 295

Appendix F: Out-of-Home Care Proxy Efficiency Indicators ...... 296

References …………………………………………………………………………… ...... 297

ix List of Tables

Table 3-1: Estimates of the Costs of Children by Expenditure Levels (1993-94) ...... 51

Table 3-2: Estimated Costs of Children (Australia) (June Quarter 1990) ($ per week) ...... 54

Table 3-3: Estimates of the Weekly Cost of Children for Households Renting Privately ($ per week, February, 1997) ...... 66

Table 4-1: Characteristics of Carers in 2001 and 2005 ...... 113

Table 5-1: BSU Estimates of the Costs of Children by Age and Sex (1997 and 2000) ...... 121

Table 5-2: Levels of States’ Subsidies and BSU LC & MBA Standards by Age of Child (2000) ($ per week) ...... 124

Table 5-3: Estimates of Child Costs (BSU) and Foster Care Estimates (FCE) at the MBA Standard (December 2000) ...... 130

Table 5-4: Extra Costs of a Foster Child by Age and Sex (December 2000) ...... 154

Table 5-5: Allowance Type by Number/Per Cent of Foster Children (September 2005) ...... 155

Table 5-6: Weekly Foster Care Estimates (FCE) for Children by Age and Sex (March 2000 and 2006) ...... 162

Table 5-7: Weekly Levels of State Subsidies and FCE by Age of Child (March 2006) ...... 163

Table 5-8: Weekly Levels of State Subsidy by Age of Child: 2000 and 2006 ...... 164

Table 5-9: NSW Statutory Care Allowances (July 2006) and FCE (June 2006) ...... 167

Table 6-1: Number of Current Foster Children (2005) ...... 176

Table 6-2: Time spent by foster children with foster carer (September 2005) ...... 177

Table 6-3: Hours of Care Provided by Mothers in One-Child Households ...... 203

Table 6-4: Extra Time Spent in Foster Care Tasks and Activities by Age Group .....226

Table 6-5: Estimated Daily Fostering Time by Carers and Other Child Care Time (non-fostering) by Age Group of Child ...... 227

Table 6-6: Lower and Upper Bound Values of Foster Time by Age Group of Foster Child (July 2006) ...... 229

x Table 6-7: Carers by Industry, Hours of Work and Wages (2005) ...... 235

Table 6-8: Labour Force Participation Rates of Married Mothers by Age Group of Dependent Children (September 2006) ...... 238

Table 6-9: Average Hourly Rate for Females by Selected Industries, (May 2004) .. 240

Table 6-10: Average Part-Time Earnings for Married and Sole Mothers with Dependent Children by Selected Industries ...... 240

Table 6-11: Foster Mothers’ Earnings and Average Earnings for all Australian Married Mothers Working Part-Time by Selected Industries ...... 241

Table 6-12: Total Weekly Cost of Foster Children (Direct and Indirect Costs) (2006) ...... 243

Table 7-1: Foster Wages as a Proportion of Gross Average Female Monthly Wages (Full- and Part-Time) and Tax Liability (1997) ...... 258

List of Figures

Figure 3-1: Theoretical framework for examining foster carer remuneration (direct and indirect costs and a carer wage) ...... 100

Figure 5-1: Average Weekly FCE for Three Age Groups (June 2006) (all dollars rounded) ...... 166

xi Glossary

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics ABSEC Aboriginal Secretariat ACWA Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies ACOSS Australian Council of Social Services ADHD Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder AFCA Australian Foster Care Association AGPC Australian Government Productivity Commission AICCA Aboriginal Islander, Child Care Association AIHW Australian Institute of Health and Welfare ASFCSS Aboriginal Statewide Foster Carer Support Services AIFS Australian Institute of Family Studies BSU Budget Standards Unit CA+1 Care Allowance +1 CA+2 Care Allowance +2 CAFWAA Children and Family Welfare Associations of Australia CMC Crime and Misconduct Commission CPI Consumer Price Index CSC Community Services Commission CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Council CSW Community Services Worker DoCS Department of Community Services VDHS Victoria, Department of Human Services FCA Foster Care Association FCEs Foster Care Estimates FCSP Foster Care Support Package FLCA Family Law Court of Australia GP General Practioners HCC Health Care Card HES Household Expenditure Survey HGS Household Goods & Services HREOC Human Rights &Equal Opportunity Commission

xii IVM Itemised variant model LC Low cost LFPR Labour force participation rate MBA Modest-but-adequate NATSEM National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling NGO Non-government organisations NH&MRC National Health and Medical Research Council NSW New South Wales NT Northern Territory OOHC Out-of-home care PBS Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme pf per fortnight SA South Australia SACS Social & Community Services SCA Standard Care Allowance SCAC Senate Community Affairs Committee SCSI Standing Committee on Social Issues SCCSISA Standing Committee Community Services & Income Security Administration SPRC Social Policy Research Centre TOCC Taskforce on Care Costs Qld Queensland QDOF Queensland Department of Families Tas Tasmania UK United Kingdom US United States Vic Victoria WA Western Australia

Abbreviated form of studies relevant to the thesis:

Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study: McHugh, M. (2002), A Study of Appropriate Foster Care Payments for Stable and Adequate Substitute Care in

xiii Australia, a report for CAFWAA, ACWA and AFCA, February, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Availability of Foster Carers Study: McHugh, M., J. McNab, C. Smyth, J. Chalmers, P. Siminski, and P. Saunders, (2004a), The Availability of Foster Carers: Main Report, Department of Community Services, Ashfield.

xiv Chapter 1 Introduction

This study explores the financial consequences to carers of fostering children. Foster care is a protective intervention for children who, as a result of abuse/neglect or risk of harm, can no longer live with their parents.1 It is the main form of out-of-home care (OOHC) service-provision for children (aged 0-18 years) in Australia. Foster care is generally provided by volunteer non-related carers who do not receive pay. They are provided with financial support, by way of an age-related carer subsidy, for reimbursement of the day-to-day costs of foster children. All States and Territories administer their own OOHC systems and the level of subsidy varies considerably from one State to another (McHugh, 2002).

In recent years a number of major reports on OOHC in Australia have stressed that foster care is in a state of crisis and urgent reform is required (Bromfield et al., 2005; CAFWAA, 2002; Carter, 2002; Commonwealth, SCAC, 2005; NSW, SCSI, 2002; PeakCare, 2002; QCMC, 2004; Semple, 2002). The perceived crisis is not specific to Australia – it is a recurring theme in the empirical literature on fostering throughout developed and developing countries (Colton and Williams, 1997, 2006).

The nature of the crisis in Australia and elsewhere is multi-faceted. In Australia three factors are seen to be at the heart of the problem: the increasing number of children requiring OOHC, the complexity of the needs of children requiring placements, and difficulties in recruitment and retention of volunteer carers. One area where reform has been suggested is in the area of carer subsidies. For some time it has been the opinion of a number of major foster care organisations (non-government) and the Australian Foster Care Association that, despite the growing professionalism of fostering, there is no national framework to ensure adequacy and equity of carer payments. In addition there appears to be a lack of commitment by governments to regularly update the levels of carer subsidies. It is believed that inadequate levels of carer subsidies are making an already difficult job unnecessarily frustrating and contributing to carers leaving fostering.

1 Though many in care are young people, for convenience the term ‘children’ or ‘child’ is used throughout the thesis.

1 In 2002 I conducted a study (The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study) for the Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia (CAFWAA) investigating the adequacy of carer subsidy payments and developing the direct costs of fostered children (McHugh, 2002). This study of costs used agency perspectives (a survey) to understand the issues and focus groups with carers, predominantly foster mothers, to investigate the costs of caring. Although The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study focused on direct costs, it revealed a number of ‘hidden’ or indirect costs to carers which rarely featured in the foster care literature.

It was interest in the indirect costs to carers, defined as opportunity (foregone earnings), time and emotional costs that led to further research being conducted on fostering’s direct and indirect costs for the thesis study. In light of the demanding and stressful nature of fostering which came to light in the focus group discussions in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study, interest was stimulated in understanding why carers were motivated to foster and the role they were playing in these vulnerable children’s lives. The researcher’s reflections on the substantial indirect costs borne by carers in the thesis study led to the questioning of whether carers should be paid for the service they were providing. Discussing money issues with carers in relation to caring for children can be a sensitive topic. It was anticipated that it might be especially contentious when the subject under discussion focused on whether carers should be paid to foster. The controversy for carers and others in the wider community arises due to the nature of caring labour where activities performed out of ‘love’ (or altruism) overlap with those performed for ‘money’ (pay).

In undertaking the thesis, the significant issues were seen to be: trying to understand the importance (or not) of money to carers in all areas of fostering; revisiting the areas where carers noted differences in the direct costs of foster children compared to other children; determining how to estimate fostering’s indirect costs, clarifying the relative value of fostering’s direct costs compared to the indirect costs, and investigating aspects of a carer wage.

1.1 Research aims and questions

Employing a multi-theoretical approach, the thesis study utilised a number of models to estimate fostering’s direct and indirect costs. The voices and perspectives of foster

2 carers highlight the consequences of fostering for carers, their families and fostered children. The thesis study has several specific research aims and questions:

Aim 1: Explore past and present carer-remuneration policies and practices.

 How have child welfare policies rewarded, supported or ignored the contribution of women in providing fostering services for children under the protection of child welfare services?

Aim 2: To investigate the nature and level of direct costs of fostered children and provide estimates of these costs.

 How much do children cost? What is the difference in the costs of fostered children compared to other children? What is an appropriate method to estimate direct costs?

 How do the estimates of the costs of fostered children compare to the level of carer subsidies? Are subsidy levels adequate in covering carer costs?

Aim 3: To examine the indirect costs of fostering to carers and to measure and estimate these costs.

 When foster children are present what do foster carers forego in order to care for them? What models are available to measure the indirect costs of carers?

 Can a monetary value be assigned to the opportunity, time and emotional costs of caring?

Aim 4: To explore the concept of a wage for foster carers.

 In light of the indirect costs of caring, should carers receive a payment (e.g. fee/salary/wage) as a reward/compensation for caring? What are the views of carers on being paid to foster?

 If financial compensation or reward is introduced into fostering will those who provide caring labour be motivated more by the money than by the care they are expected to provide? Can congruency be shown in the dual and conflicting aspects of ‘love’ and ‘money’ in paid care work?

3  What are the financial implications for Australian governments if a carer wage is introduced?

1.2 Key concepts

The intention of the thesis study is to examine the direct and indirect costs of fostering to Australian foster carers to understand why and in what way they might be different relative to the costs of other children, and to provide estimates of these costs. The main concepts used are defined in this section.

Foster care: Foster care is defined as a home-based placement option for the care of a child at risk of harm (e.g. abuse or neglect). Foster care is the preferred option if care by kin (i.e. relatives) is not available. The provision of foster care is a dynamic phenomenon, composed of numerous complex interactions involving a number of parties including the children and their birth families who enter the child welfare system; the Departmental caseworkers responsible for children when they are placed in foster care; and carer families who provide the volunteer services in caring for children. Interactions between all parties are governed by procedures and protocols determined by specific State legislation and policy and also involve judicial decisions by the Courts in relation to custody and guardianship of children in OOHC (McHugh et al., 2004a).

In foster care there are a range of placement types (i.e. short-, medium- and long- term) available to respond to the different needs of children and families. In New South Wales for example, short- to medium-term care is one option with several elements: emergency, temporary, respite, pre-adoptive and bridging. Emergency placements are provided for children who are at risk of immediate harm. Temporary (or voluntary) care is an arrangement made with the consent of parents. Family support services are put in place and when problems are resolved the child is restored to the family. Respite care is a regular planned period of time (e.g. weekend or part of a school holiday) providing a break from parenting/caring for families or for foster carers. Pre-adoptive foster care is used pending an adoption placement. Placements designated as ‘bridging’ are those awaiting an outcome in the Children’s Court in relation to the permanency of the placement (i.e. long-term/short-term).

4 Intensive foster care (medium- to long-term) is provided to children who have experienced multiple or traumatic placement breakdown and who have high and complex needs. Carers are specifically recruited, trained and supported and are provided with a higher rate of foster care allowance.

Long-term care is the option for when serious abuse or neglect has occurred and children are unable to be returned to their families. Long-term care may be needed till the young person reaches 18 years of age. The Minister for Community Services has parental responsibility of children in long-term care and some of this responsibility is delegated to individuals and agencies, including the authorised foster carer (NSW, DoCS, 2007a).

Direct costs: All foster carers are provided with a fortnightly standard carer allowance (subsidy) to cover the day-to-day expenses of fostered children. These day-to-day expenses are defined as the direct costs of fostered children. The level of standard carer allowance is based on the age of the child with amounts for various age groups varying from State to State. There is no consistency between States in how children of different ages are grouped into categories for age-related payments (McHugh, 2002).

Prior to 2000 it was not always clear what direct costs were covered by a carer allowance, for example, in the late 1990s the child welfare department in New South Wales, described the allowance as ‘a contribution to the cost of care of the child’ (Bray, 1997: 23). By 2000 most Australian States had taken a more systematic approach by including a similar range of goods and services. In New South Wales for example, the allowance is expected to cover: food, household provisions, clothing and footwear, daily travel, suitable car restraints, gifts and pocket money, holidays, hobbies and activities, general education, medical and pharmaceutical costs. Add-on loadings to the basic allowance are provided to carers of children assessed as having special needs, for example children with a disability, or children with emotional, behavioural or developmental needs (NSW, DoCS, 2007b).

Indirect costs: The indirect costs of fostered children, alternatively defined as the cost of caring, are costs incurred by those providing a home-based volunteer care service. These indirect or ‘hidden’ costs are rarely discussed or measured in the foster care literature. Care work is not only extensive and demanding but usually means that

5 foster mothers generally have less time to spend with family and friends or to pursue labour market or leisure activities. Indirect costs include the foregone earnings or opportunity costs to the main carer (usually mothers); the time costs of primary and secondary care and the extra time required for fostering’s tasks and activities; and the psychological and emotional costs related to care-giving. Interest in the nature of these indirect costs to carers and how they might be measured and given a monetary value led to the development of the thesis study.

Payment adequacy: In Australia, knowing what children cost is seen to be crucial in assessing the adequacy of payments (e.g. child support, Family Tax Benefit) that provide financial support for children (Percival and Harding, 1999; Percival, Harding and McDonald, 1999; Saunders, 1999; Saunders et al., 1998). Knowing what children cost is also highly relevant to estimating the level of subsidy payment provided to carers to cover the day-to-day costs of fostered children. As noted by Oldfield (1997), adequacy is not an easy concept to define. It is a subjective notion and usually involves a perception of perceived fairness. For the purposes of this thesis, adequacy is defined as the amount of money (i.e. carer subsidy) perceived by carers as reasonable in its coverage of the day-to-day costs of a foster child. Throughout the history of foster care services in Australia, the inadequacy of the level of carer payments has been a constant concern (AFCA, 2001; Falconer, 1998; Gain, Ross and Fogg 1986; Swain and Howe, 1995). My concern around adequacy of carer payments led to the initial costs study (The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study) (McHugh, 2002) and the thesis study.

Previous research in the UK found a budgetary approach in estimating the costs of fostered children provided suitable benchmarks to determine the adequacy of foster care allowances (Bradshaw 1987; Oldfield, 1997). This approach was adopted here to estimate the costs of fostered children. A new carer payment system was introduced in New South Wales in 2000, and an analysis of this system was included in the thesis to establish whether the payments were seen by carers to be adequate.

Some countries (the UK and in Europe) pay a wage component to foster carers, and adequacy has also been an important concept in studies examining the level of the wages paid to carers (Colton and Williams, 1997, 2006; Fostering Network, 2005, 2007; Kirton 2001a; Kirton, Beecham and Oglivie, 2003; Ogilvie, Kirton and

6 Beecham, 2006; Oldfield, 1997; Sinclair, Wilson and Gibbs, 2004; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill 2000). Tests of adequacy on the wage component can indicate the value governments attach to the providers of a fostering service.

Professionalism: In the foster care literature there is an increasing emphasis on the professional role of foster carers. The notion of fostering’s professionalism is used here to indicate the ways in which the role of carers in Australia has changed from being an ‘ordinary’ activity similar to everyday parenting, to one requiring regulation, supervision and training (Wilson and Evetts, 2006: 40). Research suggests that carers have changed from relatively unassertive, well-meaning and motherly women, to multi-skilled specialists dealing with the varied and complex needs of foster children (Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003; Waldock, 1999). Studies with carers highlight the expansion of their tasks, activities and responsibilities, and their increasing involvement in training and support groups. One of the drivers accelerating the move to a more professional role has been the requirement for carers to be more thoroughly assessed and prepared (i.e. trained and supported) to cope with foster children’s more complex needs and challenging behaviours. The growth of fostering’s professionalism also reflects women’s increasing involvement in the world of paid work, their increased education levels, and their awareness of the value of the skills and abilities they bring to fostering. The thesis explored with carers the various professional roles they played in children’s lives.

The foster care literature also reveals that despite their increasing professionalism there is a general lack of the professional training and pay that would reflect a professional care service. It is suggested that, of all the professionals (e.g. caseworkers, therapists, psychologists, doctors, teachers) involved with fostered children, ‘foster parents are the least prepared for, and the less supported in, their responsibilities’ (Marcellus, 2006: 119). There is also a level of ambiguity between what carers are expected (and want) to do to achieve good outcomes for fostered children, and the level of government support (financial and non-financial).

Caring labour: In considering a wage component for carers, it is necessary to address the issue of reconciling activities performed out of love with those performed for money. Scholars from a variety of disciplines have provided a number of theoretical concepts that are useful in discussing paying for caring labour. In selecting the work

7 of writers who have contributed to the discussion of caring labour and how it should be rewarded the thesis uses material combining feminist standpoints and gender considerations with economic and social perspectives on paid/unpaid care work. Examining these key concepts provides useful insights into how caring labour can be paid for and yet still be loving.

Focusing on the gender dimensions of caring labour offers insights into why women are motivated to foster, how their identity is shaped by social norms, values and experiences in relation to care work, and how their perceptions of money ‘fit’ with the work they do. The academic literature by feminist economists and social theorists on caring labour, and interviews with carers, provide a good understanding of the ambiguities and tensions for foster mothers around money and love and fostering.

1.3 Research rationale

A number of factors led to the development of this thesis. As noted above there is a widespread perception that foster care is at a critical point where its very viability is under threat, due to the growing demand for foster-care placements (i.e. more children are coming into care), and a decreasing number of people volunteering to foster. The costs of caring and how carers are reimbursed is highly relevant. The thesis study was considered to be important due to the revelation of the substantial indirect or ‘hidden’ costs incurred by foster carers and a marked absence of any understanding of these costs. The challenge for the researcher was to revisit the issues around direct costs, to find ways to measure and calculate fostering’s indirect costs, and to link the direct and indirect costs together to assess their magnitude.

The investigation is important from both theoretical and policy perspectives. Focusing on the range of costs that carers have to meet – everyday costs in providing ‘board and lodgings’ for fostered children, opportunity cost (foregone earnings), time and emotional costs when providing a care service – opened up the issues involved in caring labour in all its manifestations. By using a multi-theoretical framework to measure and estimate fostering’s costs and relate them to a number of theoretical aspects involved in care work, it was hoped that a contribution could be made to the body of knowledge in this particular area of OOHC research, and assist policy makers in their deliberations about providing financial support to carers. Focusing on the

8 theoretical concepts of caring labour, and combining them with the thesis findings on the ambiguities and tensions for foster mothers around ‘money’, ‘love’ and fostering, contributes to the critique by feminist economists of the theory, methodology and policy approaches in relation to the economics of care work and payments to carers.

Towards the end of the thesis, the value of the estimates of the direct and indirect costs of caring for children is brought together to indicate the magnitude of the monetary value of indirect costs compared to direct costs. This analysis contributes to the work of researchers measuring and costing the direct and indirect costs of children. The originality of the thesis is seen to lie in finding that professionalism in Australian fostering can also include a pay dimension similar to other paid care- professions. Altruism and carer pay are not incompatible aspects of providing a caring service, they are both critical parts underpinning the value and quality of a fostering service.

1.4 Structure of the thesis

The thesis begins in Chapter 2 by discussing the nature of foster care, the children in care, and the people who provide a fostering service – the carers. It explains the nature and the background to the current problem, fleshing out in detail the rationale for examining carer costs. It suggests that contemporary policies and practices in relation to carer remuneration are significant factors in the recruitment and retention of carers. An historical perspective on developments in Australian foster care, focusing on carer remuneration, traces the way governments have constantly sought to minimise the costs of providing OOHC services. Attention is given to the special case of Indigenous children in the child welfare system in the 19th and 20th century. The chapter discusses a significant policy development, the Commonwealth government’s involvement in planning key areas of action for fostered children and their carers, areas seen as the responsibility of State and Territory governments. The chapter also focuses on the increasing professionalism of fostering, carers’ changing role and the nature of contemporary foster care.

The next Chapter (3) sets out the multi-theoretical framework used to develop the direct and indirect costs of children (or alternatively, the direct and indirect costs to carers when fostering children). In relation to direct costs, the discussion focuses on

9 two theoretical models used to develop estimates of children’s costs: the expenditure survey/equivalent standard of living approach, and the budgetary approach based on budget standards methodology. The thesis suggests that a budgetary approach is a robust model suitable for the purposes of determining costs for fostered children.

Indirect costs are also discussed in this chapter. The indirect costs of children, sometimes described as the ‘hidden’ costs, are of increasing interest to researchers in trying to understand how to measure and value these costs. Three models are suggested as useful approaches: foregone earnings (opportunity costs); time costs from primary and secondary care work; and fostering’s psychological and emotional dimensions. The thesis proposes to combine these three aspects to broaden our understanding of the impact on mothers of providing care for dependent foster children.

How money fits into the world of care is highlighted in this chapter. The relationship of money with care work in all its guises has been investigated by writers in a number of disciplines. Because of the highly gendered nature of foster care, the thesis utilises the work of feminist economists and social scientists to discuss a number of theoretical concepts embedded in caring labour. An overview of comparative studies of countries paying a carer wage, and issues around the adequacy of wage levels and worker entitlements, is included in this chapter.

Chapter 4 explains the methodological approaches taken to investigate direct and indirect costs. In studying the direct costs the thesis utilises two sets of data. The first data component consists of the findings from focus groups with carers (n=159) from The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study (McHugh 2002). The second data component is based on 30 in-depth interviews with carers in New South Wales in 2005. The interviews for the thesis study were used to seek the views and opinions of carers in relation to their costs (direct and indirect), perceptions of payment adequacy, and issues/concerns in relation to the carer payment regime introduced in 2000. Also explored in the interviews is the motivation (initial and ongoing) of carers and its connection to remuneration. How carers perceive their role, whether they see fostering as more like ‘parenting’ or a ‘job’, and what they think about carers being paid is also investigated. Carers were also asked about fostering’s indirect costs defined as the emotional/psychological, time and opportunity costs (foregone earnings).

10 How estimates of fostering’s direct costs are determined is outlined in Chapter 5. Data from carer focus groups (from The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study) and interviews conducted for the thesis are used to explain why the costs of fostered children are ‘different’ from, i.e. higher than, the costs of other children, and the complexity involved in calculating the costs of fostered children (the Foster Care Estimates). In relation to adequacy, comparisons are made between the level of carer subsidy in all Australian States and the estimates determined in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study and updated for the thesis study. The interviewed carers’ perceptions of adequacy and of other financial issues arising from fostering are also provided. The value of annually updating the estimates of fostering’s direct costs based on changes in the Consumer Price Index is illustrated in the chapter. Examples of how governments have responded to carer remuneration issues between 2000 and 2006 are also a feature of the discussion.

The subsequent Chapter (6) addresses the indirect costs as perceived by carers. In leading into the discussion on indirect costs, carer perspectives in relation to the importance of money and fostering are related to four aspects of fostering: motivation, carer role, fostering as more like ‘parenting’ or a ‘job’, and being paid to care. The chapter provides a detailed discussion on the experiences of carers in relation to the emotional dimensions of fostering and time and opportunity costs. Two approaches: the proxy goods (replacement cost) and opportunity costs (foregone earnings) are used to provide a monetary value for these costs. In the later section of the chapter, an illustration is provided on the magnitude of the monetary value of fostering’s indirect costs compared to direct costs. Also discussed here is the importance of having two discrete payments to carers, and keeping reimbursement for the direct (subsidy) separate from the indirect costs (wage) of fostering.

The second last Chapter (7) addresses the question of whether foster carers should be entitled to receive a wage for the fostering service they provide. The first section provides a brief review of a small number of carer studies in Australia which sought the views of carers about a carer wage component. The work of feminist economists and social scientists on the theoretical concepts embedded in caring labour are then linked to foster care using the research with the thesis carers and findings from other studies. The next section focuses on empirical studies and literature in countries where

11 foster carer remuneration systems include a wage component plus a subsidy. Of interest in the discussion is the impact a carer wage component on carer recruitment/retention and perceptions of adequacy. The last section discusses the financial implications of a carer wage in Australia.

Finally, in Chapter 8 a summary of the findings from the thesis study is presented in relation to the theoretical framework used in the thesis. Highlighted are the strengths and weaknesses of the models used to measure and estimate the direct and indirect costs of fostering. The thesis study’s contribution to method and theory is then discussed, followed by the implications for policy and future research, and reflections on the research study.

12 Chapter 2 The Evolving Nature of Australian Foster Care

2.1 The importance of foster care

In most Australian States, foster care is provided by non-related foster carers (53%) and relative (or kinship) carers (41%), with a small proportion of children (5%) in residential facilities (including family group homes). The proportion of children in different types of care varies considerably between States, though kinship care is the main form of placement for Indigenous children nationally (AIHW, 2007). In general, over recent years there has been a nationwide demise of residential care and an increase in the use of kinship care. Two factors have led to the increase in kinship care: a diminishing number of unrelated carers available to foster, and the preference for placing a child, where possible and appropriate, with an adult to whom a child has an established attachment.

In the last ten years (1996-2006) Australia has seen a significant rise in the numbers of children requiring OOHC placements, with the population increasing from 18,800 to 25,454, an increase of 35 per cent. Indigenous children are highly over-represented in OOHC. In 2005-06 the rate of Indigenous children in out-of-home care was over seven times the rate of other children. Most children (75%) in out-of-home care are on care and protection orders (AIHW, 2007).2 OOHC services in each State/territory are provided by the government or the non-government sector (predominantly charitable bodies). In New South Wales approximately 60 per cent of OOHC services are delivered by Departmental Community Services Centres and 40 per cent by non- government agencies. It is of interest to note that in some States (e.g. South Australia, Australian Capital Territory, Victoria) there has been a shift to ‘outsource’ the delivery of all foster care services from government to non-government provision (AFCA, 2001; VDHS 2003).

There are no data on past or current foster carer numbers published in Annual Reports by government welfare departments. Data collected in September 2006, by the Australian Foster Care Association (AFCA) from foster care associations and child welfare departments, indicated around 14,000 to 15,000 foster, relative and kinship

2 The term Indigenous includes people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds.

13 carers nationally. The Department of Community Services (DoCS) estimated there are 3,000 active foster carers in New South Wales (AFCA, 2007).3 Little is known, on a State-by-State basis, about the numbers of carers either entering or leaving fostering in the last decade. Most States report significant declines in carer numbers and/or difficulties in recruiting new carers (AFCA, 2001; Allbeury, 2003; Barber, 2001; McHugh, 2004a; Moller, 2003; NSW, DoCS, 2006a; QCMC, 2004; VDHS, 2003).

In Australia all foster carers are volunteers. As noted in Chapter 1 carers receive financial support, by way of a carer subsidy, for reimbursement of the day-to-day cost of foster children. On a case-by-case basis, most States provide carers with a range of contingency payments for approved additional costs. For foster children with special needs, carers are provided with higher (enhanced) subsidy payments. Higher payments are not intended to supplement the income of the foster carers but to assist with meeting needs. (AFCA, 2006; Bray, 1997, 2001; Bray and Foti, 1999; McHugh, 2002).

In Australia non-government agencies run a number of foster care programs for children who are ‘hard to place’ (e.g. children with developmental delays and intellectual disabilities; large sibling groups; and adolescents). Many of these agencies reimburse their carers with significantly higher allowances (subsidies) than are provided to most generalist carers (Pitman, 1997). Regardless of the level of carer subsidy it is not regarded as income for taxation purposes.

It can be argued that the costs of foster care are shared between the States and the Commonwealth because carers are entitled to receive a number of Commonwealth government payments in addition to the State subsidy. Depending on their level of income, foster carers are entitled to receive Commonwealth Family Tax Benefit for foster children. Carers in their own right may also be eligible to receive an income support payment, and for those renting, a rental subsidy.4 Since 2001 all foster carers,

3 In organising distribution of a carer handbook, AFCA contacted all carer associations and welfare departments for data on registered/active carers (foster, relatives and kinship carers). In obtaining the data AFCA was not totally confident that Departmental figures were correct (AFCA, 2007).

4 In July 2006 the Commonwealth introduced the ‘Welfare to Work’ Program. The program is designed to reduce dependency on public assistance and to move more parents into the workforce. Parents on income support, with a youngest child aged six or over are required to undertake part- time work of at least 15 hours a week. Foster carers, in receipt of income support deemed

14 regardless of their income level, have been entitled to receive a Health Care Card for their fostered children. There are also a range of other Commonwealth benefits that carers may be entitled to receive. For example, for a foster child, carers can apply for:

 Child Care Benefit and/or a 30% Child Care Tax Rebate (when using formal child care services);

 Carer Allowance for children with disabilities; and

 Large Family Supplement (carers of three + children) (AFCA, 2006).

2.2 Key components in the rationale for studying carer costs

As noted in Chapter 1 the system of foster care is seen to be in a state of crisis and reform is required. There are a number of factors contributing to the problem. One critical aspect, which surfaces time and again, is the growing demand for foster-care placements exacerbated by a decreasing number of people volunteering to be foster carers and by the problematic retention of carers. Numerous studies (national and international) have found that from the initial enquiry to accreditation, considerable numbers of potential carers drop out before training is finished, with many others leaving within the first 12 months of caring. In Victoria it has been estimated that unless significant changes occur in relation to carer recruitment and retention practices, the decline in new recruits, coupled with the increasing numbers of carers leaving fostering, will reach a critical point by around 2015 (VDHS, 2005). With difficulties recruiting and retaining carers, there is concern that smaller pools of carers to call on results in greater difficulty in making an appropriate match between the needs of the foster child and the capabilities of the carer (CSCI, 2006; Jarmon et al., 2000; McHugh et al., 2004a; Pasztor and Barbell, 1997; Rhodes et al., 2003; Osborn and Delfabbro, 2006; Rhodes, Orme and Buehler, 2001; Sinclair, 2005, Sinclair, Wilson and Gibbs, 2004; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000).

Several factors contribute to the difficulty in attracting potential foster carers. One is the significant increase over the last two decades in the labour force participation rate

‘registered and active’ with an accredited agency, are exempt. Concern has been expressed that the program could reduce the number of mothers on income support prepared to foster (AFCA, 2006; McInnes, 2006).

15 (LFPR) of women. It is now common for both parents in couple households in Australia to work. The overall female LFPR has increased from 44.7 per cent in 1983 to 57.6 per cent in 2006 (ABS, 2006a; ABS, 2007a). More significantly the LFPR of mothers, traditionally the main foster carers, has also increased, from 45.6 per cent (1985) to 63.5 per cent (2006) (ABS, 2007b; Chalmers and Hill, 2005).

The marked increase in women’s LFPR is evident nationally and internationally, reflecting:

 women’s higher education standards and career aspirations;

 changing societal attitudes towards the role of mothers in the labour market;

 economic necessity for many women to support themselves and/or to contribute to household income; and

 with rising longevity, the increasing need by women to secure an adequate income in retirement (McDonald, 2001; Pocock, 2005; Preston and Burgess, 2003; Rubery et al., 2001; Thompson, 1999).

In Australia, there is an increasing trend for women to have children when they are older. This trend, and rising longevity (ABS, 2007c), means mothers in their middle years (40+) with dependent children and in paid work, who have responsibility for ageing parents, are highly unlikely to have time to foster.

Similar to their younger counterparts, older women (45-54 and 55-59) also have increased LFPRs. In 1985 the rates for these two groups were 52.4 and 27.8 per cent, rising to 75.8 and 57.5 per cent respectively in 2006 (ABS, 2007). This trend in higher LFPRs for older women indicates that women returning to paid work after having children are more likely to remain in the labour force for longer periods than in the past. The implication is they will have little inclination or time to foster.

A further difficulty in recruitment is that potential carers must have the motivation and the capacity to care. There is a need for carers to be financially, emotionally, mentally and physically healthy, to have adequate housing space and appropriate parenting ability, and to be knowledgeable about child-rearing (Colton and Williams, 2006: 110-113).

16 Complexity of foster children’s needs: Further complicating factors in carer recruitment/retention are findings indicating that more children and young people entering the care system have highly complex needs (i.e. are harder to place), are more challenging to care for and are staying in care for longer periods than previously (NSW, DoCS, 2006b). National and international research studies report higher numbers of fostered children and young people with aggression, sexualised behaviours, delinquency, emotional disturbance, learning needs, developmental delay and disabilities. There is also substance use/addiction in older children, and drug- and alcohol-affected babies (Ainsworth and Hansen, 2005; Jarmon et al., 2000; Sellick, 1999; Sultmann and Testro, 2001; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000; VDHS, 2003; Wise, 1999).

The complexity of foster children’s needs is thought to reflect deinstitutionalisation (i.e. the reduction in availability/acceptability of institutional care), as well as greater rates of family breakdown, parental, and especially maternal, drug- and alcohol-abuse and HIV/AIDS, domestic violence, parents’ mental health issues, and declining informal and extended family support (AIHW, 2007; Barbell and Freundlich, 2001; CAFWAA, 2007; Colton and Williams, 1997, 2006; Gurdin and Anderson, 1987; Waldock, 1999).5 In 2006 in New South Wales, domestic violence was the highest primary risk factor for children coming into care (NSW, DoCS, 2006b). In addition, in a number of western countries family poverty remains a strong and persistent indicator associated with children coming into care, particularly in the case of female- headed single-parent families, exacerbated by financial difficulties (e.g. unemployment) and housing difficulties (AIHW, 2007; Bebbington and Miles, 1989; Colton and Williams, 2006; Fernandez, 1993; Finn, 1994; Voigt 1986).

Impact of family preservation policies: Studies have reported that many children come into care after longstanding experiences of significant abuse and chronic neglect. Later entry into foster care in Australia appears, in part, to have resulted from a pervasive philosophy of family preservation in child welfare policy and the failure of early intervention and family support programs (operating in all States) to ameliorate

5 In a number of countries there are children with HIV/AIDS in foster care. The impact of HIV/AIDS on millions of children in African countries is placing great pressure on foster/kinship care systems (Colton and Williams, 2006).

17 abuse/neglect of children in some families with multi-factorial social dysfunction (Commonwealth SCAC, 2005). Writers in the UK and Canada report similar scenarios for fostered children (Kufeldt, 2002; Sellick and Thoburn, 1997, Waldock, 1999).

With a lack of residential care facilities in Australia, children with challenging behaviours (e.g. impulsive, withdrawn, distrustful, or indiscriminate) and complex needs, who could benefit from therapeutic residential care or treatment foster care, are posing insurmountable problems for generalist foster carers (Barber, Delfabbro and Cooper, 2001; Hillian, 2006; McHugh et al., 2004a; Stubbs, Spence and Scott, 2003; VDHS, 2003). Multiple unstable placements are not unusual for some foster children. For example, in New South Wales in 2004/05, only one-third (32.4%) of all foster children had had just one placement in their current care period; while 15.9 per cent had had four or more placements (NSW, DoCS, 2006b).

Foster-care sector’s response: In the late 1990s CAFWA and others in the foster-care sector expressed concern at the low rate of the standard subsidy paid by the States to foster carers. It was the opinion of a number of major foster care organisations (non- government) that inadequate levels of carer payments were impacting on carer recruitment and retention. At the time that the sector was expressing its concern, the Budget Standards Unit (BSU) at the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) was completing a project on developing indicative budget standards for Australia. From the normative household budgets in the study, estimates of the costs of children were developed (Saunders et al., 1998). It was these estimates of the costs of children that proved useful to the fostering sector, as it allowed a study (The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study) to be undertaken comparing remuneration for carers with the ‘normal’ costs of rearing children.

The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study: Following the sector’s approach to the SPRC, a study was conducted on the direct costs to carers of providing a fostering service. The aim of the costs study was to investigate the adequacy of Australian foster-care payment systems, and to determine the direct costs of fostering to carers. The BSU estimates of the costs of children were used as the basis to determine the direct costs of foster children. Foster parents’ input guided the development of the Foster Care Estimates (FCEs) (McHugh, 2002). The Appropriate Foster Care

18 Payment Study is used extensively in the thesis in discussing the costs of fostered children (Chapters 4 and 5). Among its findings, The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study reported on a survey with fostering agencies, which found:

 inadequate subsidy payments in most States to meet the direct costs of caring;

 high levels of stress for carers attempting to meet the needs of foster children;

 high carer-turnover with substantial numbers entering and leaving foster care over a 12-month period;

 lack of acknowledgement of and respect for carers on the part of social workers; and

 foster caring as arduous and at times hazardous work for carers and their families (McHugh, 2002: v).

Of further concern in relation to adequacy was the finding that few States were using, on a regular basis, changes in the CPI to update the level of carer-subsidy to reflect changes in the cost of living. In an analysis of State payment systems, Bray (2001) commented:

It is very rare for the full CPI increase to be passed on in carers’ payments and allowances. The reality is that many carers receive a portion of the increase or no increase at all. An inequity exists here in that workers and residential carers (in fostering) are more likely to receive a greater or full flow on of the (CPI) increase in their salaries. (Bray, 2001: 108)

As already mentioned, the research on carer costs revealed a number of ‘hidden’ or indirect costs to carers, which are rarely discussed or measured (Cass, Keens and Wyndham, 1983; Oldfield, 1997; Smith and Voigt, 1988; Verity 1999), such as foregone earnings and the time costs of caring. Due to fostering’s extensive and demanding nature, primary carers, usually women, generally have less time to spend with family and friends or to pursue labour market or leisure activities. The emotional costs of caring also appear to be highly significant for carers. The revelations on indirect costs pointed to the need for further research with carers. The challenge was

19 to identify the differences in caring for birth and/or foster children, and to find ways to measure and calculate the indirect costs of caring.

Interest in the topic of costs to carers led to the development of the study described in this thesis. The investigation of the direct and indirect costs to carers of providing a fostering service has both theoretical and policy perspectives. From a theoretical perspective, the project is timely as the role of women and society’s expectations of how caring work is and should be rewarded, are both undergoing major shifts. There is increasing reference to and conceptualisation around the substantial costs borne by carers (e.g. mothers, carers of disabled and aged) in numerous studies and policy documents (Badgett and Folbre, 1999; Evers, Pijl and Ungerson, 1994; Fine, 2007; HREOC, 2005; 2007; Joshi, 1987; Meagher and Healy, 2005, 2006: NATSEM, 2004; Pascall 1997; TOCC, 2005; 2006; Twigg and Atkin, 1994; Yeandle et al., 2006).

Policy issues: In Australia, government policy in relation to foster care is premised on the belief that carers are motivated by altruism in volunteering to foster. The wider community, including foster carers themselves, are supportive of this view. Carers do not expect to be compensated for what they do beyond the reimbursement of day-to- day costs of foster children (Gain, Ross and Fogg, 1986; Smith 1988; Smith and Smith, 1990). But despite its voluntary nature, there is mounting evidence in Australia that to provide good-quality foster care for children with challenging and complex needs, carers require increased skills and knowledge through nationally accredited and recognised training (Butcher, 2005; CSC, 2000; CSCAC, 2005). This view on the importance of foster-carer training is echoed in UK research (Ogilvie, Kirton and Beecham, 2006; Sellick and Howell, 2003; SCSI, 2006).

In a number of countries, though not presently in Australia, there is increasing recognition that, in reflecting the complexity of foster children’s needs, carers should receive payments linked to their level of skills and experience. Writers note the need for carers to have their role more clearly defined with commensurate rights, responsibilities and financial rewards (Fostering Network, 2005, 2006a, 2007; House of Commons, 1998; Pasztor and Wynn, 1995; Ruegger and Rayfield, 1999; Testa and Rolock, 1999).

20 In understanding the importance of fostering as a viable option for OOHC services it is useful to explore past and present carer-remuneration policies and practices in Australia. How have child-welfare policies rewarded, supported or ignored the contribution of women in providing fostering services for children under the protection of child welfare services?

2.3 Historical perspective

This section provides an historical perspective on the development of foster care in Australia, with a specific focus on remuneration for carers in New South Wales. An examination of the theoretical, ideological, social and economic context of child welfare development raises several questions. How and when was the first child- welfare system developed? What were the arrangements for providing care for children? Who administered the system and who provided the care? How did the current system of foster care evolve? The discussion covers the 200 years of Australian Anglo-Celtic history (1788 to 2006). Reflecting the ‘waves’ of foster care as the main option for providing OOHC the discussion covers two periods: 1788-1870 and 1880 -2000.

1788-1870: Sydney, the first settlement in New South Wales, began its existence as a penal colony for 700 male and female convicts and approximately 300 free settlers, public officials and administrators from the UK (Carmichael, 1992). The long and arduous voyage from England saw the deaths of many convict women, and as a result there were numerous orphan children requiring care. Within weeks of arrival, the children of convict parents who were ‘unwilling’ or ‘incapable’ of caring for them also required care. The lack of any alternatives resulted in Australia’s first fostering system where orphan and destitute children were ‘boarded out’ to approved couples: ‘respectable’ but poor working-class families. The first form of carer subsidy, provided to families prepared to foster, was an extra adult ration of provisions (Dickey 1980; Liddell, 1993; Van Krieken, 1991). With food and other essential items in short supply, one writer suggests that an additional weekly ration would have provided a strong incentive for working-class families to foster (Van Krieken, 1991). The incentive of providing food to people prepared to foster can be seen as the harbinger of the current system in place to day: a cash payment (subsidy) to carers to cover a foster child’s board and lodging.

21 Through the 18th and early 19th centuries, poverty, destitution and wife-desertion of female convicts were commonplace phenomena. Those with dependent children were often unable to provide for them (Windshuttle, 1980). In the early years of settlement there was no government welfare assistance or income support for poor people when any sort of crisis such as illness, disability, death, desertion or imprisonment of a partner or parent occurred (Grimshaw, 1980). In 1818, the Benevolent Society, a Protestant-based charitable society, provided minimal assistance to ‘deserving’ families, including female-headed families. The Society gave ‘outdoor relief’ by way of goods, food and small payments of money to assist with rent payments. Supplicants had to be ‘respectable’ and of good character to be eligible to receive relief (the ‘deserving poor’) (Daniels, Murnane and Picot, 1977).

Poverty was regarded as an individual problem. Those judged as the ‘undeserving’ poor were seen as ‘immoral’ and their children regarded as ‘neglected’ or ‘destitute’. The welfare of children of pauper parents, often with a convict background, became a dominant concern for the colonial administrators and the ruling Protestant elite. Within a decade, the Protestant elite were claiming boarding-out (fostering) was extravagant and a waste of resources. As an economic and moral solution, they recommended the building of institutions to house and educate orphaned and neglected children. The early 1800s marked the beginning of the ‘rescue and reform’ tradition of Australian child welfare (Van Krieken 1980; Windshuttle, 1980).

Boarding-out gradually diminished after the opening of the Female (1801) and Male Orphan Schools (1818).6 Government and private charitable donations funded the schools. Along with minimal paid staff, volunteer middle- and upper-class Evangelical women assisted with children’s education and running the institutions. In the 1850s the two Schools merged into the Protestant Orphan School. The Randwick Asylum was also built to house the ever-increasing numbers of children (e.g. neglected, destitute, delinquent) requiring care. The children were from impoverished working-class families as well as being the children of emancipated convict women (Dickey 1980; Liddell, 1993; Ludlow, 1994; Ramsland, 1986; Van Krieken, 1991; Windshuttle, 1980).

6 From 1788 to 1818 neglected/orphan convict boys, regardless of age on arrival, were apprenticed to tradesman or farmers (Ramsland, 1986).

22 Institutionalised boys and girls, between the ages of 12 and 15 years, were apprenticed to families in domestic (girls) or trade and farm (boys) labour. Families taking on children could use their labour in return for providing their upkeep. Apprenticed children were under State control until they turned 18 (young men) or until they married (young women) (Ramsland, 1986).7 Writers suggest the apprenticeship scheme for State children provided significant cost-savings to government, and was a source of cheap labour for colonial families. The 1860s and 1870s was a time of growth in Government-run reformatories and Industrial Schools (including training ships) in all States. They provided institutional care for adolescents (e.g. homeless) from poor families, juvenile delinquents (e.g. offenders) and ‘uncontrollable’ children placed by their parents (Swain and Howe, 1995; Van Krieken: 1991).

The 19th-century child-welfare system in Australia for destitute, neglected and delinquent children was based on child-welfare policies applying in the UK and Europe. It was marked by institutional care run by religious denominations and governments, in conjunction with an apprenticeship scheme. Most institutions were managed with a strict need for economy: children were housed in a ‘barrack-like’ institution with children in homes and orphanages working in the kitchen, bakery, farm and garden (boys) and in the kitchen, sewing and laundry rooms (girls). The aim of the young children’s unpaid labour was to make the institutions as self sufficient as possible and to limit government outlays (Ramsland, 1986).8

By the 1870s the over-crowded, impersonal and impoverished large-scale institutions for children were coming under increasing attack by concerned groups of citizens. The New South Wales Royal Commission into Public Charities (1873-74) highlighted the damaging psychological effects and loss of individuality for children in crowded and cruel institutional settings. The Commissioners responded to the ‘new’ child- welfare theory emanating from England and Europe, based on family care not institutions for orphans and destitute children. In the period 1870 to 1890 most

7 In the 1800s most females in the eastern States married between the ages of 15 and 21 (Schofield, 1971; Anderson, 1992).

8 The meagreness of government financial support offered to religious bodies running institutional care in Queensland in the mid-1880s was reported by one writer. The Roman Catholic Orphanage was allowed ‘a per capita allowance of 10 pence per day per child … but no financial help for capital outlays or maintenance of buildings or payment of staff’ (Schofield, 1971:11)

23 Australian States introduced fostering (boarding-out) as the preferred option for children requiring care (Goddard and Carew, 1993; Schofield, 1971; Swain and Howe, 1995).

1880-2000: Financial reimbursement for carers was established in the second wave of fostering that began in the late 1880s. Altruism and volunteerism were seen as the underlying values for those providing foster care. Many State boarding-out schemes in the late 19th century were initiated by charitable institutions run on a voluntary basis by ‘ladies’ and church committees, with the State providing payments for carers. A recurring theme by writers of the period was that this heavy reliance on voluntarism by those involved in foster care brought substantial cost-savings to governments (Dickey 1980; Picton and Boss, 1981; Ramsland, 1986).

The New South Wales Royal Commission into Public Charities (1873-74) had proposed two models of care, the first was to board out (foster) children with ‘respectable, ordinary working class’ families; and the second model was to use small group cottages with house-parents. The Commissioners’ proposals entailed ‘supervised payments for responsible foster care’ offering ‘lower costs than institutional care’ (Dickey 1980; Ramsland, 1986:67). The 1874 Report of this Royal Commission marked the beginning of the modern era of child-welfare provision that, in principle, still functions today. One writer suggested that the report’s findings and recommendations were:

An important landmark in the history of child social welfare in Australia. It reveals a purposeful, colonial acceptance of the most advanced social theory and practice in child management and care from overseas models. (Ramsland, 1986: 171)

In New South Wales the boarding-out system was introduced in 1881 with the passing of the State Children’s Relief Act and the appointment of the State Children’s Relief Board to administer the scheme. Boarding-out officers were appointed to place children with a licensed family for a period not extending beyond their 12th birthday; to apprentice to ‘approved’ persons any child, up to a period of five years; to arrange adoptions; and to restore children to birth parents if appropriate. Foster carers’ homes were visited and inspected by boarding-out officers and also by volunteer lady-

24 visitors. Lady-visitors reported on the cleanliness, behaviour, treatment, accommodation and school attendance of fostered children (Ramsland, 1986; Van Krieken, 1991). The second proposal by the Commissioners, the more expensive option of small group cottages with house-parents, was not adopted widely until the beginning of the 20th century (Ramsland, 1986: 170).9

In other States, such as Queensland, Victoria and South Australia, comparable child- welfare legislation and children’s boards/councils were employed to administer schemes for neglected children. Legislation in 1875 in Queensland provided for a system of licensed and paid foster mothers. Schofield (1971) suggests authorities viewed foster care as being a cheaper option than using orphanages. The apparent motivation underlying government policy in paying carers a minimal amount (five shillings and 10 pence per week), was to prevent people taking economic advantage of the children (Schofield, 1971: 16). The ‘small’ weekly payment was found by carers to be insufficient in covering their costs, and in 1885 it was increased to seven shillings per week in recognition of ‘the working class nature of the foster carers’ (Schofield, 1971:60).

As in New South Wales, the Queensland system provided for frequent and adequate supervision by departmental inspectors and visits by members of the voluntary ladies’ committee (‘prominent middle class women’) who assisted with the assessment of prospective foster families (Schofield, 1971: 16). The supervision and regulation of foster mothers was, and still is today (Nutt, 2006), a strong and enduring theme throughout the history of foster care.

Victoria implemented a fostering scheme in 1873. It was not long before concern was expressed at the inadequacy of the level of carer subsidy. The high death rate of infants in foster care led one child-welfare observer to note that the deaths were partly due to the ‘pittance’ paid to carers. In 1890, foster mothers were paid 12 shillings weekly for an infant under 12 months.10 The weekly subsidy was reduced to 5

9 Cottage homes or specialised residential care were for children with intellectual and physical disabilities, considered ‘unsuitable’ for fostering (Van Krieken, 1991).

10 Foster mothers of new-born babies were required to ‘wet nurse’ (breast-feed) for 12 months. The extra payment for the first 12 months was an incentive to attract mothers already breast-feeding to take a foster infant (Swain and Howe, 1995).

25 shillings once children were weaned. According to two writers, despite calls for increased payments, inadequate carer subsidies continued through the 19th and into the 20th century, with an ever-widening gap between weekly payments and the real cost of keeping children (Swain and Howe, 1995).

In South Australia, boarding-out began in 1870. Concern by administrators that people might foster for the ‘wrong’ reasons (e.g. to profit from children’s labour) meant that volunteer carers were paid only five shillings a week to cover children’s expenses. Foster homes, from among the ‘better’ class of labouring families, were visited and placements supervised. With around two-thirds of all foster children placed without any payments to the foster family, writers report that the cheapest solution for substitute care was sought in South Australia (Dickey, 1980; Ramsland, 1986, my emphasis).

The 1890s depression and the increasing demand for welfare services from over- stretched philanthropic organisations resulted in further government intervention by all States. Statutory responses dominated the latter part of the century with a raft of legislative measures in child- and social-welfare provision. It the late 1890s poverty was no longer judged as the sole criterion for removing children from their families. In New South Wales in 1896 the State Children’s Relief Board recognised that 86 per cent of all fostered children were ‘poor’ children from single-parent families and were not abused or neglected. The Board granted custody of children to single mothers and provided financial assistance (maintenance) if a mother was judged as ‘deserving’ (i.e. widowed or deserted) (Dickey, 1980; Schofield, 1971; Van Krieken, 1991).

Continuing economic and moral concerns over providing payment to single mothers meant single mothers received two shillings and sixpence per week – half the amount paid to a foster mother (usually supported by an employed husband). Critics continued opposing the move to pay mothers to care for their own children. They feared women would become dependent on government assistance and would not look for work (Anderson, 1992; Van Krieken, 1991).

In 1912, maintenance payments for single mothers in New South Wales were raised to the same level as the foster-care allowance. In 1920 maintenance payments to single mothers were raised again (higher than foster-care payments) to prevent children

26 becoming State wards (i.e. put into foster care) or mothers being charged with neglect. A further distinction in payments to single mothers occurred in 1927 with the introduction of an income-tested State pension for widows (one pound plus 10 shillings for each child under 14 years). At the same time, child endowment of five shillings per week was provided to families on the basic wage.11 The granting of cash assistance (income support) became a major aspect of State child-welfare systems, along with the more traditional aspects: fostering, adoptions, running the institutions, and the Children’s Courts (Dickey, 1980; van Krieken, 1991).

Other States adopted similar practices in subsidising ‘deserving’ poor women (deserted wives and widows) and introducing child endowment. By the end of the century the payment of assistance to natural mothers ‘steadily replaced foster family arrangements as the dominant mode of child welfare provision’ (Dickey, 1980:127). Writers suggest that, meagre though the payments were, regular independent income was important for sole-parent families. The scheme set a precedent of potentially universal rather than selective application, with the payments to sole parents seen as an early form of the Deserted Wives’ and Widows’ Pension introduced in 1942 during World War II by the Commonwealth after it had assumed income tax powers (Dickey, 1980; Roe, 1988; Van Krieken, 1991).

‘Undeserving’ single parents (those who had never been married) continued to come under State surveillance. Church-run institutions such as refuges, foundling homes and infant asylums cared for single mothers and their illegitimate children. Babies were usually adopted-out to respectable couples, thus minimising the cost of substitute care (boarding-out) (Conley, 1982; Swain and Howe, 1995). Some unmarried mothers retained custody of their children and used private foster carers so they could return to paid work. Swain and Howe (1995) found many positive accounts of successful private boarding-out. Carers seeking additional income were usually working-class women with one foster child, with the majority perceived as good, well-meaning people. In the late 1800s, most States introduced legislation regulating private foster care.

11 The first child endowment legislation in Australia was introduced in NSW (Child Endowment Act , 1927).

27 In the early decades of the 20th century there was a gradual shift in child-welfare policy, from removing children into foster care, towards family preservation: working with and supporting the family to ‘reform’ both the child and the parents. In most States, Children’s Courts used probation (with parents) to ‘reform’ and ‘rehabilitate’ neglected and uncontrollable children and juvenile offenders, though foster care and institutional care for juvenile offenders and truants was also used.12

Under the Child Welfare Act (1923) the New South Wales’ Child Welfare Department replaced the State Children’s Relief Board, becoming a new department within the system of State government. During the period 1934-1976, all States established child-welfare departments. Departments’ names changed over time, most progressing from Child Welfare, to Social Welfare, and then to Community Services Departments (Dickey, 1980; Goddard and Carew, 1993; Van Krieken, 1991).

In the wake of the Depression in the 1930s, government policies moved towards institutional care, though foster care remained an optional choice. The rationale for the policy change was that fostering had become less popular and was seen as expensive. The mantra of ‘cost-savings’ to governments was once again significant in decision-making: ‘Difficulties had been experienced in managing payments and supervising quality, institutional care was seen to have significant advantages in supervision and cost control’ (Goddard and Carew, 1993: 40).

Some writers (Goddard and Carew, 1993) have noted that the period 1930 to 1950 (pre- and post-World War II) was notable for a lack of attention to child-welfare issues. It was not until the 1950s that significant changes to child-welfare policy and practice occurred. Over the next three decades, four important factors led to institutional care falling out of favour, as child-development theorists promoted and legitimated the use of fostering families for abused or neglected children. Factors included:

1. work by Bowlby in the 1950s on child-development theory and the negative effects of institutionalisation on children’s emotional and social development;

12 In the 20th century stricter enforcement of compulsory education resulted in more young people being charged with truancy.

28 2. the ‘rediscovery’ of child abuse as a societal problem by Kemp in the 1960s;

3. increasing awareness of childhood sexual abuse in the 1970s; and

4. universal condemnation of institutional care for children as an inappropriate environment for rearing children (Ainsworth and Hansen, 2005; Fernandez, 1996: Goddard and Carew, 1993; Mowbray and Mason, 1993).

From the 1970s, the process of deinstitutionalisation intensified in Australia. The period 1970 to 1990 saw a resurgence of government interest in policies and programs directed towards foster-care services provided both by government and by non- government agencies. Alongside foster care was the development of small group homes (4-8 children) run by married couples. Larger homes (institutions) for children with moderate to severe disabilities continued to operate until the 1990s (Goddard and Carew, 1993; Healy, 1998; Johnstone, 2001). Writers suggest that, in all States, the aim of reducing welfare outlays played a key role in the decision to close down large (and expensive) government residential homes. The preferred option was the recruitment of volunteer, home-based foster carers to provide substitute care services supervised by professional social workers (ACWA, 2006; Ainsworth and Hansen, 2005; Johnstone, 2001; Mowbray and Mason, 1993; Smith 1988; Voigt 1986).13

An unexpected consequence of the closure of most residential facilities between 1980 and 1990 was the inability of governments to find placements for children with particularly challenging behaviours, traditionally perceived as being too difficult to be cared for in family homes. In the later decades of the 20th century most States had little choice but to develop, in an ad hoc fashion, limited numbers of small, costly specialist fostering programs (a few with a therapeutic/treatment focus), often provided by the non-government sector (Pitman, 1997).

External foster-care services (for-profit) also became available, usually for individual children with high needs requiring containment/accommodation. Carers in these specialist programs provide a more professional service for children with severe

13 Professional social work evolved out of the extensive charitable role played by middle- and upper- class women who had assisted with the ‘rescue’ of children from poverty and immorality since the early days of Australian settlement (Voigt, 1986).

29 emotional and behavioural problems and are paid higher fostering rates (Gain, Ross and Fogg, 1986; Healy, 1998; Johnstone, 2001; Voigt, 1986). The use of more highly resourced, specialist fostering programs for hard-to-place children (e.g. behaviourally disturbed or severely disabled) have become a growing part of foster care services in Australia the 21st century (CAFWAA, 2007).14

Throughout the period 1970 to 2000, the rates of the age-related standard subsidy varied considerably from one state to another. Research studies on carer payments throughout this period are sparse, usually consisting of small local agency or community studies, though one substantial study was conducted in New South Wales with a representative sample of carers (Gain, Ross and Fogg, 1986). A common theme emanating from these studies was concern at the inadequacy of the basic carer subsidy, difficulties in carer recruitment, and a changing and more difficult foster care population (Brown and Were, 1992; Falconer, 1998; Gain, Ross and Fogg 1986; Roberts, 1994; Tregeagle and Voigt 1997; Voigt, 1986).

The 1990s was an important period in Australia for foster care and foster carers. Most States established foster-carer associations, and in 1996 the first national foster-care body, the National Care Forum (now AFCA), was established. Since its inception AFCA and the State associations have advocated strongly for increasing support (financial and non-financial) for all Australian foster carers (AFCA, 2001). In 1996 the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) published the first annual national data on the numbers of children in out-of-home care (Johnstone, 2001). The first national comparison of foster care subsidies and other reimbursements was undertaken in 1996/1997, and followed up with two further reports in 1997/98 and 2000 by the Department of Families in Queensland. These Queensland reports commented on the lack of uniformity across the nation in policies relating to the provision of payments to carers, and noted the difficulties in comparing payments between different States. The reports found payment structures were complex and ever-changing. There were wide variations in terminology and practice across

14 In 2006 NSW DoCS introduced Intensive Foster Care: a special fostering program (for children 10- 17 years with high and complex needs) using professional/experienced carers who receive around three times ($525 to $646) the level of Standard Care Allowance. An Intensive Residential Treatment Program has also been established (NSW DoCS, 2006f: 37; CAFWAA, 2007: 39).

30 jurisdictions that made meaningful comparisons between States difficult (Bray, 1997, 2001; Bray and Foti, 1999).

2.3.1 Indigenous historical perspective

An historical overview of child-welfare developments in Australia in relation to Indigenous children indicates that colonialism had a devastating impact on Indigenous people, with policy developments for Indigenous children following a very different trajectory from that applying to non-Indigenous children.15 Up till the 1880s there were few official attempts to intervene in the rearing of Indigenous children. Starting in 1880s bodies such as the Aborigines Protection Boards were established in most States as systems of child welfare separate from the mainstream. Neglect, abuse and risk of harm were not the criteria for removing children from their families. Acting under policies of ‘protection’ and ‘assimilation’ of the Indigenous people, welfare workers ‘forcibly and even deceptively’ removed many children of Aboriginal descent from their families. The children were placed in institutions or as apprentices with families from non-Indigenous backgrounds. The aim was to separate children from their family, community, history, culture and language (Goddard and Carew, 1993; Gilbert, 1993). Indigenous children removed from their families over a period of approximately 70 years became known as the ‘Stolen Generation’ (or Stolen Generations). According to the Bringing Them Home Report at least 100,000 children over the period were removed from their parents (HREOC, 1997). The shameful and forced removal of Indigenous children leading to a loss of language and culture also occurred with Native American children in the US until the 1970s (Colton and Williams, 2006).

It was not till the 1960s that the abolition of the States’ Aborigines Protection Boards began signifying an end to assimilation policies in Australia. In 1976 Aboriginal and Islander Child Care Associations (AICCA) were established, funded by the Commonwealth and States, to assist Indigenous people who had been separated from their families and communities. In collaboration with State departments of child

15 The terms ‘Aboriginal’ or ‘Indigenous’ is used interchangeably by different government departments and by different writers in Australia to denote peoples from Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islands background.

31 welfare, AICCAs are staffed, where possible, by Indigenous workers, and provide services (including foster care) to families and children at risk (Goddard and Carew, 1993; Picton and Boss, 1981).

A significant change in child-welfare policy in the late 1990s in all States was the implementation of the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle promoting a preference for all Aboriginal children requiring substitute care to be placed with Aboriginal people. This principle redressed previous policies that inappropriately placed these children with non-Indigenous carers. In relation to foster care, the aim of the AICCAs was to place Indigenous children, where possible and appropriate, within their kin or clan group or in their own community (Goddard and Carew, 1993). Depending on the availability of Indigenous carers and the resources of the limited number of AICCAs across the States, Indigenous children in the 21st century are fostered through an AICCA, other non-government agencies or State agencies.

At 30 June 2006, almost two-thirds of all Indigenous children in care in Australia (except Tasmania) were placed with relatives/kin, other Indigenous care-givers, or in Indigenous residential care (AIHW, 2007). Support (financial and non-financial) for kinship carers varies from State to State, and not all kinship carers (e.g. those accepting voluntary informal placements) receive the same level of financial support as other carers (McHugh, 2003). The higher numbers of Indigenous children in care (seven times the rate of other children) is seen as ‘a consequence of a 200 year history of land dispossession and destroyed livelihoods, families, communities, language and culture’ that has left Indigenous families still suffering from ‘grief, and loss, stress, poor physical and mental health, substance abuse and violence’ (AFCA, 2006: 36; CAFWAA, 2007:10).

In summary, this brief overview of the historical background of Australian foster carer reimbursements described how the first child welfare period of OOHC, referred to by many writers as the ‘rescue and reform’ era, was marked by an embryonic fostering (boarding-out) system supplanted by institutional care. Institutional care of children was provided at the lowest possible cost and was dependent on a combination of government funding, charitable donations and the unpaid labour of institutionalised children. Education, training and religious instruction were provided to these children until the age of 12 years, when they were then apprenticed out to ‘respectable’

32 families for around five to seven years with the aim of producing ‘respectable’ working-class citizens. The carer family (employer) fed and sheltered the young person and provided the necessities of life. No reimbursement was paid to these families; their economic gain was from the young person’s unpaid labour.16

The notion of carers fostering children ‘for the money’ dates from the time before child labour laws and the introduction of compulsory education, when it was acceptable to utilise a fostered child’s labour regardless of their age. Writers suggest there still exists a community belief and lingering suspicion that payment for fostering brings financial gain for carers. In the late 1880s foster care with reimbursements to carers (albeit low) replaced most, but not all, institutional care. Keeping carer payments ‘low’ was viewed by child-welfare departments as helping to promote altruism amongst foster carers (Pasztor and Barbell, 1997: 256; Pasztor and Wynn, 1995; Smith and Voigt, 1998).

In the 1930s institutional care was the preferred policy option although foster care continued. The second half of the 20th century saw a resurgence in foster care and the demise of institutional care that has continued into the 21st century. What is notable by its absence in accounts of child welfare services in the 19th and 20th century, is any concept of how valuable the service provided by volunteer carers was to governments and communities. Most literature focuses on costs (and savings) to governments. Except for discussion of the inadequacy of the reimbursements offered to carers, there is little mention until the end of the 20th century of costs borne by carers and the impact fostering has on them and their families.

2.4 Contemporary foster care

In the 21st century in Australia there is an almost total reliance (95%) on foster (and kinship) care as the primary response for children requiring OOHC services, usually because they are at risk of serious abuse or neglect. Current child welfare policies are closely linked to child protection, family preservation and support services. In initial stages of child protection the focus is on early intervention with families. If OOHC

16 Commencing in 1834, apprentices of families (NSW) had the sum of two pounds (males) and 30 shillings (females) deposited into a bank account. The amount (with interest) was not paid until the apprentice completed their indenture (Ramsland, 1986).

33 services are required, the focus turns to children’s developmental needs, placement stability and/or permanency planning, maintaining support for birth families and recognising the paramount relationship between children and their parents. Reunification with birth families is the main aim of child welfare policy. In all States foster carers are assessed, approved and provided with initial training (SCCSISA: 1995).

In New South Wales, the child welfare legislation is The Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. Similar child welfare legislation applies in all States. In New South Wales the Office of the Children’s Guardian has implemented an Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program to monitor the quality of OOHC services provided by government and non-government agencies.

An interesting development in OOHC in the 21st century has been Commonwealth intervention in providing a national approach to ‘supporting children and young people and their carers through training, research, data collection and support’: The National Plan for Foster Children Young People and their Carers 2004-2006. The Plan identifies four key areas for action for carers, including:

1. respecting and supporting their role, status and commitment;

2. positive promotion of foster care and active, effective recruitment of a diverse pool of capable carers;

3. quality competency-based training for carers; and

4. mandatory, quality assessment and regular reviews at agreed intervals of all carers against agreed standards (Commonwealth, CCDSC, 2004).

It is not clear at this stage how these actions are to be implemented. The National Plan was developed within the context of child welfare responsibility residing with State governments; implementation in any area requires the agreement of all eight States and Territories. In relation to the ‘key areas for action’ there is no identification of a national framework of carer payments; nor is it clear how universally available and accessible accredited competency-based training for all carers is to be provided.

34 Changing face and role of foster carers: As foster care has changed over the centuries so has the face of Australian carers. A picture of volunteer carers in earlier times suggests they were mainly ‘respectable’, unemployed married women at home with dependent children and an employed husband – the archetypal nuclear family. Surveyed female foster carers in the 21st century have a similar but distinctive profile.

Carer characteristics: Carers are more likely to be Caucasian, married (25% are single parents), in the middle- or older-age groups (forties to late fifties), and if employed are working predominantly part-time. Usually, women who foster have their own or adopted (previously fostered) children. With older carers it is not unusual to find that their own children are often independent (finished school) or have left home (AFCA, 2001; McHugh et al., 2004a; McHugh, 2002; Thorpe, 2006,).

Available data on foster carers’ incomes suggest that in general most Australian foster carers are in receipt of modest or low household income (Brandon, 2004; Evans and Tierney, 1995; McHugh et al, 2004a; QCMC 2003; Thorpe 2006). A carer survey in New South Wales (n=450) found fostering families highly reliant on pensions and allowances. A pension/parenting payment was the main source of household income for almost two-thirds (63%) of primary carers (usually the mother) with over a third (34%) of female carers reliant on income from their spouse/partner’s employment (McHugh et al., 2004a). A Victorian survey of carers also found most carers had modest incomes (VDHS, 2003: 126).

The number of children placed with foster carers varies, with most carers fostering one or two children. Some carers foster many times that number, and a carers’ survey (n=450) in New South Wales found that around one in ten (9.4%) carers had more than four children in their care (McHugh et al., 2004a). Similarly, a Queensland carer survey (n=477) found that 26 per cent of the carers surveyed were fostering three to four children each, and 10 per cent were fostering five to nine children each (QDOF, 2001). A Queensland audit of foster carers (n=869) expressed alarm at the increasing numbers of foster carers with six or more foster children, noting that some carers at times fostered up to 12 children (QDOF, 2003). Other research suggests that carers are fostering more children per family than in the past (McHugh et al., 2004a), possibly reflecting carer shortage.

35 International trends in carer characteristics: Broadly similar findings in relation to female carer marital status, age, employment income, and time fostering also apply to female carers in the UK (Bebbington and Miles, 1990; Collis and Butler, 2003; Dando and Minty, 1987; Fostering Network, 2005, 2007; Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003; Sinclair, Wilson and Gibbs, 2004; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000). However, in relation to the number of children fostered, the UK is somewhat different from Australia. In the UK (except for Scotland) there is an official limit of three foster children per household, with most carers fostering one or two children (Bebbington and Miles, 1990; Fostering Network, 2005; Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000). In Scotland, close to half (49%) of all carers have three or more fostered children. With a carer shortage similar to other countries, concern has been expressed in the UK that each individual child in a large fostering household receives ‘quality’ care, and that carers are offered additional support and respite breaks (Fostering Network, 2005).

While there are similarities between carers in Australia and in the UK, it is important to note that the US, with a similar fostering system, has quite different carer characteristics. The over-representation of African-Americans, and differences in marital status, age and labour market participation, limits the ability to generalise from studies on carer characteristics in the US to Australian carers. While there is variation from State to State in the US, the numbers of African-Americans and Hispanic/Latino carers reflecting the population of children in care is significant. For example, in a recent study of foster care in Illinios, the race/ethnicity of foster carers (n=29,600) comprised 60.7 per cent African-American, 4.4 per cent Hispanic/Latino and 34 per cent white. Compared with the Australia and the UK, the proportion of carers who were single parents was high (46%), and in relation to employment nearly two-thirds (61.4%) of all carers (partnered and single) were in full- or part-time employment. The common age band in Illinois for carers was younger than Australia or the UK, with over half (57.5%) of all carers aged 30-49 (Zinn et al., 2006). 17

17 The US fostered children population comprises: 38 per cent African-American, 17 per cent Hispanic, 37 per cent white, and 8 per cent ‘other’ (Wehrmann, Unrau and Martine, 2006: 92). UK foster children are: 79 per cent white, 8 per cent Black, 8 per cent mixed, 3 per cent Asian and 2 per cent ‘other’ (DfES, 2006a:115). In Australia 26 per cent of foster children are Indigenous, no national data are available on CALD (culturally and linguistically diverse) children.

36 In summary, with carer recruitment and retention problematic in Australia there is concern at the current average older age of carers which mirrors the trend towards the ageing of the care labour force more generally (Meagher and Healy, 2005). With fewer younger carers being recruited, who will take the place of the older carers as they retire? The predominantly part-time employment pattern of female foster carers gives rise to the question: does the nature and demands of providing a fostering service, and/or the presence of one’s own children, constrain involvement in paid work? Alternatively, do women who foster choose to be at home because they believe this is best for foster children? It is possible that some carer employment patterns are due to an agency’s preference for one partner (of a married couple), or the sole carer, to be home-based and not in employment. Similarly, older age carers may have already exited the labour market. These questions and issues are explored in the in- depth carer-interviews in the thesis.

2.5 Changing nature of foster care

In response to the complexity of foster children’s needs there has been increasing attention paid to the changing nature of foster care and the role that carers now play. Writers suggest that there has been a shift from ‘foster care as an “ordinary” activity similar to everyday parenting to one which requires regulation and, by extension, supervision and training’ (Wilson and Evetts, 2006: 40). Supervision for carers is defined in this context as promoting professional development, monitoring work practices, and providing advice and oversight to assist carers in coping with the stresses of their work (Asquith, 2007). Fostering is viewed as a ‘skilled and effective intervention but has yet to be properly funded, supported and researched’ (Pithouse, Lowe and Hill-Tout, 2004: 21). Despite its long history in numerous developed countries, one researcher notes there is ‘a lack of widely accepted theory appropriate to foster care’ (Sinclair 2005: 16).

Foster carer role: In a number of countries (e.g. Australia, UK and USA), in the later decades of the 20th century, the role of foster carers expanded beyond substitute parenting to include a number of additional responsibilities, tasks and activities (AFCA, 2001; Barbell and Freundlich, 2001; Dougherty, 2001; Fostering Network, 2007; McHugh, 2002; Nutt, 2006; Oldfield, 1997; Sellick and Howell, 2004; Sellick

37 and Thoburn, 1997). In Australia (and elsewhere) in relation to fostered children, carers are expected to:

 nurture and support their healthy development;

 provide guidance, discipline and emotional support (i.e. counselling);

 advocate on their behalf for services (e.g. health and education);

 facilitate birth-family contact (i.e. transport and supervise where appropriate);

 support relationships between children and birth families;

 prepare young people for independence;

 maintain foster children’s Life Story Books;

 attend carer training (initial and ongoing);

 attend carer support groups;

 document developments in placement (e.g. maintain diary); and

 attend case plan and other review meetings for the child.

In addition, in Australia, the UK and US, there appears to be an increasing involvement of carers in recruiting, training and mentoring new carers, organising carer training and participating in carer advisory panels and other carer committees. For some of these additional tasks and responsibilities carers receive additional reimbursements (McHugh et al., 2004a; NSW, DoCS, 2006c; Oldfield, 1997; Pasztor and Wynn 1995; Sellick and Howell, 2004).

Many of the responsibilities that carers are expected to carry out in meeting the complex needs of foster children require certain knowledge, expertise and experience. Researchers from developed countries, including Australia, see the future of fostering, despite a general lack of professional training and pay, as a professional care service (BAAF, 2006; Butcher, 2005; Gain, Ross and Fogg, 1987; Hutchinson, Asquith and Simmonds, 2003; Isomaki, 2002; Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003: Shanti, Van Oudenhoven and Wazir, 2003; Sinclair, 2005; Sinclair, Wilson and Gibbs 2004;

38 Smyth and McHugh, 2006; Sultmann and Testro, 2001; Thorpe, 2004; Waldock, 1999; VDHS, 2003; Wilson and Evetts, 2006).

Australian carers also believe fostering should be more professional. A survey (n=450) found most (86%) carers agreeing that foster care should be either semi- professional (54%) or professional (32%), and should include the payment of a fee or wage. Thirteen per cent thought fostering should be voluntary. The longer carers had fostered the more likely they perceived the current and future role of fostering as professional work (Smyth and McHugh, 2006).18 Studies in Queensland also found support from carers for a more professional approach to foster care (Butcher 2005, 2004a, b; Thorpe, 2004). In suggesting the need for more competency-based training and further skills-development for carers, one researcher argues that a comprehensive competency-based focus on training would assist in the status and standing of carers (Butcher, 2005). The need for quality competency-based training for carers is one of the key areas for action in the National Plan for Foster Children Young People and their Carers 2004-2006 (CCDSC, 2004).

The situation in other Australian States in relation to the professionalisation of foster care is more variable. A Victorian study (n=250) found 26 per cent of carers in favour of a payment system that differentiated between volunteers and semi-professionals receiving a wage for fostering (VDHS, 2003). In South Australia researchers suggest that carers ‘are still perceived as paid parents, rather than recognised and accredited professionals’ (Delfabbro, Taplin and Bentham, 2002: 29). Despite policies in most States promoting a collegial relationship between carers and social workers, carer studies in Australia and elsewhere indicate that not feeling respected and valued by workers for their contribution to improving outcomes for children is a perennial issue of discontent for foster carers (AFCA, 2001; Bebbington and Miles 1990; Kirton, 2001a; Pasztor and Wynn, 1995; Pithouse, Lowe and Hill-Tout, 2004; VDHS, 2003).

18 Three definitions of fostering were provided: (i) Voluntary: Fostering is parent-like work in the family. It’s non-professional or voluntary work. (ii) Fostering requires some skills and experience in addition to ‘good’ parenting. It’s semi-professional work. (iii) Fostering is similar to a job carried out in the home requiring training and payment (either fee for service or salary). It’s professional work (Smyth and McHugh, 2006).

39 Uniqueness of the carer role: US researchers suggest that the role of foster carers is unique. Carers are part of a system where they are entrusted with numerous responsibilities but must respond to decisions over which they have little input and no control because those decisions are made by others, i.e. social workers (Rhodes, Orme and McSurdy, 2003: 936). Other researchers note that in the foster-care system responsibilities are diffused between numerous individuals responsible for the foster child in varying degrees, for example, carer, worker, therapist, psychologist, doctor, teacher (Bullock, et al., 2006). And yet, despite the more powerful decision-making role of others, it is the carer who is with the child 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and who bears the main burden of responsibility. Carers carry out many ongoing remedial tasks and activities associated with the health, education and development of children (Pasztor and Wynn, 1995). As noted in Chapter 1 one writer suggests that of all professionals involved, ‘foster parents are the least prepared for, and the less supported in, their responsibilities’ (Marcellus, 2006: 119).

Researchers suggest the unique aspects of foster parenting are often misunderstood, especially by new foster parents. Other studies have also found carers initially surprised at the reality of fostering (Kirton, 2001a; Maclay, Bunce and Purves, 2006; Rhodes, Orme and McSurdy, 2003; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000). One study found that, once new carers ‘found their feet’, they responded in innovative and positive ways to fostering. As support from workers to meet the complex challenges failed to materialise they looked to other carers, family and professionals (doctors, teachers) for practical help and advice, establishing their own networks of support. As carers became ‘more confident of their expertise’ and coped more adequately with the failings of the system, they became more independent, changing the ways they approached their interactions with workers and the agency. Carers grew ‘more confident and assertive, more willing to challenge and less willing to comply with social workers and the demands made upon them’ (Maclay, Bunce and Purves, 2006: 34-35).

The indications are that, compared to times past, many (but not all) carers have progressed from their previous position of relatively unassertive, well-meaning and motherly women, to a new role of multi-skilled specialists dealing with the varied and complex needs of foster children (Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003; Waldock,

40 1999). It is this background of fostering’s increasingly complex and demanding nature and of the changing role of carers that sets the context of this thesis in examining the costs of caring. Chapter 3 sets out the theoretical framework used to examine the direct and indirect costs of fostering.

41 Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework: Estimating Fostering’s Direct and Indirect Costs and Determining a Carer Wage

Investigating the nature and level of the direct and indirect costs of fostering children, and proposing a payment to compensate or reward carers for the service they provide, requires a number of approaches. It necessitates the use of models and methods from different disciplines and studies that have examined the costs of children and the costs of caring. The aim in the first section is to examine the theoretical models used to estimate the direct costs of children, and to suggest one which can appropriately be applied in estimating the costs of fostered children.

In examining the indirect costs of children (or the indirect costs of caring), the second section focuses on methods which have been used to estimate the opportunity, time and emotional costs of caring and examines their applicability to foster carers’ indirect costs.

In considering a wage component for carers, the third section uses literature that addresses the issues and concerns around payments for care work and discusses a number of concepts that are useful in theorising about paying for caring labour (e.g. fostering). This section also includes an analysis of countries where a carer wage forms part of a carer-remuneration package. The aim of this discussion is to highlight the level of wages paid to carers and their entitlement to other employment benefits.

The fourth section brings together these three discrete but interlinked dimensions of the costs involved in caring for fostered children. No single theory or model can address the research questions around the costs of foster caring raised in this thesis. The framework used outlines the various approaches in order to provide a conceptual and empirical understanding of the issues around determining costs.

3.1 Direct Costs

How much do children cost? This is not a rhetorical question but one which is of interest to a wide range of people, in both the public (e.g. governments) and private spheres (e.g. parents and those planning to be parents). Examining the direct costs of

42 children to their parents has a long tradition in economic and social policy research, dating as far back as the 19th century. Direct costs reflect a family’s extra expenditure on goods (i.e. food, clothing and shelter) and services (i.e. health and education) to meet the needs of children. Finding the best possible method to answer this question has occupied the minds of many economists and social scientists.

Understanding the nature and level of these costs has over the last three decades been a focus for many researchers (Apps and Rees, 2000; Banks and Johnson 1994; Bradbury 1989, 1994, 2004; Deaton and Muelbauer 1986; Espenshade, 1984; Folbre, 2004; Gray, 2005; McHugh, 1999; Mitchell, 1986; Oldfield, 1992, 1993; Piachud, 1979; Percival and Harding, 1999; Percival, Harding and McDonald, 1999; Saunders, 1999; Saunders et al., 1998, Valenzuela 1999a, b, c; Weston et al., 2005). Reasons for understanding what children cost relate to:

 the distribution of income and income inequality;

 the adequacy, impact and effectiveness of tax rebates, social security payments and child support payments (post-separation/divorce) for the well-being of children;

 government policies on household living standards and poverty alleviation;

 the level of awards in medical negligence and wrongful birth cases;

 fertility decision-making; and

 family budgeting.

Child-cost estimates are also useful in determining reimbursements for foster carers for child-related expenses (Bradshaw, 1989; Burbidge and Gondor, 1999; Culley, Settles and Van Name, 1977; Espenshade, 1984, Folbre, 2004; Lino 2004; McHugh, 2002; Oldfield, 1997; Saunders 1999).

43 The following discussion focuses on the different theoretical models used to measure the costs of children in Australian families.19 The discussion addresses two important questions: For the purpose of estimating the direct cost of foster children, which approach is considered the most appropriate? The second question, concerned with conceptualising the indirect costs of fostering, asks: what models can be applied that recognise and acknowledge the financial and non-financial aspects of carers’ indirect costs?

Despite its importance, estimating the direct costs of children is not easy. Writers in a wide range of social and economic policy areas advise caution, due to the nature of children’s individual and shared expenses within families. In addition:

There are wide variations in the amounts parents spend on their children both as family incomes vary and in the sense of what is proper to spend varies … discussion of the costs of children is often directed towards what should be spent, as much as to what is spent. (Percival and Harding, 1999: 1)

Approaches used in estimating costs. In Australia two models predominate in estimating children’s direct costs: the expenditure survey/equivalent standard of living approach based on household expenditure surveys (HES); and a budgetary approach, i.e. the development of budget standards based on a needs approach. The main difference between the two models is that expenditure survey data provide estimates on what families actually spend on children; while a budget standards approach bases estimates on how much should be spent to satisfy the consumption needs of children.20 As Percival and Harding (1999) noted above, an important distinction between the two methods is that consumer expenditure data are limited to what parents are able to spend according to their income level, whereas budget standards are based on what families ‘should’ spend to meet specified needs (Renwick 1993:

19 The term family rather than household is mainly used throughout this discussion since non-family households are not included in estimations of the costs of children. Where appropriate in other contexts the term household is used.

20 A further costing model is the Opinion Survey Approach where a representative sample of the population, usually parents, is asked about the costs of their children. This approach is rarely used due to unreliable and non-comparable data (McDonald 1999). This model is not discussed in the thesis.

44 575). Two scholars have referred to the budget standards approach as the ‘ideal’ or desirable costing method for estimating child costs (McDonald, 1990; Valenzuela, 1999b).

Due to the different methodologies adopted by these approaches and the underlying assumptions taken, the variations in levels of child estimates are substantial (AIFS 1999). There is no consensus among scholars on which approach is the ‘best’ or the ‘correct’ one to use; in part, it appears to depend on the purpose for which the estimates are to be used. Some researchers suggest that budget standards, which determine estimates of the costs of basic minimum needs for individuals and different family types, is useful for research on poverty: setting poverty lines and thus estimating poverty (Boushey et al., 2001; Bradbury and Saunders, 2003; Saunders 2004; Watts 1993; Whiteford 1985). Budget standards are also useful in providing benchmarks to determine the adequacy of government income-support payments (Mitchell 1986; Saunders 1998; Valenzuela 1999b). Budget standards have also been used in countries such as the United States, Canada and some European countries to evaluate ‘the adequacy of state benefits, for setting child allowances, foster care allowances [and] maintenance payments’ (Bradshaw 1987:1).

Both models of child estimates can be used to indicate equivalence scales or ratios. Equivalence scales are scales that measure relative needs and have been described in the following way:

In deriving estimates of poverty or other welfare measures of social welfare it is usually assumed that people in large families require a higher family income to be as well off as people in smaller families. These relative needs are typically expressed in terms of an “equivalence scale” which describes the relative costs of reaching a given living standard for people with different family circumstances (or with different personal characteristics). (Bradbury, 1997: 10)

In deriving equivalence scales, a family type (e.g. a couple family) is taken as the base or benchmark and its value set at 1.0. Other household types, e.g. containing a child or children, are then expressed as proportions of the base family type. For example, if the estimated figure for one child is 0.25, it implies that a family comprising a couple

45 with one child requires 25 per cent more income than a couple-only household to be as well off as they are. In this example, the equivalence scale indicates the relativities between the expenditure required for a child relative to the adults in the same household at the same standard of living (Whiteford, 1985: 1). Equivalence scales derived from a budgetary approach are seen by one scholar as an improvement over scales derived from expenditure-survey data, as they are based on ‘what families should spend rather than what they are able to spend’ (Renwick 1993: 575).

With both budgetary and expenditure survey models it is possible to derive costs for families with and without children at different income levels: low, middle and high. In Australia estimates of the costs of children derived from expenditure data are based on samples of all families, whereas budget standards estimates are based on costs to families in a specific location. In both models, when estimating the costs of children, the expenditure of couple families, with and without children, is broken down into similar commodity groups (e.g. housing, transport, food, clothing and footwear, etc.). The cost of children is determined by comparing the expenditures of couple families, with and without children, at the same or a comparable standard of living.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) provides data on household expenditure (ABS, 2000a, b). There are some limitations to the usefulness of the ABS expenditure data. For example, the confidential unit record files (CURFS) on household expenditure provide data on children of specific ages, except for children aged 6-9 years which are grouped together. The data includes expenditures on items relating to commodity areas at the aggregate level, but do not identify expenditure on specific items. For example, expenditure is available for children’s clothing and footwear only as the ‘average cost of a child’. In contrast a budgetary approach can, in theory, derive estimates of costs for individual children of any specific age and sex, and for quantities and prices of specified individual items at different standards of living.

Both budget standards research and expenditure surveys are resource intensive. They take considerable periods of time to conduct, and require teams of experienced researchers and substantial budgets. This explains in part why until recently little work was done on estimating the costs of children by either method. The relative infrequency of studies has meant the estimates become dated quite quickly. Consequently their potential value as relevant estimates of the costs of children

46 diminishes over time as consumption norms, behaviours and prices in the community change.

In the short term, however, it is possible to update estimates derived from both approaches using the appropriate indices based on price or wage movements. For the budgetary approach, researchers in Australia (and the US) opine that to maintain their relevance requires one of three approaches:

 update all costs using a Consumer Price Index (CPI), a relatively inexpensive option; or,

 reprice all items in the budgets which would give a similar result to using a CPI approach; or,

 reconstruct the entire budget’s standards by revising all items, quantities and prices to reflect changes in living standards.

Seven to 10 years is considered to be the kind of time period after which the entire budget would need to be reconstructed (Henman, 2001; Johnson, Rodgers and Tan 1991; Parker 1998; Saunders et al., 1998). Two major budget standards studies were conducted in 1984 and 1995-98, and the results published (Lovering, 1984; Saunders, et al., 1998). Expenditure surveys in Australia have been conducted since the 1980s on a fairly regular basis, so time limitations are not problematic when using the data.21 Since 1984 Household Expenditure Surveys (HES) have been conducted approximately every five years, and the ABS regularly publishes data on average household expenditures (ABS, 2000a). In estimating child costs the following discussion focuses firstly on the expenditure survey model and then considers a budgetary approach.

3.1.1 Household Expenditure Survey approach

Surveys of household or family expenditure are carried out in numerous countries, for example, Canada, UK, US, NZ and Australia. In NZ, UK and US the collection is continuous, in Canada surveys are conducted every two years, and in Australia

21 The ABS first conducted expenditure surveys in 1974-75 and 1975-76.

47 approximately every five years (Gordon, 1997). In Australia, data is collected on characteristics, income and expenditure details at the household and individual level. In addition, each household member aged 15 years or over is issued with an expenditure diary to record all payments made and any other monies spent over a two-week period (ABS, 2000b).

The main objectives and uses of the data include: measuring the distribution of income, standard-of-living studies, definitions of adequate income levels, evaluation of government social and economic policies, National Accounts, and analysing consumer demand for various groups of goods and services (Gordon, 1997). The data are also used to derive the weights for the CPI and to revise the categories of goods and services in the CPI basket. It is from studies on standards-of-living that costs of children are estimated. The expenditure survey/equivalent standard of living approach to estimate the costs of children is not dissimilar to the deductive method (see section 3.1.4) used in budget standards where expenditure is compared between families of different sizes.

Equivalence scales, as noted above by Bradbury (1997), indicate the proportional difference in family incomes for couples with any number of children and those without. The emphasis on the same standard of living is important, because establishing common standards of living between couples with and without children in order to derive the costs of children is a contentious issue in both the expenditure survey and the budgetary approaches. According to two writers it is not possible with large-scale expenditure surveys ‘to observe in any direct way when two families have a common standard of living’ (Mitchell and Cooke, 1988: 38). Bradbury (1989) describes the formidable task faced by those attempting to measure estimates based on expenditure data:

It is clear that one cannot just simply compare the total expenditure of different family types, as such expenditures are clearly constrained by incomes (and dissaving ability) and so will not automatically provide an indication of underlying needs. Moreover whilst allocation of income within the family to expenditures on particular commodities can be observed, the actual consumption by different family members cannot. In particular, much of the family

48 expenditure is on “family goods” – goods jointly consumed by family members. Housing and consumer durables are the most obvious examples. The costs of these commodities can rarely be divided in a simple way between adults and children. (Bradbury, 1989: 5-6)

Writers observe that a further restriction in using expenditure data to determine estimates effectively is the lack of sufficient detail on individual household members’ costs (Bradbury and Saunders, 2003; Burbidge and Gondor, 1999; Mitchell 1986). Together with the limitations on the disaggregated data, this is a significant issue. If there are difficulties identifying the expenditure of individual household members, how is it possible to identify child costs with any degree of validity?

The first use of expenditure survey data to estimate child costs in Australia was based on the 1984 HES (Lee, 1988), discussed in detail below. In more recent times other estimates have been made, using the 1993-94 HES (Percival, Harding and McDonald 1999; Valenzuela, 1999a, b, c), and the 1998-99 HES (Percival and Harding 2003). Different economic models were used in these studies to determine child estimates.

There is no consensus among reviewers of different economic models on the preferred model to use in estimating child costs (Banks and Johnson, 1994; Bradbury 1994; Deaton and Muelbauer 1986; Lino 2004), and different models have resulted in wide variations of estimates. Researchers have found that estimates for one child in a household ranged from 0-42 per cent of the household’s annual income (Mitchell and Cooke, 1988: 39). Another writer, examining equivalence scales by age of children, found that children’s costs for the 0-4 years varied from 9-24 per cent, while for older children (16+ years) the range was 31-53 per cent (Whiteford, 1985: Table 5.4). Similarly, an overview of 12 equivalence-scale studies found estimates varying from 8-23 per cent for children (0-5 years), and 11-40 per cent for older children (16-18 years) (Banks and Johnson, 1994: Table 2).

Australian approaches using HES data: Two studies, by Percival and Harding (1999) and Valenzuela (1999a) were conducted in the late 1990s using HES data to estimate child costs. Both studies used the 1993-94 HES and also based their sample on childless couple households and couple families with dependent children (under 18

49 years of age). As the following discussion indicates, both sample size and the method used to determine equivalent standards of living, appear to be significant factors in developing child estimates.

The sample sizes in the two studies varied considerably. Percival, Harding and McDonald (1999) included only households where couples were aged 25-54 years: a sample of 2,658 household records, whereas Valenzuela (1999a) included all couple households regardless of their age: a sample size of 6,752 households. The first study showed that there was a significant impact on child estimates when the age categories of couple households were varied (Percival, Harding and McDonald 1999). For example, when the ages of the couple partners were changed from 25-54 years to 20- 39, the child estimates changed substantially. For children aged 0-4 years (family income $400 per week), estimates increased from $51 to $85, a difference of $34. Similarly, for children aged 5-9 years estimates increased from $61 to $82, a difference of $21 a week (Percival, Harding and McDonald 1999: 40-1).

Secondly, the studies used different methods to determine equivalent standards of living between couples with and couples without children. Valenzuela (1999c) utilised the Extended Linear Expenditure System (ELES), whereas Percival, Harding and McDonald (1999) used the Iso-Prop method (a modified version of the Engel Approach). Both models involved using complex equations and advanced econometric techniques. These different approaches in deriving living standards, along with the different sample sizes, provided noticeably dissimilar results in child estimates. The figures in Table 3-1 indicate that, at two standards of living (low- and modest-income), while the costs of children increased with family income in both studies, there was considerable variation between the studies in the incremental or marginal estimates of costs as the number of children in a family increased.

50 Table 3-1: Estimates of the Costs of Children by Expenditure Levels (1993-94)

Low income families Modest income families

Number Total ELES Iso-Prop Total ELES Iso-Prop of family (Valenzuela) (Percival family (Valenzuela) (Percival children expenditure & expenditure & Harding) Harding) One 458 68 68 613 92 116 Two 552 110 176 749 150 253 Three 604 150 238 895 227 378 Source: Harding and Percival 1999: Table 4

The cost of one child for low-income families was the same ($68) whatever method was used. But as the figures in the table indicate, the Iso-Prop method (Percival and Harding, 1999) found significantly higher costs for one-child families on modest incomes ($116) than did the ELES method ($92) (Valenzuela, 1999c). For all families, with either two or three children, at both standards of living, the Iso-Prop method resulted in significantly higher child estimates than did the ELES method.

The work by Harding and Percival (1999) and Valenzuela (1999a, b, c) in Australia, and of others elsewhere (Banks and Johnson, 1994; Mitchell and Cooke, 1988; Whiteford, 1985), highlights the dilemma faced by those using HES data to estimate the costs of children. With no generally agreed method of estimating equivalent incomes, that imply couples with and couples without children have the same standard of living, the derived estimates of children vary considerably, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach. To date, there appears to be no clear merit in using one rather than the other of the methods described above.

3.1.2 Budgetary approach

A budgetary approach has been used extensively for determining wage levels and family budgets. In Australia the approach was used in the early part of the 20th century to set the level of a living or basic wage (Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, 1907; Commonwealth of Australia, 1920). Most recently the approach has been used in estimating the level of income required by Australian working families to meet their needs (Saunders, 2004). Throughout the 20th century in the US a budgetary approach has been used to produce family budgets and to determine workers’ wage levels (Johnson, Rogers and Tan, 2001).

51 In the 1970s an international study using budget standards set the scene for estimating child costs (Wynn, 1972). In the early nineties, in the UK, estimates of the costs of children were derived from budget standards research (Oldfield, 1993). Since 1960, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has produced cost estimates of budgets for children from birth through to age 17 (Lino, 2004).22 Two major studies in Australia have used a budgetary approach to estimate the costs of children. The first was a study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), The Costs of Children in Australia (Lovering 1984). The second, The Development of Indicative Budget Standards for Australia, was undertaken by the Budget Standards Unit (BSU) at the Social Policy Research Centre in 1996-97 (Saunders et al., 1998).23

The Lovering model: The genesis for using a budgetary approach for estimating child costs in Australia was a request to AIFS from the Family Law Council of Australia (FLCA) for a study on the costs of children. The aim of the study was to provide detailed information on the costs to families with children of different ages and at different levels of income, in order to assist the FLCA with setting child maintenance awards (Lovering, 1984:1).

In developing budgets Lovering (1984) drew on Piachaud’s (1979) UK study on estimating child costs. With limited data available at the time, Lovering (1984) could only include a fairly restricted number of items pertaining to children’s needs. For example, while food, clothing, fuel, household provisions, costs of schooling (not fees), gifts, pocket money and entertainment were included in the budgets, excluded were a number of costly items that were difficult at the time to calculate: housing (mortgage, rent, rates), transport, school fees or uniforms, child care, holidays, and medical and dental expenses. Costs for children’s budgets were based on Melbourne prices in 1983. The study provided for the first time in Australia costs for children of different ages (2, 5, 8 and 11 years and a teenager), at both low- and middle-income

22 Compared to UK or Australia, budgets in the US are more highly reliant on Consumer Expenditure Survey data (behavioural data). Where there is no evidential findings to allocate expenses (e.g. housing, transport) a per capita, not a marginal (deductive) approach, is used (Johnson, Rogers and Tan, 2001; Lino, 2004). The per capita method is explained in Section 3.1.4 of this thesis.

23 I was part of the BSU research team from 1995 to 1998.

52 levels. The estimates for low-income families were defined as a basic survival costs only (Lovering, 1984, original emphasis).

Lovering (1984) found substantial evidence that children cost more as they grew older (as did a study by Wynn (1972)). The age difference in the estimates had significant implications in policy areas, such as family benefit levels and maintenance awards. Lovering’s (1984) significant findings on the estimated costs of children were influential in a number of policy areas including, in most Australian States, the setting of age-related subsidy levels for foster carers (Bray 2001: 26: Purdon 1994:43), and the estimates were updated regularly (by AIFS using the CPI, and published from 1984 to 1999.

The Lee model: In the late 1980s AIFS undertook a further study on the costs of children. The aim of this study was to include those costs omitted by Lovering’s 1984 study. Using the 1984 HES, Lee (1988) derived his estimates by comparing the expenditure of couples of similar age, with and without children, who had ‘an equivalent standard of living’ (McDonald, 1990: 20 emphasis in the original). In specifying what constituted an equivalent standard of living, Lee (1988) chose the Engel estimator. Based on the work of Espenshade (1984) in the US the Engel estimator was seen as the best measure for this purpose:

The measure assumes that two households of differing composition will have the same standard of living if they spend the same proportion of their total household expenditure on food at home. Thus the cost of children is the difference in expenditures between a couple with children and a couple without children who both spend the same proportion of their consumption on food at home. The accuracy of the method is thus highly dependent upon the assumption that these two families have the same standard of living – a relatively loose assumption. (McDonald, 1990: 19-20)

The new child estimates were much higher, not surprisingly, since the Lee study included the costs of a significant number of items omitted in the 1984 study. The disparity in the level of estimates for the studies (Table 3-2) was also indicative of different methodologies used, and the different age groupings. Both studies, however,

53 found that costs rise with the age of the child. No estimates were provided by AIFS for Lee’s (1988) low-income families even though this information appeared to be available (McDonald, 1990: Tables 1 to 6).

Distinguishing the dissimilarities between the two estimation approaches even further, different methods were used to update the estimates during the period 1984-1990: the CPI was used for the budget standards approach, while Average Weekly Earnings were used for the HES model (see Notes to Table 3-2).

Table 3-2: Estimated Costs of Children (Australia) (June Quarter 1990) ($ per week)

Age of child Lovering’s estimates1 2 years 5 years 8 years 11 years Teenager

Low income families (below average weekly wage) 27 35 43 45 68

Middle income families (average weekly wage+) 41 46 59 75 112

Age Groups of children

Lee’s estimates2 0-1 2-4 5-7 8-10 11-13

Weekly family income - ($578 gross) 166 136 147 178 197 (male average weekly wage $555)

Source: AIFS: (1999:20). Notes: All dollars rounded. 1. Included in Lovering’s estimates: food, clothing, fuel, household provision, costs of schooling (not fees), gifts, pocket money and entertainment. NOT included: housing, transport, school fees or uniforms, child care, medical and dental expenses. Lovering’s costs updated (1984 to 1990) using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) (June Quarter). 2. Included in Lee’s estimates, for a one-child, single income family, are food, transport, recreation, household goods, housing and utilities, clothing and other (medical, dental, education and other miscellaneous costs). Lee’s costs adjusted (1984 to 1990) to Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) (1984 to 1990).

By 1990, concerns were being raised about the methods used and the results on the estimated cost of Australian children (McDonald, 1990). The contentious issues were:

 the length of time since Lovering’s (1984) estimates had been derived;

 the incomplete coverage of items/costs included in the 1984 budgets; and

54  the unreliable measure (Engel estimator) used to specify what constituted an equivalent standard of living in Lee’s (1988) expenditure survey/equivalent standard of living approach (McDonald, 1990).24

From 1989, both Lee’s and Lovering’s estimates were regularly updated and published in the AIFS publication, Family Matters. It is disquieting that, despite the exclusion of a number of significant costs from the Lovering estimates, and footnotes to tables indicating which items had been included in the budgets and which had been excluded, these estimates were frequently used to indicate the full costs of a child (McDonald 1990: 19). How widespread was the misuse of Lovering’s estimates as the ‘true’ cost of children may never be known, though it was evident that in most Australian States, through the 1990s and into 2000, the level of foster carer subsidy was based on Lovering’s lower estimates and not on the higher costs found in Lee’s more inclusive estimate (McHugh, 2002: 2: Purdon 1994).25 Both sets of estimates were used extensively in Australia, to guide family law practioners in determining child-support liabilities (Harrison, 1994). There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that, in determining levels of child support after marriage breakdown, lawyers representing separated wives used Lee’s higher estimates, while husband’s lawyers used Lovering’s lower estimates, to argue their respective cases.26

The disparity in the two sets of child estimates led to further research developments in the area. The Department of Social Security (DSS, now the Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, FACSIA) commissioned the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) at the University of New South Wales to conduct a study on developing indicative budget standards for a range of Australian households. The main aim of the research was to develop budgets for various types of households with comparable living standards. Secondary objectives, once indicative budgets were

24 Other researchers have criticised the use of the Engel estimator (Deaton and Muellbauer 1986; Mitchell and Cooke 1988; Wynn, 1972).

25 An overview of the States’ methods for determining payment schedules found that six of the eight States used Lovering’s lower estimates. Victoria used Lovering’s middle-income level ‘to reflect the wide range of incomes in the caregiver pool’ (Bray, 2000: 26)

26 On the Family Law Court website (http://www.familylawcourt.gov.au) in 2007, both the Lovering and the Lee estimates, updated to 2006 (using CPI for Lovering and AWE for Lee), are suggested, as the costs of maintaining children, despite more recent research findings by Saunders et al (1998) and Percival, Harding and McDonald (1999) on the costs of children.

55 developed, were to derive estimates of a number of costs, including the costs of children (Saunders et al., 1998). In addition to the research on household budgets, FACSIA also commissioned the 1999 study by Percival, Harding and McDonald (discussed above), to develop estimates of the costs of children using expenditure survey/equivalent standard of living data.

3.1.3 Developing Indicative Budget Standards for Australian households

In the BSU study (Saunders et al., 1998), budget standards were defined as what was needed in a particular place at a particular point in time to achieve a specific standard of living. The BSU budgets corresponded to two specific standards of living – a low- cost standard and a modest-but-adequate standard – and provided prices of particular baskets of goods and services for the different individuals in several different family types. The standards reflected both normative and behavioural judgements. Normative judgements were made with regard to what people should have by way of an adequate diet, physical exercise, health care, etc. Behavioural judgements were based on what people actually did – the food they ate, the clothes they wore and where they shopped. Where deemed appropriate, behavioural judgements were used to modify, in some respects, normative judgements (Saunders et al., 1998).

A wide range of data sources (on norms and behaviour) were consulted. In order to decide what should be included in the basket data was sought on ownership and use of goods and services of every description, as well as data on participation in various activities. Prevailing community standards, advice from experts in various fields, and feedback from focus groups that examined the preliminary budgets, were considered in the formation of the standards.

(a) Low-cost budget standard. The low-cost budget standard was conceptualised as one requiring frugal and careful management of resources but still allowing for social and economic participation consistent with community standards. It enabled individuals to fulfil community expectations in the workplace, at home and in the community. It described a level below which it became increasingly difficult to maintain an acceptable living standard because of the increased risk of deprivation and disadvantage. In round terms, the low-cost standard represented what was achievable at about one-half the median standard of living in the community.

56 (b) Modest-but-adequate budget standard. The modest but adequate standard was one affording full opportunity to participate in contemporary Australian society and the basic options it offered. It was seen as lying between the standards of survival and decency and those of luxury, as these were commonly understood. It attempted to describe the situation of households whose living standards fell somewhere around the median (i.e. middle income) standard of living experienced in the Australian community as a whole (Saunders et al., 1998).

These two standards adopted in the BSU research – modest but adequate (MBA) and low cost (LC) – were similar to standards used in the US, UK and Scandinavian countries (Bradshaw, 1987, 1993; Kroon, 1998). These particular standards with similar characteristics have gradually evolved over time through constant refinement and review, and have proved to be ‘robust and defensible’ concepts (Parker 1998; Saunders, 2004; Wynn 1972).

Of advantage to the BSU team of researchers, in terms of effort and cost, was that the unit was able to utilise recent budget standards development by the UK Family Budget Unit (FBU). The immensely valuable FBU research was based on previous budget standards developments in several countries: Sweden, Canada, Norway and the United States (Bradshaw, 1993; Saunders 2004). The UK methodology was adapted to reflect Australian contemporary society in the 1990s. The research team also benefited from:

A Steering committee of relevant experts in many fields including nutrition, health economics, housing, clothing needs, consumer behaviour and household budgeting. The committee also included individuals from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Consumers Association, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AIFS, CSIRO, [Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation] the Department of Social Security, ACOSS [Australian Council of Social Services] and the Brotherhood of St Laurence. (Saunders, 1999: 6)

Budgets at the two standards were developed for 46 different household types made up of up to eight individuals, comprising four adults and four children: two girls aged

57 3 and 6; and boys aged 10 and 14. Costs were determined in nine main commodity areas: housing, energy, food, clothing and footwear, household goods and services, health, transport, leisure, and personal care. Some commodity areas – food, clothing and footwear, health and personal care – were costed for specific individuals. In other budget areas – housing and energy – costs were shared by the whole household. The remaining budgets – transport, household goods and services, and leisure – included a combination of shared and individual costs.

Underlying both standards in the model was an implicit emphasis on a needs-based approach. Two aspects of needs were met by this approach, physical needs (e.g. for shelter, food and clothing) and social or participatory need (e.g. for leisure and transport). Regardless of the standard of living – LC or MBA – ensuring both physical and social needs were included guaranteed that budgets reflected the total resources required by individuals and families to meet community standards within a specific cultural context. Variations in housing tenure (purchasers, private and public renters) and labour force status (employed, non-employed and retired) were incorporated into the budgets. All households were assumed to work and live in an average Sydney suburb and the costing of items was based on prices at a number of leading Sydney retail stores. All prices were for February 1997.

As a budget standard is intended to reflect both normative and behavioural judgements, normative judgements were made with regard to what adults and children should have by way of an adequate diet, physical exercise and health care. Where guidelines or standards existed and were widely endorsed, such as those for nutrition developed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC), they were used to develop nutritionally adequate food budgets.

The standards also reflected the way people actually behaved or did things: the type of food they ate, the clothes they wore and where they shopped. According to one writer, without ‘some appreciation of the way real people behave … standards that bear no relationship to current habits are unlikely to be accepted’ (Watts: 1993: 1). Where appropriate, behavioural data from HES and other surveys were used to modify or confirm normative judgements based on existing standards. In relation to the food budgets, modifications were made to NH&MRC guidelines to reflect actual Australian dietary patterns (Saunders, 1999: 65). While a food budget met

58 recommended dietary intakes of nutrients, it also reflected the types of food people most commonly bought: their tastes and preferences.

Getting the balance right between behavioural and normative approaches was seen as a key element. It ensured that in reflecting normative judgements about needs, the resource constraints that impact on actual spending behaviour (consumption) did not overly determine the make up of a budget (Bradshaw 1989: 15; Saunders, 2004: 6; Saunders et al., 1998: 96). The BSU reported that, if too much weight was placed on behavioural data, there was a risk of ‘undermining the role of budget standard in providing an independent benchmark for living standards’. However, unless behavioural data was considered as a ‘reality’ check against the normative judgements, the standards would be too far detached from everyday experiences (Saunders et al., 1998: 96). The incomplete coverage of normative standards in some areas of household consumption has meant that some budgets are inevitably more heavily reliant on behavioural data than on community norms and standards (Boushey et al., 2001: 8; Johnson, Rodgers and Tan 2001: 32; Kroon, 1998: 7).

In the BSU study the researchers and the panel of experts made a number of value judgements about what items were required to meet specific needs and what should be included in the basket. Researchers involved in using a budgetary approach acknowledge the problematic nature of the subjective processes involved in developing budget standards (Bradbury 1989; Bradshaw, 1993: Mitchell and Cooke 1988; Piachaud, 1979; Saunders et al., 1998: 6-7). Criticism is levelled at some of the apparently arbitrary decisions made by ‘experts’ around normative judgements. The criticisms contend that some judgements may impart more authority or ‘scientific objectivity’ to the standards than is warranted (Callan and Nolan 1991; Citro and Michael 1995; Piachaud 1987). Watts (1993), in a review of budget-based norms, was more sanguine about the use of ‘experts’ suggesting that:

The inevitable arbitrariness of the many choices that have to be made in developing some prescriptions can be … made less blatant, when the choices are made by those recognised to have some authority in such matters [i.e. experts]. This adds to their acceptability so along as the “bottom line” does not offend the

59 intuitive sensibilities of the public (or its opinion moulders). (Watts, 1993: 2)

Proponents of a budgetary approach suggest that, whilst a limitation, the value judgements inherent in developing budgets should not be perceived as sufficient to discredit the approach in determining living standards. In part, this is because the development of budgets occurs in a sequenced and systematic manner. Every value judgement made at each stage in the process is made explicit and is open to scrutiny. Thus, judgements articulated throughout the report are visible, transparent and contestable and can be revised (Mitchell and Cooke, 1988: 30; Saunders, 2004; Saunders et al., 1998: 7).

In the SPRC project, the approach taken in distinguishing the LC from the MBA standard was to use a series of ‘rules of thumb’. These rules guided researchers in making consistent decisions about what items to include or exclude across all component budget areas. One example was the ownership rule, whereby only those items, activities or services owned, undertaken or utilised by at least 50 per cent of the population were included in the MBA budgets. For items, activities or services to be included in the LC budgets a corresponding 75 per cent ownership rule was applied to identify what was regarded as ‘necessary’ or ‘essential’ items for families living in Australian contemporary society. If the available behavioural data indicated that ownership of an item did not meet the 75 per cent rule, no household in a LC budget was allocated that item.

In the UK similar rules of thumb applied to budget development: 50 per cent ownership for MBA and 80 per cent for LCA budgets. Rigid adherence to this type of rule can be tempered, argued one researcher, if ownership statistics are either conflicting or unavailable, or, if circumstances warrant it, some adjustments might be necessary to the 80 per cent rule:

With careful money management, an LCA [low cost but acceptable] budget is intended to be sufficient to eat healthily, take an inexpensive annual holiday and avoid major debt problems. Yet neither mortgage payments nor a car can be ruled out. Rented housing may not be available and a car may be necessary to get to

60 work. Home contents insurance in some locations, is fast becoming a necessity. (Parker, 1998: 15)27

Not rigidly adhering to the ownership rule is a salient point. It allows, within a specific cultural, economic and social environment, recognition of people’s ‘preferences’, ‘choices’ and ‘trade-offs’ and reflects the flexibility of a budgetary approach in representing these norms. Having said that, caution should be exercised against any major substitution, within the budget standards methodology, that negates the normative standards on which budgets are based. It is important to point out that, while budgets provide a very detailed account of specific items (goods and services) required to fulfil basic needs, they are only illustrative: they simply define what families should spend in certain commodity areas if they have the financial resources to do so. They do not imply that families do spend their incomes precisely the way the budgets indicate (Parker, 1998: xix; Renwick, 1993: 574).

The BSU also used other methods to differentiate between the two standards – for example, some items in the LC standard were of lesser quality or cheaper price (‘No Frills’ brand) than those in MBA budgets. In comparison to the LC budgets, MBA items reflected ‘leading brand’ or median prices. For LC budgets the lifetimes of some items were extended, i.e. they were made to last longer. This rule was modified for households containing children. For example, a general rule of thumb was to reduce lifetimes on shared goods (e.g. furniture, appliances and some kitchen utensils) likely to be subject to additional ‘wear and tear’ caused by children’s presence in a household.

The use of focus groups was an integral element in developing the budgets. Groups were used at two stages of budget development. In the preliminary stages the first groups assessed what should, and what did not need, to be included for LC and MBA budgets. They also discussed the perceived differences between the two standards and provided advice on what was appropriate to include and what specific items should be added, deleted, changed or modified for different living standards.

27 Following the original 1993 U.K. budget standards project a further FBU study was conducted estimating the living costs (a minimum income standard) for families with children at a standard similar to the U.K. low-cost standard (Parker, 1998).

61 Once preliminary budgets were compiled and costed, a second cluster of focus groups were consulted. They assessed costs assigned to various commodity groups and provided feedback and advice on where adjustments were required. Participants also completed a mini-diary of their own household expenses prior to attending a group. This information allowed participants to compare and contrast their own costs against amounts in the budget standards, ensuring there was a reasonable ‘fit’ between the two (Saunders et al., 1998).

Focus-group participants at both stages were broadly illustrative of the types of households for whom budgets were being constructed: working-age single people; aged people (singles and couples); working-age couples with children; and sole parents. The two latter groups were used to provide information on the costs of children. Based on their parental experiences they discussed what should be in a child’s budget. Incorporating participants’ advice and suggestions validated in a significant way the budgets themselves (Saunders et al., 1998).

Strengths of a budgetary approach: According to Saunders et al., (1998) a budgetary approach has three main strengths. The first of these strengths is a consideration of needs in determining how much should be spent to satisfy the consumption needs (physical necessities) of individuals within households. A budgetary approach derives a relationship between needs and the standards of living and then proceeds to translate needs into commodities (and services and activities), and commodities (through information on costs and prices) into budgets. (Saunders et al., 1998: 9, authors’ emphasis)

As noted above, the needs to be considered were not just basic physical needs for shelter, food and clothing, but also social needs allowing individuals to actively participate in the specific cultural context of the society in which they lived (Parker, 1998: xv111, my emphasis). The notion of participatory or social needs, pioneered by Townsend (1979), complements resources required by families for minimum physical necessities with resources for activities consistent with community standards.

To meet social as well as physical needs, budgets therefore included a broad range of goods and services attached to leisure, transport and household goods, and also items for personal use (Saunders et al., 1998: 9, see also Mitchell, 1985: 13). The use of a

62 needs-based approach is therefore significant in the sense that the budgets provide a general indication of the total resources (cash or services) families would require ‘to achieve the standard of living to which budget standards correspond’ (Saunders, 2004: 3).

The second strength of a budgetary approach is its transparency. Saunders et al., (1998) argued persuasively that, due to the meticulous consideration given to the methods used to identify needs before they are included in a budget, and the transparency of these methods, ‘others can form their own judgement concerning their appropriateness’ (Saunders et al., 1998: 5). This allows the assumptions and normative judgements underlying the inclusion of any one item in any particular basket to be commented upon and debated, not just by academics and other ‘experts’, but by those in the wider community as well.

While an important strength methodologically, the concept of transparency, however, introduces a degree of complexity into the BSU budget development. All items in the nine commodity areas were entered into a set of statistical spreadsheets. In each spreadsheet there was an enormous amount of detail in each commodity area for each individual for whom budgets were constructed. The sheer volume of information contained in the spreadsheets, which formed the foundation of the 631-page report, was substantial, and for those interested in understanding the study’s underlying methods and assumptions, an examination of the report and background material would be a formidable and time-consuming task.

Flexibility is the third strength in the budgetary approach. Because of the detailed construction of budget standards, it is possible to vary or modify a number of aspects of the goods and services in the budgets, including their range, quantity, quality, price or lifetime, in order to reflect changes in needs (Saunders et al., 1998: 5). As needs change and ownership of new commodities increases significantly (e.g. mobile telephones, laptops and iPods), they can be included, whereas items that become redundant can be discarded. The flexibility allows for modifications to be made to budgets to suit a variety of circumstances: e.g. variations in household size, type and

63 standard of living, or customisation based on geographical location (Kroon, 1998; Saunders et al., 1998).28

These three strengths (needs, transparency and flexibility) of a budgetary approach mean that:

Once the standards have been developed for a range of different households at a given standard, they can be used to estimate how the absolute household budgets vary with the size and composition of the household (the costs of children, of other family members and the extent and size of economies of scale) and what the relevant relativities across different households are like (the equivalence scale issue). (Saunders et al., 1998: 11)

Since the SPRC project was completed in 1998, further studies based on the original BSU budgets have been conducted:

 estimates of a new comfortably affluent but sustainable (CAS) budget standard for older Australians (Saunders, Patulney and Lee, 2004);

 estimates of the level of income required by Australian working families to meet needs (Saunders, 2004);

 estimates of the costs of foster children based on the BSU costs of children (McHugh, 2002);

 estimates of the costs of children for Tasmania with modifications to items and prices to reflect different geographical and climatic conditions (McHugh, Chalmers and Saunders, 2002); and

 the development of additional household types (i.e. non-custodial parents) and their costs have been estimated as well as costs for all BSU household types in all Australian capital cities (Henman, 2001).

28 The flexibility of a budget standards approach is reflected in the work of Boushey et al., (2001) who constructed over 400 budgets covering six family types in every community in the U.S.

64 3.1.4 Using the budgetary approach to develop estimates of children’s costs

In the BSU budget standards a simple deductive (or difference) model of subtracting one budget standard from another was used to estimate the costs of children. Estimates of a cost of a child were calculated by deducting the budget standard of a couple with no children from that of a couple with a child, at the same standard of living. Although budgets were derived for households with one, two, three and four children, not all possible combinations of household size and ages of children were covered, and only private renters29 were included for both standards.

The deductive method used by the BSU allocated individual costs for children in a number of commodity areas: food, clothing and footwear, health, leisure, household goods and services and personal care. In other commodity areas, such as housing, transport and energy, where goods and services were shared by adults and children it was only the extra costs incurred by the presence of children that were included in the estimates. For example, in the housing budget, the difference in costs between the rent of a dwelling for a couple compared to a larger dwelling (with an additional bedroom) for a couple with one child, was assigned to the child’s costs. Similarly, in the transport budget the additional costs to cover children’s transport needs (to go to child care, school or doctor) were included in their budget. The costs of child care were contained in the household goods and services budget. Similar to Lovering’s (1984) study on child costs the BSU, child estimates indicated that in general costs increased as children grew older.

As already noted, Lovering’s determination of child estimates used a restricted application of a budgetary approach, based on available data at the time. It provided guidance on the direct costs for some, but not all, of the individual items in children’s budgets. The BSU estimates by comparison, based on the ‘best of existing Australian research, expertise and data and judgements in each budget area’, provided a more complete coverage of estimates of children’s direct costs (Saunders 1999: 65).

29 Different housing tenures (owners, purchasers, renters – private/public) were used in developing housing budgets at the two standards of living, but no provision was made for owner–occupiers or home purchasers at the LC standard, reflecting the assumed circumstances of this specific household type.

65 Including housing and child care in the BSU child estimate (two costs that were excluded by Lovering) provides an indication of the substantial impact of these costs for working families.30 For example, for a girl aged 3 years at the MBA standard, the weekly costs ($118) of housing and child care represented around 72 per cent of the family’s weekly expenditure on her individually. For a girl aged 6 years comparable weekly expenditure for these two items represented around 55 per cent of her budget.31

The figures in Table 3-3, particularly for multiple-child households, indicate the complexity of developing child estimates.

Table 3-3: Estimates of the Weekly Cost of Children for Households Renting Privately32 ($ per week, February, 1997)

Panel A Cost of One Child (a) Low cost Modest but adequate

Girl, Age 3(b) 77 164 Girl, Age 6(b) 94 139 Boy, Age 14(b) 118 155 Panel B Incremental Child Costs (c) Low Cost Modest but adequate Couple plus: Combined Combined Boy 14(b) 118 - 155 - Boy 14, and Girl 6(d) 102 220(e) 148 303(e) Boy14, Girl 6, and Girl 3(d) 57 277(f) 160 463(f) Boy14, Girl 6, Girl 3 and Boy 10(d) 72 349(g) 105 568(g) Total 349 568 Source: Chalmers (1998). Notes: a) Additional expenditure required in a couple household with children, (b) renting a 2- bedroom unit, (c) additional expenditure required in a couple household with children, (d) renting a 3- bedroom unit, (4) costs of boy 14 + girl 6, (f) costs of boy 14, girls 6 and 3, (g) cost of all four children

30 It was assumed that in some BSU households, both partners in couple households worked full-time, hence the need for formal child care provision, including before- and after-school care and vacation care.

31 Estimates are based on prices and policies applying to child care rebates in 1997. 32 Households with rental accommodation were used for estimating the costs of children. It was the only housing measure common to both LC and MBA households. Some MBA households but no LC households were home purchasers.

66 It is noticeable that in Panel A (LC standard) as they grow older, child estimates increase, reflecting higher costs for housing, food, and household goods and services for older children. In comparison, at the MBA standard, the younger child has higher costs than the teenage boy, owing to the allocation of formal child care (i.e. pre-school care) necessary when both parents are assumed to work full-time.

The figures in Panel B in Table 3-3 indicate that, as the number of children in a household increases, costs rise substantially, although in larger families (3-4 children) there were some economies of scale in costs, with same-sex siblings sharing existing bedrooms. The estimates clearly indicate the significance of the age and sex of children in larger households.

The value of the deductive method in determining child estimates was that it was easy and simple to carry out and provided a reasonable estimate of the costs of children of various ages. Its major drawback was that the presence of a child can change a couple’s lifestyle, reflecting different behaviours from that of couple-only households. Therefore differences between these households reflect not only additional child costs, but also any cost due to a change in lifestyle. Despite the rigorous approach taken by BSU researchers in determining these estimates, it needs to be borne in mind that ‘like others before them, the BSU estimates of the costs of children are precisely that – estimates’ (Chalmers 1998: 6).

Choosing a model to estimate foster care costs: There was agreement between non- government providers and the SPRC that the BSU estimates of the costs of children would be a useful model in determining the costs of foster children. The BSU estimates provided age-related costs for individual children that reflected the basis of most States’ payment systems at the time. Australian foster care payment systems are based on the needs of children and higher-level allowance/subsidies are provided for children with special needs.33 Regardless of the number of foster children placed with individual carers, a subsidy is provided for each child, and no economies of scale are assumed for families with large numbers of fostered children. Knowledge of the ‘real’

33 Carers of children with special or high needs may be entitled to receive add-on loadings. ‘Add-on loadings are defined as increases to the standard subsidy, either in the form of percentage loadings or as a flat rate, e.g. special needs loadings’ (Bray, 2001: 35).

67 costs of fostered children would allow comparisons to be made with the carer subsidy and determine whether subsidy levels were adequate in covering carer costs.

The budgetary method was considered as an appropriate model in developing foster child estimates as it allowed for:

 focusing on basic needs;  estimating acceptable levels of reimbursement to meet specified minimum needs;  estimating costs for age and sex;  disaggregating specific components (individual items by quantity and cost) in each budget area; and  adapting commodity areas to reflect any additional costs involved for foster children.

In theory and practice, there was support for a budgetary approach in estimating foster child estimates, as historically most Australian States have based the level of subsidy provided to carers on Lovering’s (1984) ‘basket of goods’ approach (Bray, 2001).

Deductive model to estimate costs of children: In the original BSU research the deductive (or difference) approach was used to provide child estimates. There has been some debate as to whether this is the most suitable method (Oldfield, 1992, 1993, 1997; Saunders et al., 1998). An issue of concern was whether derived child estimates measure the difference ‘involved in achieving the same standard of living, or the cost differential associated with different households attaining different standards of living’ (Saunders et al., 1998: 574). A further valid point made about the deductive method was that:

[It] tends to reflect differences in lifestyle and the consequences of this in monetary terms between families with and without children rather than saying anything about the real cost of a child. Most importantly the method fails to show the true nature of expenditure by parents for their children. (Oldfield, 1997: 6)

While the use of the deductive method for deriving individual costs for children (e.g. food, clothing and personal items) was relatively straightforward, it was problematic in deriving estimates for jointly consumed goods and services shared by all family

68 members. The approach did not allow for a specific proportion of the costs of shared items to be allocated to individual family members, including children (Saunders et al., 1998: 578). A researcher for the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has suggested that, in deriving children’s expenditures in USDA budgets for jointly consumed goods and services, the simple per capita method for allocating expenses among all household members is the preferred option:

This method simply allocates expenses among household members in equal proportions. Although the per capita method has its limitations, these were deemed less than the marginal [deductive] cost approach. A major limitation of the per capita method is that expenditure for an additional child may be less than average expenditures. Because of this possibility, adjustment formulas for one child or three or more children were devised for use when estimating expenditures on children for households of different sizes. (Lino, 2004: 5)

Itemised variant model to estimate costs of children: Concerns with the robustness of the deductive approach in estimating the costs of children led to the adoption of a more sophisticated model in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study (McHugh, 2002). This model was the Itemised Variant Model (IVM) or normative approach. This method separates out all individual and shared items that can be ascribed to a child. Individual child costs (e.g. food and clothing and footwear) are calculated and set aside. Costs are derived for goods and services jointly consumed by all family members, by way of a series of processes: per capita estimates, differential calculations, and normative (or subjective) judgements on what items relate to children (Oldfield 1992, 1993, 1997).

Similar to Lino’s (2004) method the IVM approach uses the per capita approach as a simple and effective way of providing a sliding scale of costs per child as family size increases. One methodological limitation of the IVM was that in dividing costs for all shared goods and services and treating all household members equally, the model underestimates an adult’s costs and overestimates a child’s. Without any other suggested approach however, it was still considered the preferred option (Oldfield, 1997: 42).

69 Differential calculations were methodologically similar to the deductive method. The difference in spending on an item between the couple family and a family with children was seen as the extra cost of children. When there was more than one child in the family the extra cost was shared equally among all children. For example, if a family with three children required a larger and more expensive refrigerator, than a childless couple, then the difference in the costs between the two refrigerators was to be shared equally between all three children in the family (Oldfield, 1997: 42).34

Normative judgements enabled decisions to be made about whether a higher or a lower proportional share of goods or services was to be allocated to a child’s budget. For example, a higher share of household maintenance costs (painting, redecorating) was allocated in UK budgets for children, due to additional ‘wear and tear’ attributed to the presence of younger children. The perceived disadvantage of this process was ‘the length of time needed to develop and update budgets and the subjective nature of some decision making’ (Oldfield, 1997: 42).

Because the IVM or normative approach provided a more comprehensive and detailed coverage of costs than the BSU deductive approach, it was adopted for The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study (McHugh, 2002) to estimate the costs of foster children. This approach involved unpacking each commodity area in the BSU budgets, noting the individual costs for children, and assigning them to a child. Where items were shared, such as soap, toothpaste and toilet paper, a determination based on the per capita method was made to allocate a proportion of the costs. While there are limitations to the per capita method, it is a simple and consistent approach to divide all shared items (where individual consumption was unknown) in, for example, a three-person household by three, and assign a third of the costs to each member. For some shared items (e.g. adult magazines) a subjective judgement was made as to whether an item should be included in a child’s costs. While using the normative approach was a time-consuming and laborious task, it analysed budgets in a sophisticated and systematic way, and provided a more accurate estimate of the costs of children.

34 The ‘differential calculation’ method (for estimating costs for larger families) was not used in the Australian study (McHugh, 2002), as only one-child families were included in the calculations in that study.

70 A normative budgetary approach is highly suitable for determining foster child estimates. Detailed information provided in individual budgets allows for easy identification of any item in a specific commodity area that is perceived by foster carers as necessary for foster children. Adjustments can then be made to individual budgets based on a foster child’s age and sex (Oldfield, 1977). A further advantage to the budgetary approach, noted previously, is that estimates can be updated on a regular basis (using the CPI) to reflect changes in the costs of living.

3.2 Indirect Costs

3.2.1 Estimating the indirect costs of children

What are the indirect costs of children? Researchers in Australia and elsewhere have shown increasing interest in measuring and costing the indirect costs of children (Apps and Rees 2000; Bradbury 2004; Breusch and Gray 2003; Chapman et al., 2001; Folbre, 2004; Gray and Chapman, 2001; Ironmonger 2004; Joshi 1987; Oldfield, 1997). Like the direct costs, the indirect costs of children are not particularly easy to measure or assign a dollar value to (Folbre, 2004; Wolf, 2004). The interest in indirect costs relates to the fact that, when children are present, parents (including foster parents) have to forego a number of things in order to care for them. One researcher argues:

If there is logic in counting as a cost the amount of money which parents spend on children rather than on other things, then there is logic in quantifying what other things they forgo in order to make time to care for their children. (Richardson, 2000: 24)

Expanding on this argument another writer suggests that:

Expenditure costs … are only a small part of the cost of children. Parents reduce their leisure and personal hours considerably when they are raising children … this change in time use arises from a combination of the time and expenditure costs of children. The expenditure costs enter via the pressures they place on parental [usually mother’s] labour supply. (Bradbury 2004: 17)

71 Acknowledging the discomfort some people have at the thought of assigning a monetary value to parental time, one scholar suggests that nevertheless, ‘neither parents nor society can make informed decisions about time and money to devote to children without a clear picture of the economic contingencies involved’ (Folbre, 2003: 7). Researchers measuring time spent on informal care by relatives of people with chronic diseases or who are terminally ill, similarly argue that care-givers’ time should be valued in monetary terms, not least as an indication of the total health costs of these groups (van den Berg, 2005: 836).

In the last decade researchers have begun exploring how to estimate the value of the total costs of children, or of caring, by including indirect costs along with direct costs. Since indirect costs are largely a function of the time spent in caring (although see below), time-use data has been used to calculate estimates of these costs. The monetary value of the time costs is then added to the estimates of direct costs to calculate the total costs of children. The aim of this research has been to examine standard-of-living measurements over the life cycle (Apps and Rees, 2000; Bradbury 2004; Folbre, 2004; Ringen and Halpin, 1995). Authors of an Australian study which combined both direct and indirect expenditure, and found significantly higher costs than previous studies using only direct expenditure, argued that:

The results underline the need to incorporate the time costs of child care and domestic work which … are largely those of the female partner, into the estimation of child costs and strongly support the intuition that they are quantitatively very important. (Apps and Rees, 2000: 26)

US research suggests that the total costs (indirect and direct) of children are likely to be two to three times higher than the USDA (direct) child estimates (Culley, Settles and Van Name, 1977, Folbre 2003). Folbre (2003) suggests that ‘units of time are even more heterogenous in quality and more difficult to measure than units of money expenditure’ (for direct costs) (Folbre, 2003: 8). Because of their diffuse nature, there is as yet a limited understanding of the magnitude of these costs, and the development of a model for estimating the full costs of children faces difficult econometric problems and theoretical limitations. According to one Australian researcher, further

72 refinements will be necessary to make costs more precise than ‘very broad estimates of likely magnitude’ (Bradbury, 2004: 14).

While acknowledging the difficulty of the task, it is important to examine the alternative methods used in estimating the indirect costs of children, in order to assess their merits. Indirect costs are significant, especially for mothers, as they have the most impact on financial, social and emotional well-being; affecting among other things income-earning capacity and family living standards (Cass, Keens and Wyndham, 1983; Craig and Bittman 2005; Moss 1989; Oldfield, 1997). Indirect costs have three interlinked components:

 foregone earnings or opportunity costs to the main carer (usually mothers) (Baxter 2005; Breusch and Gray, 2003; Budig and England, 2001; Cass, Keens and Wyndham, 1983; Folbre 2001; Joshi 1987; Oldfield, 1997; Sigle-Rushton and Waldfogel, 2004);

 time costs from primary care work and secondary activities related to caregiving (Baxter, 2006; Craig, 2002 a, b; 2005 a, b; Craig and Bittman 2005; Gershunny, 1983; Ironmonger, 2004); and

 psychological and emotional costs (Badgett and Folbre 1999; England and Folbre, 2003; Folbre, 2004; Himmelweit 1995, 1999; Oldfield, 1997; Steinberg and Figart, 1999).

The interrelationship of these three aspects of indirect costs broadens our understanding of how care work attracts significant costs for women (Folbre 2003; Nissel, 1984; Nissel and Bonnerjea 1982; Oldfield, 1997). It is important to emphasise that the three aspects, while interlinked, can be examined as discrete areas. There are subtle differences in methodological approaches in estimating opportunity costs (foregone earnings) and time costs. In relation to foster care, the opportunity costs model can estimate what women might have earned from paid employment had they not fostered children; while if carers are to be compensated for the service they provide, a model based on daily time costs is useful in estimating a replacement wage value. In measuring, or valuing in monetary terms, the costs of care’s

73 psychological/emotional dimensions, however, little work has been undertaken (Percival and Harding, 2003; Wilson, Sinclair and Gibbs, 2000). 35

Two studies, using opportunity and time costs models, have attempted to estimate the indirect costs of foster children (Culley, Settles and Van Name, 1977; Oldfield, 1997). The earlier study in the US (Culley, Settles and Van Name, 1977) discussed various methods for estimating both direct and indirect (opportunity and time) costs of foster care. The aim of the US study was to provide agencies with tools (workbooks) to measure the indirect costs of family foster care in their local areas. The UK study examined both direct and indirect costs and provided a monetary value for direct and indirect (time) costs of fostering (Oldfield, 1997). Both studies noted fostering’s emotional stresses and strains on foster carers, but did not attempt to estimate their costs. Oldfield’s (1997) framework for developing both direct and indirect costs is used extensively in the thesis.

3.2.2 Opportunity costs or earnings foregone

The opportunity costs model has been frequently used to estimate the foregone earnings of women who leave the workforce for child bearing/rearing. Opportunity costs are generally calculated by determining the difference in earnings of women with children compared to the earnings of childless women (with similar personal characteristics) to provide estimates of foregone earnings over a lifetime. Using a neoclassical economic framework the opportunity costs model has been used in Australia and elsewhere for this purpose (Beggs and Chapman, 1988a; Breusch and Gray, 2004; Chapman et al, 1999, 2001; Gray and Chapman, 2001; Joshi, 1987; Joshi, Paci and Waldfogel, 1999; Sigle-Rushton and Waldfogel, 2004).

Opportunity costs models have also been used to estimate the foregone earnings of carers for elderly or disabled adults, who have reduced their hours or left employment due to informal care responsibilities (Access Economics, 2005; van den Berg et al.,

35 A fourth indirect cost, that is rarely recognised or addressed in the literature (de Vaus, Gray and Stanton, 2003), and is pertinent to foster carers (Verity 1999), is the value of a carer’s physical capital (land, dwelling, equipment, e.g. vehicles) necessary to provide a fostering service. Except in relation to carers’ vehicles, most of these costs are not discussed in this thesis.

74 2005), and also to measure the value of unpaid household caring and voluntary work (de Vaus, Gray, and Stanton, 2003). 36

In general, findings from studies on women’s foregone earnings suggest that there are significant ‘opportunity costs’ for women who have children, with childless women earning over their lifetime considerably more than women with children do. Despite the fact that all women perform much the same type of unpaid work, this approach can give widely different values to ‘opportunity costs’ for child caring and other household activities. This is because foregone earnings are based on characteristics of socio-demographic backgrounds (professional/managerial compared to factory workers), and ‘lost’ income will be higher for managers compared to factory workers. On its own, ‘earnings foregone’ is but an imperfect measure of indirect costs. It takes no account of the reduction in skills and experience imposed by discontinuous employment for women with children (Gray and Chapman, 2001). Discontinuous employment can result in reduced job opportunities, a heightened risk of downward occupational mobility when women rejoin the labour market, and lower future earnings (Bittman 2004; Breusch and Gray, 2004; Cass, Keens and Wyndham 1983; Folbre, 2004; Moss, 1989).

When women return to employment, social expectations and assumptions around women’s roles as mothers appear to influence the type and the hours of work they do (Baxter, 2005; Joshi, 1987; Preston and Burgess, 2003). Researchers have found that mothers returning to work after the ‘traditional break’ to have children are more likely to return to part-time employment where wages are lower (AIFS, 2005; Joshi, Paci and Waldfogel, 1996). Low-paid, part-time work can be disadvantageous to women. Employment rights and entitlements can be minimal and part-time work offers less job security, reduced eligibility for leave (sick/holiday/long service), and a reduced level of superannuation savings that lessens retirement income (Pocock, 2005; Shaver and Thompson, 2001; Thompson, 1999).

Compounding affects of opportunity costs: A study examining the annual forgone earnings of those caring for people (including children) with a disability, compared to

36 A third approach, the self-valuation method by carers on what they should be paid, is not commonly used (Access Economics, 2005). The self-valuation method is not utilised in this study.

75 non-carers in similar circumstances, found carers were less likely to be employed, and when in employment had lower personal/household income, less in superannuation contributions, and less retirement income, compared with a similar group without caring responsibilities (AMP.NATSEM, 2006). This situation is not dissimilar to that of foster carers. Unlike biological parents for whom child-rearing is a time-limited event, many foster carers have a lifelong commitment to fostering: they take care of children as a ‘way of life’ (Andersson, 2001; Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003; McHugh et al., 2004a). It is not unusual for carers to maintain their commitment to foster through middle-age and older, with little if any paid employment, before retiring from fostering.37 For single carers, without a partner to contribute to current and future financial resources, the negative impact of forgone earning and accumulated employment benefits is exacerbated.38

The penalties attached to a life of foster caring for Australian women may be increasing. In many industrial countries, including Australia, social and economic policies ‘encourage’ adult workers (including both members of a couple) to financially contribute, through deductions from employment earnings, to superannuation for their own retirement. As Australian carers are not paid a wage or salary for fostering, they do not receive contributions to superannuation. As a consequence many are totally reliant on social security payments (i.e. Age Pension) in their retirement.

Opportunity costs and the impact of young children: A study on opportunity costs found that, among a number of determinants of women’s employment (i.e. labour market experience, educational level, age, partner’s level of income), the presence of children, particularly young children, totally dominated the probability of employment (Gray and Chapman, 2001: 7). The effect of the presence of preschool-aged children in reducing mothers’ participation in paid work was also found in an Australian Time

37 Australian Census data 2001 indicate most foster carers were between 35 and 54 years of age (70 per cent of females and 66 per cent of males). Amongst couple carers, very few women were aged under 25 years or over 64 years. In contrast, single female carers were substantially older with nearly ten per cent being at least 65 years old and less than half falling into the 35 to 54 year age bracket (McHugh et al., 2004b).

38 In a recent study with a representative sample of foster carers, one-third of all primary carers were single carers (McHugh et al., 2004a).

76 Use study. The authors report that the effect of the child’s (young) age outweighs that of the numbers of children in the family (Craig and Bittman, 2005: 23).

The compounding affects of opportunity costs and the impact of young children on carer employment prospects have serious consequences for foster mothers and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

3.2.3 Proxy good method (market replacement cost)

A practical model for valuing time taken to care is the proxy good (or market replacement cost) approach. This approach values the amount of daily or weekly time spent on caregiving at the labour market price for a suitable substitute (Access Economics, 2005; Folbre 2003; Van den berg et al., 2005; Wolf, 2004). Many countries conduct regular time-use surveys. Time-use data have proved useful in estimating the time spent on household production (including care of children/other dependents) and for including these substantial estimates in economic evaluations of a country’s gross domestic product (e.g. in National Accounts) (de Vaus, Gray and Stanton, 2003; Folbre, 2001; Himmelweit, 1998; Ironmonger 2004; Soupourmas and Ironmonger 2002; van den Berg, 2005).

Increasing interest is being paid to the data from time-use surveys to assist in measuring and assigning a dollar value to time spent raising children. ‘The unique feature of time use data is that they offer the opportunity to quantify unpaid work’ (Craig, 2006a: 6). Data can be derived at the micro level to determine what proportion of hours/minutes in the day are taken up by daily activities of caring and other unpaid labour associated with caring (Craig, 2002a, 2005a). The indirect costs of children in relation to time expenditure is seen as an under-researched area and available estimates have been tentative and few in number (Apps and Rees 2000; Craig and Bittman 2005; Mitchell and Cooke, 1988: 43). Some criticisms have been made of earlier time-use studies as time estimates of caring by parents for children focused mainly on primary activities, i.e. where the parent was directly involved with the child. Most studies overlooked secondary activities, i.e. activities that overlapped with child care (e.g. cooking, washing, cleaning, shopping, with the child present) including supervisory responsibilities (maintaining a watchful, alert presence). It has been argued that these secondary activities constrain women’s time even when there

77 is no direct involvement in tasks for a child or other dependent (Craig, 2002b; Folbre, 2004; Ironmonger 2004). One writer opines that it is the secondary supervisory responsibilities, in addition to primary care, that ‘often impose the most constraint on women’s activities’ (Nissel, 1984: 187).

Data from Australian Time Use Surveys indicate that in couple households with children, mothers are more likely to be the main carer, performing most of the onerous and routine tasks such as indoor and outdoor housework, shopping and food preparation, while at the same time indirectly supervising children (Craig, 2002a; Craig and Bittman, 2005). ‘The expenditure of time by mothers in nearly all activities with children is three to four times greater than that of fathers’ (Bittman, Craig and Folbre, 2004: 147). One writer estimated ‘the total amount of time (primary and secondary) devoted to children is four times greater than primary time alone’ (Ironmonger, 2004: 96). In estimating time spent in primary and secondary activities for a household with two preschool children, researchers report:

The magnitude of adult time commitment in a household with 2 infants is over 4 hours more than in a household with no resident children. When we acknowledge secondary activity, this time cost is nearer 10 hours a day. (Craig and Bittman, 2005: 17)

In relation to foster caring the market replacement cost method can be used to estimate the labour market price of a suitable substitute, i.e. a professional care-giver for a foster carer. Folbre (2003) suggests that, in the process, some aspect of ‘quality’ should be reflected in deciding a suitable substitute. In Australia, an alternative to foster care is residential care, and the equivalent ‘professional care-giver’ for a foster carer is a residential care worker. In estimating the wage level of foster carers, a residential care worker has been used as the preferred choice in two UK studies (Oldfield, 1997; Walker, Hill and Triseliotis, 2002).

Time in caring for foster children: One UK study estimated the time it takes to provide a fostering service (Oldfield, 1997). The researcher, in estimating total care time, included two separate components. One component was the additional or extra hours spent by foster carers for the essential tasks/activities relating to fostering. The second time component was an estimate of the ‘usual’ hours spent on caring (non-

78 foster), which is required for all children. These time estimates were based on the foster child being the second and not the first child in a foster family (Oldfield, 1997). The approach taken by Oldfield in estimating the usual hours required to care for children, and basing these time estimates on a second child in the household, is open to debate (see below). In essence however Oldfield’s approach in estimating the ‘extra’ time for fostering’s tasks and activities is thorough and robust (see section 5.4)

To estimate the usual time required for a second child in a household, Oldfield used three studies conducted in 1971, 1972 and 1991. Weekly estimates from these studies on time required for child care (primary only) were highly variable: 5.7, 9.1 and 14.0 hours. The UK researcher averaged the three findings to give 9.6 hours per week (or 1.36 hours per day), and allocated these hours of usual parental time spent on child care, as non-foster child care time (i.e. time spent on ordinary activities not associated with fostering) (Oldfield, 1997: 136). Given more recent evidence on the time (both primary and secondary) necessary to care for children, Oldfield’s estimates for usual time severely underestimates the daily time required to care for children.

Moreover, as already noted, it is not clear whether a foster child should be considered the second child in a foster family. At one level Oldfield’s ‘second’ child approach appeared reasonable. The majority of carers, both in the UK and Australia, have their own as well as foster children when they begin fostering. On placement, a foster child may well be viewed as a ‘second’ child in the household, and take, in theory, less time to care for than a first child. The reality of caring for foster children is, however, quite different, and the hours required to care are likely to be more, not less, than those of the carer’s own children. The reasons for this are that carers’ own children are usually older, more independent and less time-consuming than foster children who, because of past abuse and neglect, can be highly dependent and needy. Research with foster carers, including this thesis study (see Section 6.4), has found that carers often sacrifice time with their own children due to the heavy time demands in meeting foster children’s needs (Nutt, 2006; Oldfield, 1997). In addition, one of the main ‘triggers’ for a woman deciding to foster is her own children starting school, or leaving home, thus leaving her time to dedicate to fostering (Delfabbro, Taplin and Bentham, 2002; Rodger, Cummings and Leschied, 2006; Thorpe, 2004).

79 Oldfield’s approach ignores the situation of older carers, or carers with no own dependent children in their household, a situation becoming more common as the carer population ages (McHugh et al., 2004a). The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study with carers in early 2000 (n=159) found 50 per cent of fostering families had no own children living at home (McHugh, 2002: 33). Whether to use the time allocations for a first child or those for a second child when considering child care time for fostering, is therefore not as simple as it appears.

A further important issue is the economies of scale in time when several children are being cared for in the same household. There are significant economies of scale in multiple-child households, as well as ‘increased efficiency’ both in time spent in child care (primary activity) and in time spent in domestic labour (secondary activity) (Budig and Folbre, 2004; Craig and Bittman, 2005; Folbre, 2004). The birth of a first child increases the time spent by couples on child care from zero to 9.5 hours per day. A second child increases household time only by a further hour a day, an increase of around 10 per cent. Researchers suggest that the marginal time effects of an additional child are due to the fact that, for a substantial proportion of time, multiple children can be looked after simultaneously by one parent. Simultaneous, multiple and overlapping activities (e.g. reading stories, playing games, cooking, washing and supervision) benefit all children in a multi-child households at the same time (Budig and Folbre, 2004: 60; Craig and Bittman, 2005: 16, 21;).

There is little consensus by time-use analysts on how to calculate hours spent on child care for an additional child. At one level, it appears that the presence of a second child may only add a small increase in overall time for caring. This relatively small increase in overall time however, does not account for the number of hours each child in a household requires, both on an individual and collective basis. A simplistic approach by Bryant and Zick, of dividing the number of hours of parental care by the number of children to approximate care time per child, was not considered an appropriate solution (Budig and Folbre, 2004). In part, this appears to be due to the influence the child’s age has on the hours of care required. Research indicates that the youngest child in a household requires more hours of primary care than does an older child. For example, in a two-child household, a school-age child (6 years) requires approximately 2.25 hours of primary care a day compared with almost four hours for

80 a child aged 0-1 years. When three or more children are present, the youngest child (0-1 years) still requires just under four hours of primary care. The researcher suggests that when secondary activities are included, the time required to care doubles for individual children, though for multiple-child households, simultaneous overlapping activities (i.e. economies of scale) reduce the total hours required for care overall (Craig, 2006a).

Work by Ironmonger (2004: 103), using Australian Time Use Survey data, also found the extra time required for younger more dependent children was higher than for older children. Ironmonger (2004) estimated that when primary and secondary time were included, the time spent by mothers caring for children aged 0-4, 5-10 and 11-16+ years in one-child households, was 8.1, 5.2, 3.3 hours per day respectively.39

Accommodating economies of scale in child care time allocations for individual children in multi-child households has not been resolved. According to Ironmonger (2004):

Children in multi-child households are assumed to receive the same amount of care (measured in child output hours) as children in one- child households. Economies of scale for child care in multi-child households imply that one hour of parental childcare input can benefit more than one child, and therefore generate more than 1 hour of childcare “output”. Whether multi-child household children receive less output hours of care than other children has not yet been investigated. (Ironmonger, 2004: 103)

The dilemma of whether to use ‘first’ or ‘second’ child in time estimates, and how to accommodate economies of scale in terms of ‘time’, highlights the difficulty in representing the complexities of estimating child care time for foster children. The aim of the exercise, for the thesis, is to estimate a market-replacement cost based on the time taken to provide a care service. It would be remiss to assume that foster children, regardless of their place in the foster household, do not receive the same

39 Estimates of time spent by mothers on care of children were determined by dividing the total number of adult hours of child care time by 70%, the proportion of time suggested by the researcher as that spent by mothers on total child care (Ironmonger, 2004: 103).

81 amount of care (measured in child-output hours) as children in one-child households. What is often given less attention in time-use studies, is the all-encompassing supervisory nature of caring for children (i.e. 24 hours a day), especially for fostered children. If a foster parent is unavailable and someone else is required to care for a foster child, departmental permission must be sought and the person (usually a relative) approved. As described by the carers interviewed for this thesis, being accountable and responsible for foster children is qualitatively different from, and more time-consuming than, caring for one’s own children.

The approach adopted for the thesis is to use Ironmonger’s (2004) estimates of daily hours of care for individual children in different age groups. These estimates emphasise the substantial time, both primary and secondary, required for younger children compared to older children. They provide realistic and up-to-date estimates of the hours required to provide care (for non-fostering activities/tasks) for individual foster children. These hours of child care plus the extra time required for fostering’s tasks/activities (see section 6.5) can be combined as total fostering time and used as a guide in estimating a wage level for foster carers.

3.2.4 Psychological and emotional costs of care work

The literature on care work emphasises that care work differs from other work. Care work embodies important emotional and altruistic dimensions; care providers are usually motivated by gendered social norms and values and feel morally obliged to provide care, particularly for family members. A further important component of care work is the development of the relational aspects between care-givers and care recipients. As a consequence the psychological/emotional and relational dimensions of care work and the physical task-oriented aspects are regarded as equally valuable (England and Folbre, 2003; Meagher, 2002). For fostered children subjected to emotional abuse/neglect prior to entering care, the psychological/emotional dimensions involved in fostering may outweigh the physical task-oriented aspects.

Writers have noted the difficulty of trying to fit the personal and relational aspects of care work into the masculine economic language of ‘employment, production and commerce’ (England and Folbre, 2003; Himmelweit 2002: 3; Meagher 2002). The psychological/emotional and relational dimensions of care work are also difficult to

82 monitor and measure (England and Folbre, 2003; Meagher, 2002). Two writers opine that the difficulty in measuring and monitoring both ‘inputs’ (by carer) and ‘outputs’ (intangible outcomes for the individual) helps explain why the care sector relies heavily on carer intrinsic motivation (willingness to do a task) and moral obligations, rather than providing extrinsic (monetary) rewards for the costs involved in the personal and emotional dimensions of caring work (England and Folbre, 2003). To date there is no economic model that has been able to estimate the value of the personal and relational aspects of caring in monetary terms (Percival and Harding, 2002). In relation to Oldfield’s (1997) study on foster care, referred to extensively in the thesis, the UK study did not explore in any depth the emotional/psychological costs of fostering.

Given the centrality of ‘care’ in all its manifestations for most people at all stages of the life cycle and across all cultures, it is somewhat surprising that the psychological and emotional dimensions attached to care-giving, except as it relates to nursing and health care more generally, have not featured more extensively in the psychology literature. Hall (1990) sought to promote greater concern by psychologists in understanding caring as an activity and an experience, stating:

It is important to examine beliefs, goals, practices and emotions of the carer as of the cared-for [as] most care takes place in the home by informal carers [mostly women] and most care in professional settings is delivered by direct-care staff who are not highly trained. (Hall, 1990: 133)

The emotional side of care, with its powerful and at times conflicting feelings, he argued, needs to be acknowledged and understood. A further important aspect mentioned by the writer is that the act of caring while meeting the needs of others may meet deep personal needs in carers themselves (Hall, 1990: 137, 140). In discussing the multifaceted nature of care, Hall (1990) argued that, to expand more adequately the philosophy of care, a number of major questions need to be asked. One particularly pertinent question relates strongly to foster carers: ‘Why do people want to care [motivation] when there is no pre-existing emotional or social attachment?’ (Hall, 1990: 141)

83 Concurring with Hall’s premise that little theoretical attention has been given to explaining why care-givers ‘care’, psychologists Bell and Richard (2000a, b) introduced the concept of ‘connection’ as a theoretical orientation. They identified emotional caring as the motivation for care giving.40 The writers criticised Bowlby’s (1988) attachment theory for conceptualising caring as ‘innate and unproblematic’: an inherent characteristic of women’s nurturing behaviour. In contrast, these writers redefined caring as:

An enduring dyadic emotion that continues over the long term and that serves as an autonomous motivation to see that the specific needs of a specific partner [or child] are met. (Bell and Richard, 2000a: 74-75)

The writers argued that the concept of emotional caring is a valuable construct as ‘the characteristics of quality care giving can be derived logically from it and because it fits the phenomenological experience of care giving’ (Bell and Richard, 2000a: 126). Concepts of empathy and responsibility were important components of what they described as ‘sensitive’ caring. In their model, parents both cognitively and emotionally ‘know’ a child’s needs (empathy) and ‘feel’ that the child’s needs matter (responsibility).

Other psychological researchers responded to Bell and Richards’ theoretical approach to caring (Dix, 2000; Dozier, 2000; Finkenauer and Meeus, 2000; Geary, 2000). Some writers supported Bowlby’s theory of caregiving based on the biological needs of the infant being tied to the biological drives of the mother (Dozier, 2000: 98; Finkenauer and Meeus, 2000). Dozier (2000) discussed how others, such as foster carers, could be accommodated in Bowlby’s biological care-giving. Providing a less than satisfactory explanation, Dozier suggested that in the case of non-related carers such as adoptive and foster mothers: ‘other systems nonetheless function to support care giving’ (Dozier, 2000: 99). These ‘other systems’ were not defined.

40 Writers from other disciplines have also discussed the concept of the emotional dimension of caring and this is discussed in greater detail in the later section of this Chapter.

84 One writer found the ‘connection’ model useful in contributing to an analysis of parental competence (sensitive caring). However, in cautioning against the acceptance of caring as an enduring emotion, Dix (2000) argued that expressions of caring emotion were situation specific and were influenced by: ‘stress; support; children’s behaviours and temperaments; and parents’ skills, attitudes, and dispositions’. He suggested that parent’s motivational, affective and cognitive processes in interacting (behaving) with children are as yet ‘poorly understood’ (Dix, 2000: 95).

Other writers emphasising the relational aspects, suggested that a care-giver/care- receiver relationship was ‘reciprocal, dynamic and mutually transformative’ and that the caring relationship was ‘not entirely unconditional’ (an enduring emotion) but depended, in part, on the responsiveness of child to parent (Finkenauer and Meeus, 2000: 101-102). Another writer, critical of the emotional caring aspect, thought care- giving was ‘multiply determined by a host of factors’, that it was too complex and interpersonal to have one simple motivator, ‘caring’, as the main theoretical construct (Dozier, 2000: 99).

Other important care-giving motives, noted by psychologists, were carer self-interest and relatedness (the human need for belongingness) (Finkenaeur and Meeus, 2000; Hall 1990). Care-giving has been shown to give meaning and purpose to care-givers. Relatedness is seen to have beneficial effects for those who have positive and significant relationships with others. These beneficial effects were: ‘lower mortality rates, less depression and fewer psychological and physical health problems’ (Finkenaeur and Meeus, 2000: 101). These two aspects appear to be influential for foster carers in their relationships with foster children, with UK research indicating that foster carers in general enjoy good health (Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000). One study in particular found that surveyed carers on average enjoyed better health than the general population and concluded that it was in part due to their involvement in fostering (Beecham, Oglivie and Kirton, 2003).

The psychological literature contributes to understanding the complex and multifaceted nature of caring, placing an emphasis on the importance of care work’s relational and psychological/emotional dimensions. Scholars from other disciplines also suggest that when care work is done ‘well’ it can improve capabilities and result in significant benefits or transformative effects for those being cared for (e.g. child or

85 young person) (England and Folbre, 2003). Similarly, Swartz (2004) found that the positive characteristics of carers provided in the care relationship, such as warmth, attention, nurturance and reassurance (i.e. emotional labour), had important benefits for the care recipient. In addition, foster carers reaped ‘rich rewards’ when their interpersonal skills and ability developed ‘affectionate bonds and emotional attachments’ with fostered children, along with the children’s capabilities (Swartz, 2004: 576). How attachment/bonding operates between children and parents (and carers in care situations), and how caring relationships can be developed and sustained, is an important area of foster care research. It has led to developments in attachment theory and carer commitment (see for example, Black, Haight and Doner Eagle, 2003; Dozier and Lindheim, 2006: Fernandez, 1996).

Little attention has been paid in the psychological literature to less positive side of caring – its highly stressful nature. Fostering is a dynamic evolving phenomenon. Unlike family life it is composed of numerous complex interactions and relationships involving a number of parties. These relationships and interactions involve, not only the fostered children, but also their birth families, the Departmental workers responsible for providing case work for the child and supporting the carer, and the carer’s own family members and friends. Many of the interactions with fostered children, workers and birth families are governed by procedures and protocols determined by legislation and policy administered by a child welfare agency, and they also involve judicial decisions by the Courts. Numerous studies with carers have highlighted the stresses and strains connected with fostering and the negative impacts they may have on carers, their health and well-being (Beecham and Sinclair, 2007; Clare, Clare and Peaty, 2006; Maclay, Bunce and Purvee, 2006; Pithouse, Lowe and Tout-Hill, 2004; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000; Wilson, Sinclair and Gibbs, 2000).41 These findings should not be seen to be completely contradictory to the findings of general good health experienced by many carers noted above (Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000; Beecham, Oglivie and Kirton, 2003). In general, carer good health is an assumed prerequisite for being able to provide a fostering service. High levels of carer stress and strain are from time to time an almost inevitable component of this type of work. In this thesis study the commitment of many carers to meet the

41 The impact of these costs on carers is discussed in more detail in section 6.4.

86 needs of the children in their care allowed them to withstand many stressful and negative events and grow from the experience (see page 248).

Despite the difficulty in measuring and costing the personal and psychological/emotional dimensions of care work, they do need to be discussed. In the case of foster carers, as noted above, these non-financial indirect costs are substantial. These costs embodied in the relational aspects of care work come from:

 being responsible for an abused or neglected child or young person with complex emotional needs (who may not wish to be with the carer);

 working with agency staff (sometimes suspicious of the financial motives of carers);

 having to facilitate and maintain ongoing contact with members of the foster child’s birth family (often a difficult relationship);

 being obliged to attend and be involved in foster children’s case planning including reunification with birth parents, carer support groups and training, mentoring and supporting ‘new’ carers;

 the impact (both negative and positive) of fostering on a carer’s family (spouse and children) and friends; and

 abuse allegations and placement breakdown (Oldfield, 1997; Pithouse, Lowe & Hill-Tout, 2004: Swartz, 2004; Wilson, Sinclair and Gibbs, 2000).

3.3 Determining a Carer Wage

Key policy questions arise because of the inordinate pressures on the viability of the Australian foster-care system: Can generalist fostering services continue to be maintained in Australia on a volunteer basis? Or should carers be entitled to receive a payment (e.g. fee/salary/wage) as a reward/compensation for caring? This last question is not easy to answer, as the concept of paying foster carers a wage is

87 complex and controversial. Controversy over a carer-wage arises due to the nature of caring work: Should love be paid for? Carers have mixed feelings about ‘wages’ for fostering, with some adamant that they should not be paid (AFCA, 2001; Baldock, 1983; Colton and Williams, 2006; Nutt, 2006; Smith and Smith, 1990).

Linking professionalisation with pay: As noted in Chapter 2, scholars believe that contemporary foster caring has expanded from its previous substitute parenting role to a more professional approach. Carers are seen as multi-skilled specialists dealing with the complex and challenging needs of fostered children (Kirton, Beecham and Oglivie, 2003: 3.43). Care-giving in the home is seen as ‘skilled, effort intensive and productive labour’ and writers have questioned whether it is time to seriously consider compensation for this type of work (Steinberg and Figart 1999: 23; see also Nelson and England, 2002). A wage component as part of a carer remuneration package would acknowledge the skills, commitment and responsibility that carers bring to fostering, value the time it takes to provide a fostering service, and recognise the opportunity costs (foregone earnings) carers incur while fostering. In addition, better remuneration packages for carers may well ameliorate the difficulties in carer recruitment and retention.

To change the volunteer system of fostering in Australia to one where carers are paid would have a major economic impact on government welfare spending. It is also not a straightforward issue for the foster care sector. As already noted, foster carers have mixed feelings about payments for care work and, in the wider community, the concept of paying carers to foster has raised controversy (Baldock, 1983; Corrick, 1999; Kirton 2001a, b; Oldfield, 1997; Smith, 1988; Smith and Smith, 1990; Verity 1999). The controversy arises due to questions about the motivation underlying caring labour (Kirton 2001a; Swartz, 2004). If financial compensation or reward is introduced into fostering, will those who are paid to care be motivated more by the money than by the care they are expected to provide?

The relationship of money and care work in all its guises has been investigated from a number of perspectives. Over many decades, theorists from sociology, social policy, economics, politics and philosophy have crossed disciplinary boundaries in contributing to an understanding of the enduring nature of women’s unpaid and generally unsupported caring labour. The literature covers the concomitant financial

88 and emotional costs and the undervaluation (often defined as exploitation) of women’s work in both unpaid and paid care services. Five strong themes emanate from this literature:

1. Welfare states and care work: As married women’s (in particular, mothers’) labour force participation has increased, the subject of care work (paid and unpaid), as part of an analysis of welfare states, has become an established field of study by social and public policy analysts (Daly, 2002; Daly and Lewis, 2000; Daly and Rake, 2003; Daly and Standing, 200; Ungerson, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2003).

2. Feminist economics: A further body of scholarship emerged in the 1970s, from economists with a feminist perspective, critiquing the theory, methodology, and policy approaches of economics. One important branch of the critique was in the area of payments for care work focusing on the economics of care and its gender dimensions (Badgett and Folbre, 1999; England, Budig and Folbre 2001; England and Folbre 1999a, 1999b, 2003; Folbre, 2003; Himmelweit 1995, 1999, 2000, 2002; Nelson, 1999, 2006a, 2006b; Nelson and England, 2002).

3. Ethic of care: Another branch of literature, with a distinctively female-centred approach, focused on the philosophical underpinnings of an ethic of care. This work explores women’s and men’s moral and social experiences around caring relationships, and rights and responsibilities in private (family) and public (work) life. The literature aims to reconceptualise care as a fundamental aspect of all human experience and is concerned with identifying the values and norms associated with care (Deacon and Williams, 2004; Fisher and Tronto, 1990; Held, 1983, 2002, 2006; Waerness, 1984, 2005).

4. Work/family balance: A recent focus of writings on care labour is around material aspects of those who provide private,

89 unpaid care work for people with disabilities, the elderly and children. Work/care policy issues that need to be addressed include: the impact of care commitments on workforce participation for women in all age groups; and the current arrangements for financial (rebates, benefits, exemptions) and non-financial (services) support (Cass, 2002; Daly and Standing, 2001; OECD, 1999; Pocock, 2005, 2006; TOCC, 2005, 2006).

5. The care deficit: Acknowledgment that ageing populations and more women in paid work have contributed to a shortage of unpaid care workers and an increase in paid care workers has generated research interest in the ‘care sector’. This work focuses on qualifications and competencies of paid care workers and the appropriate role of states, markets and families (and the community sector) in providing care services. Of interest are training developments and pay rates of a predominantly female workforce (Folbre, 2006; Gore and Yeandle, 2002; Meagher, 2005, 2006; Meagher and Healy, 2005, 2006; Moss and Cameron, 2002).42

3.4 Approaches in theorising about paying for caring labour

All five themes outlined above illuminate many of the issues and concerns around payments for care work. Literature that is particularly useful in providing gender considerations of caring labour is that which combines feminist standpoints with economic and social perspectives on paid/unpaid care work. In the context of this thesis, feminist economists’ analysis of unpaid caring work is of particular importance as it examines how neo-classical economic theory ‘fits’ with the world of unpaid caring labour.

A review of feminist literature on caring labour found that neo-classical economic theory, with its focus on the world of rational economic man and the individual pursuit of self-interest (i.e. individualism and autonomy), paid little attention to the

42 The readings cited in these five areas are not exhaustive. They indicate some key references in the areas.

90 world of the family – it existed outside ‘the economy’. It has taken a substantial shift in family dynamics (employment of wives/mothers), accompanied by a diminution of patriarchal relations, to force a rethink on the boundaries separating the public sphere from the private world of caring:

Once it becomes apparent that the family is susceptible to economic reorganisation and change it can no longer be so easily excluded from the larger picture. Once it is included it becomes apparent that the larger economy has never been entirely based on the individual pursuit of self-interest. It has always depended on some provision of care for others, especially dependents. (Badgett and Folbre, 1999: 315)

Writers from various disciplines have introduced a number of theoretical concepts into the discourse on paying for care work, that assist in illuminating why the issue has generated widespread debate. At the heart of the debate is the issue of reconciling economic arguments for pay, while acknowledging the social and emotional aspects of affection and responsibility of caring. In theorising about paying for care work and understanding the nature of the debate, writers have addressed a number of concepts:

 caring labour;

 motivational aspects;

 dualisms and dichotomies;

 commodification; and

 public good aspect.

3.4.1 Concept of caring labour:

Writers have conceptualised caring labour as work requiring personal attention, help and support, usually on a face-to-face, first-name basis, for people who cannot care for themselves: children, the sick or elderly. An emotional dimension is also involved in caring labour implying a personal connection, a relationship between the care- provider and care-receiver. A care-provider of children, for example, is expected to

91 care for and about the child and to provide the child (care-receiver) with affection as well as attend to the child’s physical and emotional needs. Care-givers are also expected to act responsibly and have concern for the care-receiver’s welfare. For example, in the case of enhancing children’s physical and mental health, care- providers are expected to develop their capabilities (e.g. physical, cognitive and emotional skills). There are two distinct components to a model of caring labour: the ‘visible’ physical attributes (tasks and services), and the ‘invisible’ emotional aspects (respect, affection and responsibility) (Badgett and Folbre 1999; England, Budig and Folbre, 2001; England and Folbre 2003; Fisher and Tronto, 1990; Folbre 2006; Hochschild, 1995; Himmelweit 1995, 1999; Waerness, 1984).

Time aspect: Care-giving labour has both quantitative and qualitative dimensions. The time dimensions of providing care can be extensive. Tasks and activities around caring are variable in the degree of required physical and emotional intensity. Time constraints on a care-giver can limit opportunities for self-care including sleep and leisure, looking after others, doing housework and being in paid work. Long hours of caring can impact on the quality of care for a care-receiver and the health of the care- giver. As a consequence of the home-based nature of foster care work, there is no clear work/leisure distinction as is the nature of most paid employment (Anderson et al., 2005; Badgett and Folbre 1999; Fisher and Tronto, 1990; Himmelweit, 1999).

In its broadest terms care has been defined as:

A complex, contested, multilayered concept that refers not just to actions and activities, but to relationships and to values and attitudes about our responsibility for others … providing care is a physically and emotionally demanding activity, in which body work is combined with emotional labour. (Fine, 2006: 4)

3.4.2 Motivational aspects

Motivational aspects: The motivational aspects underlying caring labour have both intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions. The intrinsic motive for performing services for others (i.e. willingness to care) is defined by an emotional attachment and connection between the care-giver and care-receiver. Motivation may be based on ties of affection from long-standing kin or family relationships; it can also be more complex

92 and varied and extend outside of existing relationships and involve financial rewards (extrinsic motivation). Thus motivation to care can be based on a number of aspects:

Affection, altruism or social norms of obligation and respect … individuals often choose caring jobs [e.g. nursing, social work, teaching] because they are means of expressing caring motives as well as earning a living. (Badgett and Folbre 1999: 312-3)

Writers suggest that for some people the motivation to care arises more out of a sense of concern and responsibility rather than for any direct benefit to themselves: ‘Because people “choose” to care and the products of caring are so intangible and personal even carers may not count caring as real work’ (Himmelweit 1999: 4; see also Andersson et al., 2005; Badgett and Folbre 1999; Himmelweit 1999, 2002; Nelson, 1999).

Money (pay) and motivation: Numerous economic and psychological studies have used the ‘motivation crowding theory’ of Bruno Frey (1998) to explain how the movement of money can influence motivation. Frey’s theory discussed what happens to motivation when money is part of the exchange for labour. The theory proposed two types of motivation guiding people’s actions: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation was present when people undertook an activity simply for its own sake. However when an external or extrinsic motivator such as money payments became part of the exchange and was perceived as dominating or controlling, it crowded-out intrinsic motivation. Conversely when the movement of money was seen to be supportive, acknowledging and appreciating a person’s intrinsic motivation, it actually strengthened or crowded-in intrinsic motivation (Frey, 1998: 441).

A review of numerous studies that had applied the theory concluded that, whether money crowded ‘in’ or ‘out’, intrinsic motivation was highly dependent on the specific conditions or context of a particular study (Frey, 1998; Frey and Jegen 2001; Nelson, 1999). Two writers found many of the studies strongly predictive of a crowding-out effect were focused on:

The highly charged symbolic divide between things done for no money versus those done for money, rather than on the effects of

93 increases in pay, which are more relevant to the organisation of paid care services. (England and Folbre, 2003: 74)

The writers suggested that when an extrinsic reward, for example, a pay increase, a bonus or an award was seen as acknowledging care workers’ contributions and they felt trusted, respected and appreciated, then intrinsic motivation was likely to be enhanced. If the ‘reward’ (e.g. increased pay) had a controlling aspect and was seen by care workers as resulting in ‘close supervision or other processes that raised questions about the recipients’ abilities and threaten their self-esteem’ then intrinsic motivation might well be reduced (England and Folbre, 2003: 74).43

Intrinsic motivation, social norms and values: The movement of money may also influence other aspects of motivation such as social norms. Cultural and social embedded norms (particularly the highly gendered norm of familial obligation) are highly influential intrinsic motivators influencing values, roles and behaviours. Once internalised, shared norms, values and expectations are consciously and unconsciously adhered to, because people seek social approval, they want to belong to a particular group and have a shared identity with others. Writers suggest that in the case of women, embedded norms have assigned to them greater responsibility for the care of dependents. However, as women increasingly fill dual roles of mother/worker and mother/carer, and as social norms and expectations change, women have adopted less gender-specific norms. The increasing emphasis for some women on an orientation of mother/worker rather than mother/carer has resulted in a reduction of the availability of women to provide unpaid care for dependents (Badgett and Folbre, 1999; Himmelweit, 1995, 1999, 2000).

3.4.3 Dualisms and dichotomies

Writers have explored what they perceive as the false dichotomy between ‘love’ and ‘money’, where the motivation behind paid care work is perceived as either altruism, affection and spiritualism (love) on the one hand and materialism, self-interest and greed (money) on the other. The reality, suggests writers, is that motivation can contain dual and compatible aspects of self-interest and altruism. People providing

43 A discussion on the application of Frey’s theory to fostering is in Chapter 6.

94 care for others need money to meet the costs of caring and for rent, food and clothes. Being interested in money does not signal simply greed. Writers have noted extreme cases where the motivation to care is driven by a high degree of self interest and greed while at the other end of the continuum it is dominated by a degree of self-sacrifice to the detriment of the carer (Folbre and Nelson, 2000; Nelson, 1999; 2006b; Nelson and England, 2002; Macdonald and Merill, 2002).

In examining the low pay level of child care workers, an occupation not dissimilar to foster care, writers in a Canadian study investigated the dualisms between money (work) and love (caring) and the deep investment care workers brought to their work. Embodied in the discussion of wages for care workers were competing and incompatible vocabularies around gender and work. The writers suggested that what was needed were two vocabularies; one of recognition using the vocabulary of virtue, and the second redistribution, using the vocabulary of skill. The vocabulary of virtue emphasised the emotional content of care, nurturing capacities and willingness to make sacrifices for the benefit of others. The redistribution vocabulary mobilised around an emphasis on skills, training and credentialing. The writers found there were tensions, but also a connectedness, between ‘love’ and ‘money’ in the two perspectives. Care workers sought recognition for their value as altruistic carers and economic justice as skilled workers (Macdonald and Merrill, 2002).

The researchers characterised the overall devaluation of care-giving work as institutional misrecognition, of which there were four main features:

 a gender component (it is ‘women’s work’);

 a lack of skill recognition (conventional wisdom sees women’s work as unskilled, ‘natural’ and/or easy);

 inequitable pay rates; and

 poor status (women who care lack economic, political and social power).

The writers suggested that in revaluing care work, institutional misrecognition has to be overcome, in part because care workers have internalised the devaluation of what

95 they do and who they are. This intersubjective misrecognition has to be addressed along with the institutional misrecognition in the debate on pay for care work. Institutional recognition acknowledges that care-giving work is skilled labour and worthy of fair pay, and intersubjective recognition values the attachment and nurturing between care-providers and receivers. Important in the debate on care work is using an approach that combines the vocabularies of both skill and virtue, and recognises both the economic and the intrinsic values of care work (Macdonald and Merill, 2002: 77).

3.4.4 Commodification

The dualisms discussed above have influenced the way society views paying for care work, with some authors believing that paying for care work buys into the masculine norms of markets and commodification. In North America and Europe in mid-1990s, there was debate around the effects of marketisation and commodification of many human services. The concern was that the cold heartless world of business and profits would take away paid services’ personal and social meaning. Concern was expressed that altruism would be lost and what was once given as a ‘gift’ would now become simply another commodity (Nelson, 1999, 2006b; Nelson and England, 2002).

What was lost in the discussion, argued one scholar, was that commodification ‘is a matter of meaning … a matter of social understanding … “money” and “markets” are real with social meanings attached to them’ (Nelson, 1999:46, emphasis in the original). ‘The Market’ is a constructed model and is not a description of life, it is not in itself truly real. Real markets are:

Evolving systems of complex structured relations among multi- dimensional people. Standard economic theory would have us think that people drop their emotions, their values and even (in the case of workers) their individual will at the threshold of market interactions. By not taking this as a given we can let feminist insights into relational and emotional constitution of humans be applied also to behaviour in places where people do work for which they receive pay. (Nelson and England, 2002:11)

96 Scholars have argued that the social and moral meanings attached to caring labour do not dissipate when money is part of the exchange. The notion of responsibility as a key dimension of care work was found to be strongly associated with women’s caring work, whether paid or unpaid. Paid care workers such as home care workers for the elderly, and family day care workers, provide quality care, with workers having strong emotional attachments to the care-receivers (Badgett and Folbre, 1999).

One writer has suggested that money does not have to dominate the care relationship. It can be viewed as simply one dimension in the complex multi-faceted relationships of care-givers and care-receivers, which also includes elements of trust, affection, responsibility and appreciation (Nelson, 1999). The commodification of many facets of caring work, however, has led to concerns that it could both raise the price and lower the quality of important care services. While acknowledging this as a concern writers suggest that:

Simple resistance to commodification is no solution and we should be suspicious of any argument that decent pay demeans a noble calling. The notion that women should provide care out of the goodness of their hearts has traditionally reinforced low pay for caring occupations. (England and Folbre, 1999b: 50)

3.4.5 Public good aspect of children:

In theorising about payments for care-providers, the public good aspect of children is a critical aspect. A public good is defined as:

One that it is difficult to put a price on because it is non-excludable (someone can enjoy it without paying for it) and non-rival (one person can enjoy it without diminishing someone else’s enjoyment of it). Individuals who do not contribute to the production of a public good are likely to free ride on other people’s efforts. (England and Folbre 1999a: 195)

Writers argue persuasively that children are a public good and a community resource, and that the people who care for them need to be valued and adequately supported. Children bring numerous costs but also many benefits. The time and money devoted

97 to caring for children creates an important public good ‘whose economic benefits are enjoyed by individuals and institutions who pay, at best, a small share of the costs’. Caregivers (including foster carers) who contribute time, effort and money to developing children’s capabilities and maximising their potential, generate enormous benefits for society as a whole. Recognising children as a public good gives recognition to care work as the most profound contribution that can be made to the public good (Budig and England 2001; Cass, 2002; Donath, 1995; England and Folbre 1999a, 1994; Held, 2002).

A salient observation made by some writers, particularly pertinent in the case of foster carers, is that ‘we lack any systematic theory of what we collectively owe children and what they owe us [therefore] we lack a coherent vision of what we collectively owe those who take care of children’ (England and Folbre, 2003: 198).

This discussion on various aspects of the debate around paying for care work has highlighted the important dimensions involved in theorising paying for caring labour. The literature covered in the discussion indicates that economic, social and moral arguments for pay for care work can be reconciled. In the process of doing so, the socio/emotional aspects of affection, responsibility and personal investment that care workers bring to their job can be acknowledged and legitimised.

3.4.6 Comparative studies on countries paying foster carers a wage component

Until recently, little attempt has been made to explore the impact of financial support on carers and how being ‘paid’ to foster is perceived by carers. According to UK researchers, the place of payments to foster carers as compensation or reward for the service they provide ‘has historically been and largely remains a neglected [research] area within foster care’ (Kirton 2001a, b; Kirton, Beecham and Oglivie, 2003).

Three comparative studies have examined international developments in foster carers’ remuneration policy. Included in the studies is an analysis of policy in 10 countries where a carer-wage is paid (Colton and Williams, 1997, 2006; Oldfield, 1997). A number of studies, focusing specifically on the UK system where carers are paid a fee, have examined the impact of that fee on carers’ perceptions of financial entitlement and adequacy (Fostering Network, 2005, 2007; Kirton 2001a, b; Kirton, Beecham and

98 Oglivie, 2003; Ogilvie, Kirton and Beecham, 2006; Sinclair, Wilson and Gibbs, 2004; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill 2000).

These studies also focused on the impact of the payment regime on carer recruitment/retention, and on carer satisfaction with the payment. They found that in general the wage component was low, carers were not regarded as agency employees, few entitlements associated with employment were available to carers, and in most of the countries carer recruitment was problematic.

3.5 Theoretical and conceptual framework of the thesis

The last section of this chapter draws together the multi-theoretical framework applied in the development of this thesis. The principal aim of the thesis study is to determine adequate and appropriate levels of reimbursement for foster carers by undertaking empirical research into the direct and indirect costs of fostering. A further aim is to give consideration to the payment of a wage for foster carers in recognition of the indirect costs incurred by carers when fostering. A multi-theoretical approach is adopted as no single theory or model can address the research questions raised. A number of theoretical models have been discussed in this chapter and a combination of approaches and perspectives underlie the thesis study’s framework. The models or approaches in the theoretical framework are presented in Figure 3-1.

3.5.1 Direct costs

In examining the direct costs of fostering (Panel A in Figure 3-1), the thesis study utilises a three-step linear process: budget standards’ deductive model developed by the BSU (Saunders et al., 1998); the U.K. itemised model (Oldfield 1997); and the Foster Care Estimates (FCE) model (McHugh, 2002).

99 Figure 3-1: Theoretical framework for examining foster carer remuneration (direct and indirect costs and a carer wage)

Panel A: Direct costs Panel B: Indirect costs Panel C: A carer wage

Budget standards model Time costs(proxy good Discourse - Feminist estimating child costs: or market replacement) economic and social deductive method model theoretical approaches to paying for caring labour The normative (or IVM) Opportunity costs method for estimating child (foregone earnings) Comparative studies on costs model countries paying a carer wage component Foster care estimates model Psychological and emotional costs

The budgetary approach is considered appropriate for developing the costs of children in foster care because budget standards focus on:

 meeting the basic needs of children;

 what families should spend to meet specified minimum needs at an acceptable level;

 age categories and the gender of the children;

 disaggregating expenditure into specific components (individual items by quantity and cost) in each budget area; and

 the use of spreadsheets to allow easy adaptation of specific items in particular commodity areas to reflect any additional cost of foster children.

The normative (or IVM) method used in the UK study (Oldfield, 1997) was adapted for use in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study (McHugh, 2002). It allowed for a more sophisticated analysis of the data than the BSU deductive model, and provided a more accurate estimate of costs (see section 3.1.4). An additional feature of the budgetary model is that the estimated costs of foster care can be updated on a regular basis (using the CPI) to maintain their relevance over time.

100 3.5.2 Indirect Costs:

This thesis study also examines the indirect costs of fostering (Panel B in Figure 3-1). There are three aspects to this – time, opportunity and emotional/psychological elements. Writers in the area acknowledge the difficulty in measuring and valuing these costs but agree that they can be substantial for those who provide unpaid caring work. These costs for women are often defined as the ‘care penalty’.

Time costs and proxy good (market replacement) model: Studies in the UK and US have examined the indirect costs of fostering (Oldfield, 1997; Culley, Settles and Van Name, 1977). Oldfield’s approach used semi-structured interviews with 32 foster families. Carers were asked to describe why extra time was needed to care and to estimate this time, in the areas of personal care, general household care, travel, therapeutic care, administration, and emotional care (Oldfield, 1997: 136-137). Oldfield’s work gave estimates of the time involved in these six areas, and estimated of the value of a carer’s time. The model used to value carer-time was the proxy good or replacement cost model, and a residential care worker’s wage was used as the replacement value of a foster carer.

The areas examined by Oldfield have strong symmetry with costs for Australian carers. Other researchers (e.g. Walker, Hill and Triseliotis, 2002) who have used a market replacement model in estimating the value of a carer’s time have also used the wages for a residential care worker. This approach is also taken here, as a residential care worker is the most appropriate alternative to a foster carer.

Opportunity costs: In the UK study Oldfield mentioned carers’ opportunity costs and the emotional dimensions of fostering, but did not examine the market value of carers’ current employment nor fostering’s relational and emotional dimensions. In estimating the opportunity costs (foregone earnings) to carers, this thesis utilises an opportunity cost model that focuses on what women (mothers with dependent children) with similar characteristics to foster carers can earn. The value of this approach is that is enables an analysis of ABS data of employment and earnings of Australian women to indicate the amounts of money women who foster might have earned had they not chosen to foster.

101 Emotional and psychological costs: Without an economic model for measuring and estimating fostering’s emotional and psychological costs the aim in this area is to make visible a hidden aspect of the substantial indirect costs borne by foster carers, the love, emotion, stresses and strains that are part of the positive and negative elements of foster care. To do this the thesis provides an analysis of the data from carer interviews on the relationships involved in fostering and their emotional and psychological dimensions.

3.5.3 A Carer Wage

This thesis study is also designed to address the concept of a carer wage (Panel C in Figure 3-1). It uses literature that combines feminist standpoints with economic and social perspectives on paid/unpaid labour. The discourse illuminates why paying for care-labour is controversial and has generated widespread debate. The literature is useful in that it introduces a number of theoretical concepts in the discourse on paying for care work that can be applied to fostering.

The thesis study examines not only the discourse around paying for caring labour, but also the practice in countries where a wage component forms part of carer remuneration. Several studies in this area focus on a number of aspects closely linked to the theoretical concepts discussed in the literature on paying for caring labour: altruism, the level of carer wage, adequacy of the wage, satisfaction with the wage component, and employment entitlements. The impact on government spending of paying foster carers a wage component is also examined in this section.

In summary these models and theories guide the investigation of the costs of foster caring in Australia. The methodology adopted for the thesis is discussed in the following chapter.

102 Chapter 4 Study Methodology

4.1 Approach for studying direct costs

The data used to examine the direct costs of children comes from two sources: a study conducted in 2001-2 (The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study) which determined the direct costs of fostered children: the Foster Care Estimates (FCEs) (McHugh, 2002); and carer interviews conducted in New South Wales in 2005 for the purposes of this thesis. The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study used a budgetary approach and incorporated carer focus groups. It was nationwide and was conducted for a consortium of welfare agencies. It had two aims. The first was to contribute to an assessment of the adequacy of the basic subsidy payments to foster carers;44 the second was to incorporate costs specific to caring for foster children, in developing an appropriate level of reimbursement (basic subsidy) for carers. The study comprised two stages. The first stage (a postal survey) with 120 Directors of child welfare agencies and six foster care associations around Australia established the number and type of fostering programs provided by the surveyed agencies; the difficulties faced by carers in meeting the direct costs of fostered children; and agency perspectives on factors connected to reimbursing and supporting carers (McHugh, 2002).

The second stage had three parts:

1. the development of a set of budgets, based on the work of the BSU, estimating the direct costs of children of specific ages and each sex not in care.

2. twenty-six focus groups with carers (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) covering all Australian States. Sixteen groups were conducted in capital cities and 10 groups were held in smaller regional/rural towns. In total, 159 carers commented on the composition of the preliminary budgets of costs of children not in care in the nine budget areas. Carers suggested improvements and provided guidance on aspects of the basic estimates of the direct costs of children to reflect costs specific to fostering.

44 The Costs Study did not address the adequacy of extant higher subsidy payments (special needs loading).

103 3. the development of the Foster Care Estimate, based on the findings from the focus groups customisation of budgets and estimates of the direct costs of children in foster care.

The second source of information on fostering’s direct costs was the series of carer interviews conducted in New South Wales in 2005. In-depth qualitative interviews with carers were used to examine carer perspectives in relation to a number of aspects of fostering: carer role, motivation, and the positives and negatives of fostering. Carers also discussed their satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the payment regime and discussed any issues that were of concern to them in the nine budget areas used in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study (McHugh, 2002).

Secondary data analysis: The focus group data from The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study was re-analysed for the thesis in order to bring together common issues. Connections were made between the findings from the focus groups and from the carer interviews on the nature of direct costs. Attention was paid to any subtleties in responses or different themes emerging from the data. The aim of the discussion with the interviewed carers was to establish whether the concerns and issues around costs revealed in the focus groups in 2001-02 followed similar themes in 2005. The objective was to establish whether any new concerns had emerged in the intervening period around the costs of fostered children.

In 2000 the department of child welfare in New South Wales (DoCS) changed the payment regime (carer subsidy) for meeting direct costs from an age-related system to a flat-rate carer allowance. In 2001, the change in the payment scheme was too recent to be explored in any depth with the focus groups. Some of the carers, new to fostering, had no experience of the ‘old’ payment system and could not compare the two payment regimes. The interviews with predominantly more experienced and long- serving carers in 2005 were used to ascertain how they perceived the adequacy of the ‘new’ system, their satisfaction with the payment regime, and the overall merits of the scheme.

The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study also presented an overview of standard subsidy payments for foster carers in all States in 2000, and compared them with the FCEs determined in the study (McHugh 2002). Using the CPI, both subsidy levels and

104 the FCEs were updated in 2006. Revisiting direct costs in 2005 in this present thesis study allowed for a further analysis of the standard subsidy payments in all States, compared with the FCEs for the period 2000-2006.

4.1.1 Approach for studying indirect costs

The data from The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study revealed that caring for fostered children was extensive, demanding and stressful. Unreported data from the focus group material indicated a number of indirect costs for foster carers. Carers, usually women, generally had limited time to spend with family and friends or to pursue labour market or leisure activities. These ‘hidden’ or indirect costs of fostering, which are rarely discussed, analysed or accounted for either socially or economically, were revealed in the course of the detailed exposition and explanation of fostering’s direct costs.

Emerging from the discussions with carers was the overlapping nature of direct and indirect costs throughout all facets of fostering. For example, carers faced direct financial costs (Section 5.1.2), as well as incurring high relational and emotional costs in managing and coping with children’s health, developmental and psychological problems and challenging behaviours. In the everyday tasks and activities of daily life, the challenging behaviours and special needs of fostered children imposed substantial time demands on carers. The ‘on call’ nature of fostering, in attending meetings, appointments and health services, and being ‘available’ (often an agency requirement) to collect a child from school or child care centre because of health (or behaviour) problems, meant additional time demands on carers. Carers also incur opportunity costs because meeting the needs of foster children usually negates, or limits, labour market work. It was my interest in these more subtle but important costs that led to further research with carers on the links between fostering’s direct and indirect costs. Due to the sensitive nature of costs, particularly the emotional costs connected to fostering, face-to-face interviews were seen as the most appropriate method of discussing the issues with carers.

4.2 Qualitative interviews for studying fostering’s costs

The method used in this thesis to further explore aspects of both the direct and the indirect costs of fostering was a number of qualitative in-depth, semi-structured

105 interviews with foster mothers from within a feminist framework. The use of qualitative methods is considered particularly appropriate when gender and women’s issues are part of the inquiry. Feminist researchers have long recognised the benefits of qualitative research as a way to ‘centre in’ on the lived experience of specific groups of women (Jarviluoma, Moisala and Vilkko, 2003; Oakley 1981; Olesen, 1994; Stanley, 1990).

In relation to the nurturing and caring role, a feminist approach reveals the ‘intricate and subtle ways that women’s domestic orientation, and the expectations of others contributes to their disadvantaged or unequal position in society’ (Sprague and Zimmerman, 1993: 258; see also Ezzy 2002; Grant, Ward and Long, 1987; Sarantakos, 1993). It can be argued that there are numerous ways societies disadvantage women. One of the most distinct, a critical one for this thesis noted in Chapter 2 in relation to the provision of foster care services, is society’s failure ‘to recognise the contribution of, and thus to value and reward, the activities typically done by women’ (England, 1993: xii). The process of interviewing carers and collecting evidence on their experiences as foster carers was useful in determining how deeply this premise applied.

As a methodological tool, in-depth interviewing allows an interviewer to relate to the participants in their natural setting – their homes – and in reflecting on what was said and observed, ‘to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998: 3). In seeking to understand women who foster, a qualitative approach was appropriate, as the phenomenon being investigated was not easy to encapsulate, categorise, measure or define in advance. The use of the semi-structured interviewing technique allowed the focus to be on the subjective experiences of the women involved in the study (Ezzy 2002; Maynard, 1994: 11). The semi-structured interviewing also enabled the probing of a variety of issues and the emergence of new areas of investigation. This process of engagement allowed the women’s ideas, thoughts and memories to be accessed in their own words (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998; Ezzy, 2002).

There are a number of technical elements involved in qualitative interviewing, which rely on a researcher’s skills in displaying openness, ease of communication, and flexibility in allowing the discussion to flow according to the train of thought of the

106 participant. The quality of the interaction is seen as the salient issue (Cook and Fonow, 1990: 76). A researcher in this process does not take a neutral objective stance; rather, a reciprocal and equal relationship between researcher and participant is encouraged (Fontana and Frey, 1994). The use of empathy and reciprocity in the discussions allows participants to digress and elaborate their concerns and reveal personal feelings and emotions. Numerous feminist researchers support this approach,

[as it] provides a greater spectrum of responses and a greater insight into respondents [and] it allows them to control the sequencing and the language of the interview. This makes the interview more honest, morally sound and reliable. (Fontana and Frey, 1994: 370-1)

The aim in the interviews was to situate the women at the forefront of the discussion, to see their everyday worldview and experiences as the critical elements in the collection of the data. In stimulating discussion around topics, the women’s responses were followed up, and where appropriate, prompts were used to explore other dimensions (Sarantakos, 1993: 188). The approach was flexible and adaptive, as it was not unusual for carers to diverge from the topic being discussed and to bring up other issues or topics meant for a later stage of the interview. Adjusting the schedule to take account of unanticipated developments and differences in participants was not always easy. If it was appropriate, the dialogue continued at the carer’s discretion so as not to interrupt the thought processes of carers unnecessarily (Fontana and Frey, 1994: 364).

The central focus was on the women – they were the ‘insiders’ in the world of managing the payments they received to provide a fostering service. Fostering and money were sensitive issues for these women and often made them uncomfortable. The use of open-ended questions facilitated conversation around some delicate issues allowing carers to guide the discussion at their own pace (Reinharz, 1992; Sarantakos 1993). It was not that money per se was not important. Within the current (2005) payment regime in New South Wales the interviewed carers discussed at great length and in much detail, the difficulties they faced in meeting the needs of the children. Talking about money issues revealed the tensions and contradictions carers face in carrying out their caring role. A strong theme to emerge from the research was that, while most carers stated emphatically that they did not foster ‘for the money’, it was

107 obvious that they could not manage without it (McHugh 2002; McHugh et al., 2004; Sinclair 2005). Discussing financial issues with individual carers on a one-to-one basis allowed carers to be open in their opinions and perceptions of money matters. They made the connections between their caring responsibilities and where financial and non-financial support was important to them.

In-depth interviewing is not, however, without its problems. In the words of one writer, this approach is not a ‘soft methodological option [or] an easy form of research’ (Sarantakos 1993: 188; see also Fontana and Frey, 1994). In the carer interviews most participants welcomed the opportunity to share with an interested listener many of the ‘trials and tribulations’ associated with their fostering role. Fostering is time-consuming and demanding work, and many carers appeared to experience a lack of positive support and validation from caseworkers, and also at times from family and friends. Home-based fostering is often a lonely and isolated occupation. With some carers, the interviewer had to struggle to keep the interview focused on the relevant areas, while at the same time allowing carers to express what was of personal concern to them (often associated with strong emotions), and providing appropriate responses to their dilemmas. Concern for and becoming involved in interviewed women’s lives (if only momentarily) in the research process is an ethical dilemma faced in all qualitative research (Finch, 1984). This was certainly the case with the interviewed carers.

Interviewers require not only substantive knowledge of the area under discussion but a number of technical skills as well. One researcher describes the interviewer’s dilemma succinctly:

A qualitative interview [involves] the necessity to listen, process information, and plan the next stage of the interview simultaneously. The interviewer needs a clear knowledge of the purpose of the interview, the practical and theoretical concerns of the research and the context, which influences the respondent’s replies. (Qureshi, 1992: 109)

This present researcher’s involvement in past research studies has predominantly focused around issues of concern to women, with recent involvement in two studies

108 with foster carers (using both quantitative and qualitative approaches) (McHugh, 2002; McHugh et al., 2004). The foster care sector is predominantly female; women are more likely to be the parent from whom the child is removed; to be the main carer (foster parent) the child is placed with; and the worker whose job it is to plan and manage a child’s placement. In the thesis research (as in other research studies undertaken) there is inevitably a focus on gender that gives shape to the process of inquiry, guides the methodological approach undertaken, and to some extent influences the types of questions (or topics) used. In this thesis study, an open-ended exploration of the experiences of women who provide fostering services gave insights into how their world was organised and their identity formed, and the extent to which other aspects of their lives impinged on their opinions, perceptions and motivations associated with financial aspects of caring.

Aim of the interviews: The purpose of the interviews was to understand the direct and indirect costs of fostering from the perspective of the carers. A number of research questions were covered in the interviews.

 How do foster carers perceive their role? Has their role changed over time?  What are the positives and negatives of fostering?  What motivates carers to provide foster care?  In terms of adequacy, how well does the care allowance (subsidy) cover direct costs?  How do carers perceive the indirect costs of caring – the emotional costs, the time spent in caring and foregone earnings (opportunity costs)?  What are carers’ responses to the suggestion of being paid a wage or salary?

4.2.1 Sampling

Based on certain criteria (see below), a purposive (non-probability) sample of interviewees was selected. Interviews were arranged and conducted until the number of interviews required was obtained (Sarantakos, 1993). Due to small sample size the aim was not to generalise (in a statistical sense) the findings derived from the research. Rather, the intention was to explain the factors underlying the broad relationships emerging from the analysis of the qualitative data.

109 Budget and time constraints limited the sample to 30 active carers in and around metropolitan Sydney in New South Wales. All carers were interviewed in person. All main interviewees were female (foster fathers participated in three carer-couple interviews).

Selection criteria: The criteria for selection were: foster carers who were caring (or had cared) for their own children either at the time of the study or in the past; who had fostered children of varying ages and both sexes over a reasonable period of time (12 months or more); who were currently fostering (active carers); and who had received initial training prior to fostering.

The criteria were based on the assumption that trained carers with a sound and varied knowledge of caring over a period of time would know from their own experience the realities of fostering, and would have a practical understanding of the nature of costs, both direct and indirect. Carers fitting this profile would be able to reflect on their caring history and offer a valid perspective on the financial and non-financial support they considered essential in fostering. After spending most of the interview discussing money matters, it was anticipated that carers would be able to reflect on whether the payment of a wage or salary (reward component) for foster carers was something they might consider, and why they felt the way they did.

Kinship (related) carers, usually older maternal or paternal grandparents, predominantly single grandmothers, were not included in the research. Most studies indicate that generally kinship carers are not ‘typical’ carers. While included in the formal foster care system, they have different characteristics that set them apart from non-related carers. In New South Wales, for example, because they are usually related to the child, once they have been assessed by agencies kinship carers are not required to participate in initial or ongoing carer training and rarely have caseworkers assigned to the children in their care (McHugh 2003). Unlike non-related foster carers, kinship carers are not available to care for many different children over many years. The usual scenario for kinship carers is that they ‘only look after children and young people from their extended family or known network’ (VDHS, 2003: xiii). Furthermore it is unlikely that, compared with other foster carers, kinship carers would see themselves primarily as ‘carers’ or to be pursuing a ‘career’ in fostering. Rather, they would

110 identify themselves as a relation who has been obliged to become a parent (usually to their grandchildren) (Goodnew and Laverty, 2003; Mason et al., 2002).

Gaining access to participants: Organisations such as the New South Wales Foster Care Association (FCA), the Foster Parent Support Network (FPSN) and the Aboriginal Statewide Foster Carer Support Services (AFFCSS), who have assisted me in previous studies, agreed to facilitate access to foster carers (Indigenous and non- Indigenous). Both the FCA and ASFCSS run support groups, provide training for foster carers, operate web sites, and produce regular newsletters. This made it relatively easy to utilise their resources, to explain the purpose of the research, and to invite carers in and around Sydney to take part in the interviews.

Potential interviewees were sent a letter providing them with information on my research background, including previous studies with foster carers (Appendix A.1). The letter also explained that ethics approval to conduct the interviews had been received and that there was a requirement for informed consent from all carers participating in the study. On the back of the information sheet was a mini-time-diary. The purpose of the mini-diary was to assist carers with thinking about the time it takes to care in various areas of fostering that was different to the time taken with their own children, and to write down these estimates prior to the interview (Appendix A.2). A phone number was provided so participants could make contact to find out more about the research, to allay any fears about confidentiality/privacy issues, and to arrange a date, time and place for an interview. Closer to the time of the interview, it was confirmed and participants were informed about its length (approximately 1-1 ½ hours) and the payment carers would receive for participating in the interview process. As is the common practice in research to reimburse fieldwork participants, all interviewees were given a $50 gift voucher as compensation for their time. Carers were also asked, on the phone and at time of interview, if they were willing to have the discussion taped.

Of the 30 carers interviewed, 20 were non-Indigenous and 10 Indigenous, and 26 fostered for the New South Wales, Department of Community Services (DoCS), three fostered through agencies run by non-government organisations (NGO); and one Indigenous carer fostered three children through DoCS and two through an NGO.

111 Twenty mothers were married, four of whom were Indigenous and 16 non- Indigenous. Of the ten single parents, six were Indigenous and four non-Indigenous.

4.2.2 Interview schedule design and carer form

The design of the schedule for the carer interviews adopted a number of topics utilised in three UK studies. As well as Oldfield’s 1997 study of costs, there were two studies which explored carer motivation and remuneration (Kirton 2001a; Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003). Topics and questions from these studies were adapted and expanded to fit with the semi-structured format in the interview schedule for this current research (Appendix B.1).

Quantitative data were also obtained during the interview. Background information on household composition of carers was obtained using a short Carer Form. The form contained pre-coded categories on a small number of socio-demographic characteristics. Categories included: overall period of time fostering; overall number of children fostered; current type of care provided; number of current fostered children; time current foster children had been with carer; level of current Care Allowance; number of own children (number at home/number left home); carer age, marital and employment status (including partner’s, if couple carer); income source (salary/wages, pension or allowance, other); and occupation (including partner’s, if couple carer). The interview time, place and date were recorded on the form (Appendix B.2).

The form was completed at the beginning of the interview. Spending this initial time with the carer on their fostering background, the details of the children currently in their care, and their personal details, allowed rapport to be established and trust gained with carers – essential elements in the interview process (Fontana and Frey 1994: 367). This approach is an efficient and simple method of obtaining the data as it provides the researcher with the same useful background information on each carer. Not all writers agree with beginning interviews with a list of routine demographic questions (Patton, 1990: 295). However, as past experience in other projects indicated that the strategy worked well, it was adopted with the carers interviewed for this thesis. The technique of gathering basic information at the start of the interview did not inhibit the carers from becoming very actively involved as the interview proceeded.

112 Data from the carer form: Basic socio-demographic characteristics on carers, their families and the children they fostered was collected in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study (carer focus groups) and the 2005 thesis study (carer interviews). In neither study was an attempt made to select a representative sample of carers. For The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study, foster carer associations in designated cities/towns in Australia invited carers to attend the focus groups. For the thesis study in 2005, a purposive sample of carers in New South Wales was selected, based on the criteria mentioned above. Table 4-1 depicts the characteristics of the 189 carers from 2001 and 2005.

Table 4-1: Characteristics of Carers (2001 and 2005)

Characteristics Carers (2001) (n=159) Carers (2005) (n=30)

Female 92.6% 100.0% Male (partner) 7.4% nil Indigenous 29.0 % 33.3% Non-Indigenous 71.0% 66.7% Average age (years) 47 50 Married 80.0% 70% Single parent 20.0% 30.0% Own children 88.0% 100.0% 1-2 foster children 60.0% 56.7% Salary/wage(a) 54.0% 50.0% Income support(a) 25.5% 43.5% ‘Other’ income(b) 20.5% 6.5% Notes: (a). Main source of household income (b). In 2001 ‘other’ represented for 8 per cent of carers retirement income and for 12 per cent self-employment of husbands. In 2005 ‘other’ for 6 per cent of carers was either a combination of retirement income/pension (1 carer) or retirement income (1 carer).

On average, carers in both studies shared similar characteristics: most were female with around one-third Indigenous. Average carer age was 48 years. Most were married with 20 (2001) to 30 (2005) percent single parents. Carers in 2005 (100%) were more likely to have own children (a prerequisite for involvement in the indirect costs study) than in 2001 (88%). The principal source of family income for half of all carer families in both studies was a wage/salary of their partner/husband. In 2005 a significantly higher proportion of carers – 43.5 per cent compared to 25.5 per cent in

113 2001 – were reliant on income support as their main source of family income. In both studies most carers fostered between 1-2 children. Overall, the characteristics of carers in 2005 were, in most respects, similar to the general population of Australian carers (Section 2.4).

Piloting the schedule: The interview schedule was piloted with three selected carers to assess its relevance and appropriateness to the research inquiry. The pilot testing was valuable as it allowed time for reflecting on whether topics/questions were clear and unambiguous, and for determining the usefulness of including further questions (Janesick, 1994: 213). The piloting was an ideal time to refine and adjust the schedule design, to check whether any other areas should be included (or current ones excluded), and to gain a better understanding of the phenomena to be examined.

4.2.3 Conducting the interviews

The fieldwork was conducted in the period August – November 2005. The interview schedule (Appendix B.1) comprised 38 questions and took approximately 60-90 minutes to conduct. Prior to the administration of the questionnaire all participants completed the Carer Form containing 21 questions (Appendix B.2). The form took around five minutes to complete. Carers also read and signed the Information Statement and Consent Form for Interview Participants (Appendix C).

Most interviews occurred in a carer’s home (their choice) with one conducted, at the carer’s request, in the outdoor area of a popular take-way chain. All carers, once assured of anonymity and confidentiality, agreed to their interviews being taped. Brief reflective notes were written on the carer form after each interview was completed. These notes were useful for recording impressions, feelings, problems or ideas, or for describing physical aspects that impacted on the interview process (Cresswell, 1994).

During the interview process, all carers were encouraged to ask questions or seek clarification on the topics under discussion. Gathering information while helping carers fill in the form provided pre-knowledge in some topic areas, making it easier to lead into different parts of the interview. In ‘setting the scene’ for the later topics on indirect costs and pay for fostering, earlier questions were around the fostering role, carer motivation and payments for direct costs. Ideas and guidance on how ‘best’ to

114 approach later topics, particularly around the concept of wages for fostering, often came from what carers had said in the early part of the interview process.

What was quite striking in some interviews was the high emotional response to some topic areas, especially those associated with the relational aspects of fostering. The discussions revealed the vulnerabilities and anxieties of foster mothers in caring for children with highly complex and difficult behaviours. Their stories revealed many decidedly stressful facets of being a carer. Paradoxically, a further striking feature of the interview process was the carers’ good humour. In responding to various topics, carers indicated their ability to make light of difficult moments and to laugh at themselves. At moments of high tension their ability to see the funny side of things revealed their warmth and commonsense approach to fostering.

In examining the time costs of fostering, the fairly straightforward framework developed by Oldfield (1997) was adapted and used in the interviews. All areas of time costs used in the UK study were investigated. In addition, the time taken for carer training and support groups, a recent and growing phenomenon for Australian foster carers (McHugh et al, 2004a), was also discussed. The areas where time was taken for various tasks and activities included:

 personal care (e.g. meal, bath and bedtime);  general household activities (e.g. cleaning, laundry, maintenance and repairs);  travel;  therapeutic activities (e.g. therapies, school, homework, play and sport);  administration of the foster care placement (e.g. meetings and paper work);  emotional support (e.g. developing relationships, dealing with adjustments and counselling); and  other less frequent or one-off tasks/activities (e.g. carer support groups and training.

4.2.4 Analysing interview data

Denzin (1994: 501) suggests that the process of moving from the field to the text to the reader is complex and reflexive. In the initial stages of analysis it was simply a mater of organising and assembling the interview data into a format that would assist in interpretation and analysis. As soon as practicable after the interviews were

115 competed, they were transcribed into Word files. The procedure followed a number of systematic steps. All files were numbered and then read through completely with thoughts and ideas written down as they arose. These early notes were useful in thinking about what each particular ‘story’ was about and what the underlying meanings in the text were.

The process of generating categories and themes, and drawing out patterns from the unstructured data, began after the initial reading and thinking. An inductive approach was used in analysing the data, with categories, themes and patterns emerging from the data itself. This approach fits with Janesick’s (1994) premise that ‘finding categories and the relationships and patterns between and among categories’ is an ongoing process in data analysis (Janesick, 1994: 214-15). As themes and topics emerged from the data, multiple Word files were generated. Under the various topic areas contained in the files were the major themes arising from the data. Where appropriate, ‘quotable’ material (key phrases and statements) that were thought to encapsulate a particular (or common) theme, or that revealed multiple perspectives of participants, was marked in the files. Quotations are seen by researchers as useful in illustrating the researcher’s interpretation of data, or confirming the researcher’s analysis (Adler and Adler, 1998: 381; Morse, 1998: 232). They also provided vivid illustrations of the women’s stories in their own words.

Naming or describing categories and themes became easier as more files were de- contextualised. As topics or themes appeared to be related, they were then grouped together and re-named under different headings. An analysis of these major groups was then carried out. Minor residual topics, where appropriate, were grouped together for later integration into the re-contextualised picture emerging from the data. The approach adopted was based on the work of Janesick (1994), who suggests applying three rules of thumb for analysis and interpretation:

1) Look for the meaning and perspectives of the participants in the study. 2) Look for relationships regarding the structure, occurrence and distribution of events over time. 3) Look for points of tension: What does not fit? What are the conflicting points of evidence in the case? (Janesick, 1994: 213)

116 An ongoing and reflexive approach (Denzin 1994; Fontana and Frey 1994) was taken in the analysis of the data. In bringing the analysis together there was often problematic or contradictory data that went against the developing trends. Some data presented alternative views and did not always fit with the main story being told. Deciding what degree of emphasis to put on alternative views, while being as objective and rigorous as possible, was not always an easy task. Despite the difficulties of drafting and redrafting, the process was worthwhile as it allowed for the systematic integration of negative cases, and the contrasts of extremely different cases, that ‘inspires a more positive handling of the findings and results’ (Flick, 1998: 245).

Data Triangulation: As noted in earlier, two data sets were utilised in examining the direct costs of fostered children, one from the focus groups in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study (McHugh, 2002); the other, the carer interviews in 2005. Using two sets of data helped enrich the analysis and interpretation around categories and themes of a similar nature. A third and related set of data was an analysis of historical material, focusing on carer remuneration, discussed in Chapter 2. The historical material explaining what ‘was’, provided the context for the understanding of what is ‘now’. In an overall sense, the flow of the historical into contemporary developments in foster care indicates that, while there have been a number of subtle shifts, there has been little substantive change in the ideology and practice of how women who care for other people’s children are valued and rewarded.

This approach of using multiple data sets (or multiple methods), called ‘data triangulation’, offers the prospect of more robust findings bringing rigor, breadth, and depth to the investigation (Brannen, 1992; Denzin and Lincoln, 1998; Janesick 1994).

4.3 Research issues and challenges – reliability, validity, objectivity and ethics

Numerous writers in the field of qualitative research methods have examined conventional benchmarks for judging the goodness or quality of an inquiry. Many have focused on the positivist/post-positivist traditional criteria of reliability, validity and objectivity. Denzin and Lincoln (1998) define reliability as ‘the extent to which the findings can be replicated, or produced, by another inquirer’. They identify two types of validity: internal and external. Internal validity is ‘the degree to which findings correctly map the phenomena in question’, and external validity is ‘the

117 degree to which the findings can be generalised to other settings similar to the one in which the study occurred’. Objectivity is defined as ‘the extent to which the findings are free from bias’ (Denzin and Lincoln 1998: 100).

Since the 1950s, new interpretative qualitative perspectives have been introduced, including those using a feminist approach, and many scholars are now questioning whether the criteria suggested by the positivists/post-positivist tradition are as valid as they once were (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998; Guba and Lincoln, 1998; Janesick 1994; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Stanley, 1990). As yet, there appears to be no consensus among these writers on what ‘goodness’ criteria should be applied to qualitative research. It appears, in general, to depend on a researcher’s theoretical perspective.

Credibility and validity are important aspects of this current thesis analysis, and a feminist standpoint, similar to that of Flick (1998) and Janesick (1994), was taken on these criteria. These writers suggest that the text of qualitative research should contain a description of well thought-out methods and techniques appropriate to the questions posed. Readers should have a good understanding of the experience under study. The text should include adequate descriptive data, results or findings that complement the methods and techniques used. For this thesis the validity of the research, as expounded by Janesick (1994), meant describing and explaining the phenomena and ensuring that given explanations fitted with descriptions in the text (Janesick, 1994: 215-216). One further aspect of validation (accumulative validation) used in the thesis was to indicate where my findings were supported by other studies in areas under discussion (Sarantakos, 1993).

For the study to be seen as credible the techniques, strategies and methods used in the research design, including the sampling strategy and the way the data was obtained, were described in detail (Flick, 1998: 244). In the data interpretation and analysis an attempt was made to ensure the integrity, validity and credibility of the findings, while being cognisant of the fact that, despite the best of intentions, there are limits to a researcher’s knowledge of all emergent areas in the study.

Understanding what was brought to the study in terms of researcher experience, qualifications and values, is an acknowledgement of the fact that despite the best of intentions, research is not essentially value-free or objective (Guba and Lincoln, 1998:

118 214; Seale, 1999: 163). Ongoing reflexivity by researchers on their own world-view or theoretical standpoint is recommended (Olesen, 1994; Stanley, 1990; Williams, 1990). These authors suggest that it is important as a researcher to understand how one’s ‘own world view’ impacts on the research process. Ongoing reflexivity allows acknowledgement to be given to a researcher’s reactions and responses to stories and experiences, and to the ways in which the researcher’s thinking and emotional involvement are a part of the research process (Williams, 1990: 255). The benefit of ongoing reflexivity allows for consideration of values and prejudices and the use of theoretical assumptions that add to the story being told.

In the context of this thesis study, reliability, as defined by the positivist/post- positivist tradition, was difficult to ensure. Due to the uniqueness of budget standards methodology, and the time and expense in conducting budget standards research, there are limitations to the extent to which it can be replicated in another context or setting. Having said that, what this thesis study did show is that being able to adapt and use various methodological approaches, in particular those from the UK study (Oldfield, 1997), and find very similar results, is a kind of reliability, but from another perspective.

Ethics: As noted above ethics approval from UNSW Ethics Committee was granted for conducting interviews with carers, and fully-informed consent was obtained from all participants. Letters of support for the research from organisations involved in supporting foster carers in New South Wales – the Association of Child Welfare Agencies (ACWA), and the FCA and ASFCSS – accompanied the ethics application. Confidentiality of the data and anonymity of participants was assured to all interviewees. The purpose of the research and the likelihood that the thesis will become a public document (electronic lodgement in a library) was explained to the participants. From a feminist standpoint (Cook and Fonow, 1990; Punch, 1998) the lived experiences of the interviewed women were central to the thesis study. My criterion in conducting the study was an ethic of caring, personal responsibility and a commitment to achieving an empathic relationship with all participants. My aim was to minimise as far as possible any intrusion into the lives of interviewed carers.

Writers suggest that most research, including feminist research, has political dimensions and consequences (Cook and Fonow, 1990; Ezzy 2002; Stanley, 1990).

119 The dissemination of the findings from the thesis is an important dimension of it. My aim is to ensure that the knowledge gained from the thesis study assists the carers involved, and other carers in the wider community, to understand and to support change that will improve the conditions under which they provide a care-giving service. To this end the results of the thesis study have been, and will continue to be, reported via conference papers, journal articles and seminars. A summary of the findings has been sent to all study participants.

120 Chapter 5 Direct Costs of Fostering

5.1 Estimating the direct costs of fostering

This chapter utilises the findings from the focus groups in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study (McHugh, 2002), and from the 2005 interviews with foster carers in New South Wales. It includes an analysis of carer perceptions of fostering’s direct costs and of the adequacy of the Care Allowance (i.e. carer subsidy). This first section provides the background to The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study.

5.1.1 Costs study in 2001-02

In estimating the direct costs of children for The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study the deductive method used in the original BSU study was replaced (as already noted) with a more comprehensive approach: Oldfield’s normative or itemised method (IVM) (Oldfield, 1997). This method involved unpacking each budget area, identifying the individual goods allocated (such as clothing, footwear and food) and assigning them to a child’s costs, and, where items were shared determining what proportion was a child’s share (using the per capita method). For some shared items a judgement was made as to whether to include a part of them as a child’s cost or not. This was a time-consuming and laborious task (I speak from experience), but it resulted in more accurate estimates than the deductive method. The 1997 BSU estimates were revised and updated to 2000 using the CPI.45 The estimates for 1997 and 2000 are shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: BSU Estimates of the Costs of Children by Age and Sex (1997 and 2000)

Age/sex in years 1997 2000 LC MBA(2) LC MBA(2) $s per week(1) Girl, age 3 83 96 92 105 Girl, age 6 99 108 109 118 Boy, age 10 114 128 126 141 Boy, age 14 127 161 140 177 Source: McHugh, 2002: 58 Notes: 1) All weekly amounts rounded to the nearest dollar. 2) The estimates exclude child care costs. LC=low cost, MBA=modest–but–adequate

45 The budgets were based on prices in Sydney (ABS, Cat No. 6401).

121 In 2001 focus-group participants were presented with the 2000 revised estimates of the costs of children at the two standards of living, LC and MBA. The costs for formal child care services allocated only to MBA households where individuals were in full- time employment, were excluded from the revised estimates.46 The costs of a boy aged 10 years (not developed in the original BSU study) were estimated, allowing for children in four age-categories to be presented to carers.47 The figures in Table 5-1 indicate that the estimates rose from 1997 to 2000. As noted previously, estimates at the LC level are lower than those at the MBA level, and all children’s costs increase as they grow older.

The budgets were presented to carers in the focus groups in a series of handouts detailing a breakdown of estimates in the nine commodity areas. These estimates were based on average, healthy children whose physical, social and material needs could be met by a range of usual goods, services and activities, in no way ‘out of the ordinary’ or special. In other words, these estimates did not reflect any costs specific to fostering. Carers in the focus groups commented on the composition of the preliminary budgets, suggesting areas of improvement and providing guidance on how the basic estimates could more accurately reflect costs specific to fostering.

Adequacy of payments in 2000-01: The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study also examined the adequacy of payment regimes by comparing the level of BSU estimates for children (not in care) with carer subsidies in all States and Territories in 2000 (Bray 2001). The comparisons were made with age-groups of children closest to the age of children in the BSU, at both the LC and the MBA standards (Table 5-2).

Comparing levels of basic subsidies to BSU estimates was (and still is) a difficult task. The comparative analysis of care-provider payments across Australia (Bray, 2001) revealed enormous inconsistencies in standard subsidy payments, in relation to which items were included and which excluded. The manner in which some items were treated also varied enormously. For example, some States provided regular

46 Research findings on Australian carers report that the majority of foster families do not comprise two-income earner couples, in full-time work, requiring formal child care services.

47 In the BSU study costs for a 10-year-old boy were estimated to a limited extent, as part of a four- child family. For the carer focus groups I developed estimates at the individual level.

122 supplementary allowances (e.g. for clothing) in addition to the carer subsidy, while other States included the same costs in the standard subsidy. A further complicating factor was that most States (but not New South Wales in 2000) grouped children into age-categories with different levels of payment (Table 5-2). 48

In 2000, most States (again, with the exception of New South Wales) were providing age-related payments with higher levels of subsidy for older children.49 Moreover, the subsidy level for various age-groups varied from State to State, there was no consistency between States in how children of different ages were grouped into categories, and the age-related brackets did not appear to reflect actual age-related costs. The comparison also highlighted the wide disparity between States in levels of the standard subsidy provided to carers. The figures in Table 5-2 indicate the considerable variation in rates of subsidy for children of similar ages. New South Wales, reimbursed all carers at one rate; Western Australia had three rates; and most other States had five different basic rates.

Adequacy in 2000: Overall, it was apparent that, even before costs specific to fostering had been factored in, most States reimbursed carers at amounts closer to the BSU LC level than to the MBA standard. In some age-categories, subsidy levels were even less than the LC standard. For example, the subsidy for a three-year-old both in Tasmania ($70) and in Victoria ($77) was less than the LC standard of $92. Only Queensland ($114) and New South Wales ($175) provided more for six-year olds, than the LC standard of $109. New South Wales ($175) was the only State providing more for a 10-year-old than the LC standard of $126. Victoria ($157) and New South Wales ($175) provided substantially more for a teenager (14-year-old) than the LC standard of $140.

There were few examples of weekly subsidies approaching the higher BSU MBA estimates. The highest level of subsidy for children of all ages was made by New South Wales: a flat rate of $175 to all carers. The rate paid by the Northern Territory

48 From July 2000, NSW changed from age-related to a flat rate payment system for all children.

49 One State, Victoria, paid slightly more for infants than for older children (2-7 years).

123 ($97) and the Australian Capital Territory ($92) for 0-4 year-olds was closest to the BSU MBA estimates for a three-year-old ($105).

Table 5-2: Levels of States’ Subsidies and BSU LC & MBA Standards by Age of Child (2000) ($ per week)

Age TAS WA NT SA VIC ACT QLD NSW BSU(1) BSU(1) LC MBA 0-1 70 89 97 85 85 92 76 175 2 70 89 97 85 77 92 93 175 3 70 89 97 85 77 92 93 175 92 105 4 70 89 97 85 77 92 93 175 5 70 89 101 91 77 105 93 175 6 70 89 101 91 77 105 114 175 109 118 7 71 97 101 91 77 105 114 175 8 71 97 120 98 93 123 114 175 9 71 97 120 98 93 123 114 175 10 72 97 120 98 93 123 114 175 126 141 11 72 97 120 98 112 123 138 175 12 83 97 136 118 112 141 138 175 13 83 142 136 118 157 141 138 175 14 90 142 136 118 157 141 138 175 140 177 15 90 142 164 145 157 171 138 175 16 90 145 164 145 157 171 129 175 17 90 145 164 145 157 171 129 175 Source: McHugh (2002, 64-73) Notes: LC=Low-cost, MBA=Modest-but-adequate. TAS = Tasmania, WA = Western Australia, NT = Northern Territory, SA = South Australia, VIC = Victoria, ACT = Australian Capital Territory, QLD = Queensland, NSW = New South Wales. 1. BSU LC & MBA estimates are from Table 5-1.

Subsidy levels for older children by the Australian Capital Territory (15-18-year- olds/$171), the Northern Territory (15-17-year-olds/$164) and Victoria (13-15+ year- olds/$157) were in the vicinity of the BSU estimates of $177 for a 14-year-old-boy. Of all the States, Tasmania reimbursed their carers at the lowest level (range from $70-$90). Hence, most standard subsidy levels across Australia in 2000 were quite low and closer to the LC than the MBA standard. In New South Wales the subsidy of $175 exceeded most BSU MBA estimates for children of all ages, but New South Wales was a special case.

124 The New South Wales payment regime (2000): In July 2000 DoCS changed its payment regime from an age-related payment to a flat-rate one of $175 per week. For the first time the subsidy was expected to cover, not only fostering’s day-to-day costs, but also a range of other costs for services required by foster children: health (i.e. medical, dental and pharmaceutical), and education and travel activities (e.g. medical appointments, tutoring, etc). After expenditure of $1000 per annum in each separate area (e.g. medical, dental, pharmaceutical, etc) for each foster child, carers could claim for additional costs. For carers of preschool-age foster children, child care costs of up to $80 per week were also to be paid by carers out of the allowance (see Appendix D).

This was a significant policy change for New South Wales. Prior to 2000, the costs of services had been covered by ‘additional allowances’ or ‘one-off grants’, known as ‘contingencies’. Contingency payments (if approved) could still be claimed but only after the $1000 ‘ceilings’ in each area had been reached. Carers with children in long- term placements could claim annually for contingency reimbursements, and carers with short-term placements could claim quarterly. At the time of the 2000 changes, there was no accountability framework set in place to find out whether or not carers were using the increased allowance to meet the health, education and child care needs of fostered children. Nor was there any way of investigating whether or not foster carers, especially those in low socio-economic circumstances (e.g. in receipt of government benefits) were able to manage these substantial additional costs without suffering financial stress. The impact of the 2000 payment regime on meeting the additional costs was raised in the interviews with carers in 2005, and discussion on the impact is included in section 5.5.

5.1.2 Carer perception of the BSU child estimates (2000)

The preliminary child estimates at both the LC and the MBA standard of living were used as a tool to facilitate the discussion on costs with the focus group participants in 2001-02. As each commodity area was discussed, carers were asked to consider whether their costs for fostered children were closer to the LC or MBA standard, and whether they thought foster care estimates should be based on LC or MBA costs.

As mentioned previously, the BSU child estimates were based on average, healthy Australian children, and it became very clear from carer discussions that foster

125 children, in general, are not average healthy children. In all groups, carers described foster children as having a range of emotional, social and physical needs, exacerbated at times by challenging and demanding behaviours. Caring for these children put enormous strain and stress on carers and resulted, not surprisingly, in additional costs.

On comparing the BSU estimates with their actual costs, carers overwhelming responded that in most commodity areas their costs were a good deal higher than even the MBA estimates, while many carers thought that the estimates at the LC standard were laughable. Some carers with younger children (i.e. two- to five-year-olds) thought they might ‘just manage’ on ‘selected’ MBA estimates (i.e. food, clothing and footwear). The opinion of the majority of carers, however, was that even the estimates at the MBA level were ‘way too low’. Overall, the BSU estimates were, on the whole, seen as completely unrealistic for meeting foster children’s needs. To understand why this was so, it was necessary to ‘unpack’ the component budgets and ask carers to provide explanations so that appropriate adjustments could be made. In the analysis of the material from all 26 focus groups, there was a remarkable consistency among carers in their delineations of the areas where costs were different for foster children, usually higher. All focus group carers agreed that the MBA costs were the most appropriate standard to use in determining the foster care estimates, and only these estimates are included in the discussion below.50

5.1.3 Methods for adjusting the BSU MBA budgets

As already noted, the approach used to adjust costs in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study was based on Oldfield’s UK study (1997), where additional direct costs to carers were identified, existing component budgets were supplemented, and additional budgets were created to cover the commodities required by fostering households. In the UK study four methods were used to reflect fostering’s specific costs. These were:

1. increasing the number and range of goods, services and activities in a number of commodity areas; 2. reducing the lifetimes for some goods;

50 A costing study of OOHC models has also suggested using median (MBA) income in recognising ‘the additional costs associated with children in care’ (Purdon, 1994: 44).

126 3. including a percentage increase to some budget estimates (e.g. energy); and 4. introducing new budgets (e.g. for gifts) for foster children (Oldfield, 1997).

Adjusting costs to reflect fostering’s costs: For The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study use was made of all four methods where it was considered appropriate to adjust costs. The additions and adjustments made in both the UK study and the Australian one were not based on representative samples of carers or grounded in statistical data, because of the dearth of research on the costs of foster children. The Australian study (The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study) marked the first attempt at developing a national standard (or benchmark) for subsidy payments that could be applied in all Australian States (McHugh, 2002).

When adaptations or adjustments were required in the BSU estimates, the changes reflected as closely as possible the circumstances, values and norms of foster carers in relation to the children they fostered. New items were described, assigned a lifetime and given a cost. Justification and explanation for each inclusion was given in each commodity area. Where appropriate, a percentage increase in the estimated cost in a particular commodity area (e.g. energy) was used to reflect the nature, behaviour and health of foster children as described in great detail by carers.

In some budget areas, such as energy, water-use or food consumption, the percentage increases applied were arbitrary, but they attempted as accurately as possible (as Oldfield put it) to ‘fit the magnitude and order expressed in pragmatic terms by foster parents’ in relation to their costs (Oldfield, 1997: 117). Adjustments and inclusions made in various budget areas are articulated throughout the discussion and are visible, transparent and contestable, and can be revised if new data becomes available.

The extra costs of caring identified by carers in the UK research evoked a sense of déjà vu. The UK study identified costs to carers for: household damage and maintenance, renovations and extensions, fuel, heating, food, clothing, household goods and services, telephone, transport, leisure goods/activities, and gifts. All the identified costs were very similar to the costs of Australian carers, and foster care allowances were generally seen by the UK carers as inadequate for meeting costs associated with fostering.

127 5.2 Using budget standards methodology to estimate of the costs of fostered children in Australia

An analysis of the two data sets from The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study and the 2005 carer interviews detected few significant variations in carers’ responses in relation to the areas where the costs for fostered children were different. There were no additional issues or concerns found in the later data; if anything, the carers in 2005 reaffirmed all the established areas where additional costs for foster child has been noted in 2001. There was however less concern expressed by carers in relation to energy cost in 2005 compared to carers in 2001. Many carers who participated in focus groups in 2001 lived in either tropical (Northern Australian States) or colder climates (Victoria and Tasmania). They had greater concerns about the cost of energy for cooling or heating than the carers interviewed in Sydney, which enjoys a more temperate climate. No carers from rural or regional areas were included in carer interviews in 2005. The focus groups with rural/regional (Indigenous and non- Indigenous) carers in 2001 found they incurred greater costs than urban carers in purchasing items (e.g. food and clothing, etc) from supermarkets and stores, accessing and arranging additional services, and in meeting costs associated with transporting children. A longer and more detailed discussion on carer costs in 2001 is included in the original report (McHugh 2002). The same flat-rate payment regime and level of payment ($175 per week) for carers in New South Wales applied in both 2001 and in 2005.

The following section describes the nine main commodity areas – housing, energy, food, clothing and footwear, household goods and services, health, transport, leisure and personal care – and explains the approach taken in adapting the BSU child estimates to more accurately reflect the cost of fostering in each area. The general discussion in each budget area reflects the perceptions of carers both in 2001 and in 2005. The costs in the discussion are for 2000 when the FCEs were developed. Changes in the levels of FCEs and carer subsidy levels in 2006 are discussed in detail in Section 5.6.51

51 Since the completion of the 2001 study, the levels of FCE and carer subsidy levels have been updated on an annual basis. There has been no updating of costs for each specific commodity area.

128 Where quotes are used, to illustrate a particular point or an issue in relation to costs, they are the voices of the carers interviewed in 2005. In the discussion of each commodity area, a brief explanation is provided of how the original BSU costs were developed; how the BSU approach ‘fitted’ (or more accurately, did not fit) with the lives, perceptions and experiences of carers; and how adjustments to BSU costs were made to better reflect the costs of fostered children, as reported by carers.

Table 5-3 presents a summary of the BSU normative costs and the FCEs. The shaded lines contain the BSU costs of children and the unshaded lines in bold text are the FCEs. The lines of italic text represent the differences between the MBA costs of children and the FCEs. Two additional estimates were developed for The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study – one for a 12-month-old infant, and one for a 14-year-old girl (not in care). Developing the infant’s budget was ground-breaking work. Prior to this, there was little useful data, either in Australia or in the UK, on the costs of an infant. Oldfield’s UK study did not include these costs but noted the ‘scope and demand for knowledge on the cost of a baby’ (Oldfield, 1997: 184). The carer focus groups were specifically asked about the costs of fostering both teenage girls and infants, and their responses informed the development of these two additional budgets for children in care. The BSU MBA costs, in 2000, for a 12-month-old and 14-year- old girl were $143.73 and $185.79 respectively, and are included in Table 5-3.

129 3: Estimates of Child Costs (BSU) and Foster Care Estimates (FCE) at the MBA Standard (December 2000)

Commodity Group (a) Housing Energy Food Clothing Household Health Transport Leisure Personal Total Goods & Care Services ($) per week e 1 BSU(a) 33.32 2.58 25.70 21.51 15.49 2.03 4.38 2.15 36.57 143.73 FCE 34.87 3.87 29.55 21.51 19.45 1.39 4.38 5.15 36.57 156.75 1.55 1.29 3.85 0.00 3.96 -.64 0.00 3.00 0.00 13.02

3 BSU(a) 33.32 2.58 28.12 12.79 9.19 2.87 2.69 11.21 2.10 104.85 FCE 44.71 3.87 32.33 12.79 25.66 2.38 2.86 14.21 17.49 156.30 11.39 1.29 4.21 0.00 16.47 -.49 .17 3.00 15.39 51.45

6 BSU(a) 33.32 2.58 35.13 14.53 11.26 3.03 2.15 14.07 2.37 118.43 FCE 44.71 3.87 40.40 14.53 27.61 2.84 8.00 23.07 2.81 167.84 11.39 1.29 5.27 0.00 16.35 -.19 5.85 9.00 .44 49.41

0 BSU(a) 33.32 2.58 46.84 15.26 22.50 2.45 1.71 13.30 2.89 140.85 FCE 44.71 3.87 53.87 15.26 39.18 2.55 7.58 26.30 3.67 196.98 11.39 1.29 7.03 0.00 16.68 .10 5.87 13.00 .78 56.13

4 BSU(a) 33.77 2.58 59.62 16.76 27.13 2.43 2.46 26.72 5.97 177.44 FCE 45.16 3.87 68.56 16.76 41.38 3.23 12.84 43.72 6.75 242.26 11.39 1.29 8.94 0.00 14.25 .80 10.38 17.00 .78 64.82

14 BSU(a) 33.77 2.58 51.87 22.84 27.40 2.43 2.46 28.85 13.59 185.79 FCE 45.16 3.87 59.65 22.84 41.38 3.23 12.84 43.33 15.79 248.09 11.39 1.29 7.78 0.00 13.78 .80 10.38 14.48 2.20 62.30 imates for the BSU are revised amounts for children’s costs based on the normative or itemised method (McHugh, 2002)

130 5.2.1 Housing

Estimations of housing costs for children in BSU MBA budgets were based on the additional cost of private rental for a couple household when an extra bedroom is required to accommodate a child. But with few foster carers in rental accommodation, this was not the most suitable option for determining housing costs. While only 14 per cent of the focus group carers rented privately and eight per cent were public renters, one-third (33%) owned their homes and close to half (44%) were paying off mortgages. With the majority (78%) either owning their own homes or paying a mortgage, housing costs for foster children were based on the costs for a couple purchasing a home (detached house).52 The costs for a child were calculated on the difference between the costs to a childless couple of a two-bedroom house, and the costs to a couple with one child in a three-bedroom house.

The BSU MBA weekly housing costs included:

 mortgage (principal/interest);  house and contents insurance;  maintenance & repair costs;  water rates (fixed charges/usage; sewerage and drainage);  council rates;  garbage collection; and  land rates.

The breakdown of housing costs into various components was useful because some components were specifically mentioned by carers as impacting on overall housing costs when fostering. Specific housing issues for carers were shortage of space (noted when more than one child was fostered), paying for extensions to accommodate additional foster children (home owners), finding larger rental accommodation (renters), excess water bills well above normal usage (home owners), general ‘wear and tear’, and problems with claiming for damage to home contents and other goods (home owners/renters).

52 All housing costs apply to Hurstville, Sydney, 1997, updated to December 2000 using the Sydney CPI. The methodology underlying housing costs can be found in Chapter 3 of the budget standards report (Saunders et al., 1998: 113-60).

131 The cost of housing per se was not an issue for most carers, but space was. For carers with no children of their own living at home, foster children were usually easily accommodated. For those with both own and foster children, existing space often had to be rearranged or adapted. At times carers’ own children had to give up their bedrooms or share with a sibling or foster child. Space sometimes became a problem when long-term foster children grew older and needed their own rooms, or where foster siblings of the same sex could not share a bedroom because of personality or behavioural problems. Taking additional foster children or sibling groups at times caused overcrowding. Alternative solutions such as building extensions, converting family rooms or garage space to bedrooms, purchasing caravans, or moving premises, were all pursued by carers. In most instances carers did this at their own expense, with only a small number receiving financial assistance from government departments to help pay the costs of additions to their existing housing or of moving to a larger house.

One carer interviewed in 2005 (married, aged 50, with six foster children) explained what was involved in accommodating the foster children as they grew up:

We’ve built upstairs, we’ve taken a mortgage out for $120,000 to build upstairs. [Did the Department help?] They actually gave us $10,000 towards the extensions. [Towards the $120,000?] The $120,000 (laughter). We’d already committed [long-term] to four of them. It was getting too bloody squashy. So it was our choice to build on.

A small number of carers mentioned having to find larger private rental accommodation and experiencing problems with real estate agents because of the number of children requiring housing space (both their own and the foster children). A single parent carer (on income support with three foster children and three children of her own) spoke about her difficulties:

It’s very hard to find someone who will take a single mum on with six kids in a nice home. [Did you have trouble with agents?] I did, I did. [Did the Department help you with the increase in the rent?]

132 No [Did you talk to them about that?] No. I didn’t even ask about the moving costs. I didn’t discuss it with the Department [DoCS].

One carer couple (in their mid-fifties on income support) in private rental had a more positive experience. They received substantial financial support from the children’s case manager when they agreed, in 2003, to the permanent placement of a sibling group of four school-age children:

(FM))53 She was a real help, she organised for us to get moved into a bigger house. (FF) So we found a place and they said, “How much difference is the rent between where you are and to this new one?” We said, it’s $90 a week. “So, OK, well, we’ll give you that”. [Have they helped in other ways?] (FF) At the beginning they paid for our removal; they paid the bond.

Wear and tear: All carers mentioned the general ‘wear and tear’ on household goods, including furniture, furnishings, electrical equipment and white goods (especially washing machines) when fostering. The need to repaint or repaper walls, and replace furniture and electrical equipment more frequently in foster children’s bedrooms, was mentioned by numerous carers. A 64-year-old Indigenous carer, fostering for 18 years, had replaced worn out items out of her own pocket:

DoCS, started me out [with furniture] but gradually over the time I’ve replaced them with newer ones. I didn’t go through DoCS; I did it myself. I think that is something they could do, replace them after a certain amount of time.

The costs for repairs and maintenance from the damage caused by foster children were well above anything carers ever experienced when their own children were growing up.54 While not all foster children exhibited destructive behaviour, numerous accounts were provided of damage ranging from minor to major. The range of

53 FM=foster mother, FF= foster father

54 Residential care workers also reported household equipment being subjected to higher ‘wear and tear’ than in ‘traditional’ households. For children in care, household goods needed to be of sufficient standard to last for several years and needed to be replaced more frequently (Purdon, 1994).

133 household items damaged or destroyed by foster children was staggering. Focus group carers spoke of having goods and money stolen by foster children and said that this was a common occurrence.

Nine carers in 2005 spoke of recent damage caused by foster children, particularly adolescents: breakages, holes in walls and carpets, doors taken off their hinges, rooms trashed, electrical appliances broken, and graffiti on walls. Some carers received financial reimbursement to replace damaged or broken items, but not all did. Worker’s responses to carer claims for damaged items were variable. Exacerbating the difficulties in making claims for damage is the lack of liability insurance coverage by the Department.

One carer, who was told by a worker to use her own household insurance cover to claim for damage, was highly indignant, saying: ‘There’s a $400 excess. Forget that!’ Other carers who had tried to claim against their own home contents policies found their insurers reluctant to cover damage by foster children, and some had met with outright refusal.

Water usage: Focus group carers had noted high water usage by foster children, though many thought this was fairly typical of all children. Excessive water use (laundry purposes) was noted in cases of bed-wetting, both foster children of all ages and those who were not toilet-trained. Carers spoke of multiple loads of daily washing: sheets, doonas, pyjamas and clothes. Higher energy costs, more frequent replacement of whitegoods (washing machines and dryers), and the purchase of additional laundry products accompanied constant laundering. Replacement of children’s mattresses and bed linen, well before their ‘use by date’, was also noted.

Carers also noted that water usage (showering/bathing, garden hoses, home swimming-pools) was ‘a form of therapy’ for foster children, with some installing swimming pools especially. Carers frequently commented that long, warm baths helped to settle some younger children’s fractious or unmanageable behaviours. Carers of sexually-abused children spoke of children ‘needing’ to shower or bathe more frequently than was required for normal cleanliness.

Estimating housing costs for foster children: The BSU estimated weekly housing cost for a child for purchaser couples at December 2000 was $33.32. This amount

134 represented the difference in weekly mortgage (principal and interest) payments on a three-bed cottage compared with payments on a two-bed cottage; with an additional amount for contents insurance to cover children’s furniture items, for increased water rates to cover children’s extra water usage, and for increased expenditure for maintenance and repairs to cover the presence of a child in the household.

‘Wear and tear’ and damage: Two approaches were used in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study to calculate the FCEs for ‘wear and tear’ and damage. The first approach utilised the BSU amount designated for ‘house repairs and maintenance’ to reflect ‘wear and tear’. In the BSU costs of housing, $14.76 (for a three-bedroom house) was allocated for weekly repairs and maintenance, and one-third ($4.92) was allotted to a child’s costs. In the case of the FCEs, the full amount of the weekly estimates for repairs and maintenance ($14.76) was assigned to a child’s costs. This increased amount of $9.84 was factored into the housing budget for foster children of all ages, excluding the 12-month-old infant.

The second approach reduced the lifetimes of some household items in the Household Goods and Services (HGS) budget (see below).

Water usage: The BSU MBA estimates for water were based on the ‘average usage per person’ as calculated by the New South Wales Water Board, with no particular attention paid to the perceived ‘higher’ usage by children (Saunders et al., 1998: 142). The cost for one child ($1.55 per week) was included in the housing costs. Many carers said their water bills were twice as high when fostering. In recognition of the requirement for additional water (bathing/laundry) for foster children, the weekly water costs were doubled ($3.10 per week), and factored into all foster children’s costs.

The extra costs for foster children under ‘Housing’ in Table 5-3, including increased allocations for repairs and maintenance (excluding the infant) and water (for all foster children), resulted in higher weekly FCEs than the BSU MBA costs. The increase for an infant is the smallest (from $33.32 to $34.87) and for children aged three, six and 10 years the estimates increase from $33.32 to $44.71. The largest increase is for 14- year-olds from $33.32 to $45.16 per week, due to an increase in contents insurance costs.

135 5.2.2 Energy

The BSU researchers found that the greatest use of energy for Australian households was for space heating and cooling, and for heating water. In addition, while spa/pool heaters and pool pumps (and bore water pumps) were used by lower proportions of the population than other electrical appliances, when they were used they consumed large quantities of electricity (Saunders et al., 1998: 165). Energy data also suggested that, compared to each additional adult, each additional child in a household added even more usage, indicating children’s higher usage of energy.

Carers found even the MBA estimates for energy budgets too low. Foster children, like most children, forgot or neglected to turn off lights, televisions, heaters and fans. For some families energy costs were higher due to the use of air conditioning for foster children with special health needs. Hot water usage (showering/laundry) for foster children meant higher energy costs as well. Energy costs for a clothes dryer were also high. Dryers were seen as a necessity, not a luxury, when fostering. Carers commonly left lights on at night for reassurance for foster children and to encourage/assist them with night-time toileting. In 2005 an interviewed care noted:

I always leave the light on if they don’t like the dark. Doesn’t matter about the electricity bill. My husband says, “Oh look at the electricity bill”. But if a child’s going to sleep better … I leave the light on. Pretty much all of them have had to sleep with the light on. They get really scared at night, when they first come.

Carers spoke also of the importance of keeping foster children busy with multiple electrical appliances, including television, videos, Playstations, computer games, and radios/ CD players. Many carers provided foster children with a radio, a television, a CD player and/or a computer (including internet access). Carers saw the utilisation of electrical appliances as a form of inexpensive entertainment for fostered children. Due to constant use and misuse however, carers found the cost of repairs or replacements of electrical goods was high.

An additional television helped one carer interviewed in 2005 to cope with difficult behaviour and to settle foster children at night. It ensured some ‘quiet’ time for herself and her husband:

136 Many of them could be going two or three hours in the evening. We can go on forever until we have to rethink. It might be putting television in their room, and agree to a time to switch off and if they don’t, you take the television out. Everything is tactics, tactics. [laughter]

Estimating the energy costs for foster children: In calculating the FCEs for weekly energy usage, the BSU estimate for all children was increased by 50 per cent to reflect foster children’s high energy costs. UK research also found that a high proportion (88%) of carers said that foster children’s energy costs were higher than their own children at a similar age, and arbitrarily increased foster children’s energy costs by a similar magnitude (Oldfield, 1997: 115, 117). The figures in the energy column in Table 5-3 below indicate that foster children’s energy costs increased from $2.58 to $3.87 per week.

5.2.3 Food

The BSU food budgets were based on items designed to meet dietary requirements for energy and nutrients for each individual, but they also reflected the usual purchasing patterns of Australian families and included small amounts of take-away and fast foods.

Most focus group carers found the MBA food budgets were close to their estimates. The purchase of additional food and drink, however, was seen as important because they provided ‘comfort’ to foster children, helping to compensate for upsetting events, and to reward for good behaviour, for attending therapy sessions, and for doing well at school. Extra treats/snacks were given to foster children to take to school to share or swap with friends, and weekly lunch orders/money for tuck shops were the norm. Carers commonly found foster children hoarding, stealing or hiding food for ‘later’, with some eating excessive amounts at meal times and others requiring additional snacks/treats between meals. A carer, in 2005, spoke of the time her two adolescent foster children commenced placement:

To start off with, what it was like … they had to protect it … as if it was their last meal … scoff it down. I’d have to tell them, “Slow

137 down a bit. It’s not going anywhere, you’re going to make yourself sick”. 55

Conversely, other carers found meal times ‘a battle’, spending inordinate amounts of time persuading and coaxing foster children to eat regular and nutritional meals. Carers with foster children with food-related conditions – assessed as ‘failure to thrive’; with inappropriate eating habits; with certain medical conditions (e.g. lactose intolerant, ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder); or dietary/religious preferences) had to cook ‘different’, often more expensive, meals.

Special baby formulas, and foods that would entice and encourage children to gain weight or acquire better eating habits, were found by carers to be expensive. Usually food wastage was higher than normal. Take-away foods and eating out, while not high-ticket food items, were important for carers, acting as a ‘break’ or respite from constant food preparation/cooking. They also assisted with children’s socialisation. Carers who facilitated regular contact with foster children’s birth families incurred additional food costs. It was common for carers to buy food and drinks when meeting at neutral venues (e.g. McDonalds).

Estimating food budgets for foster children: In light of the discussion with carers, the weekly food budgets for all foster children were increased by 15 per cent. This increase reflects the additional expenditure required in meeting special needs, addressing abnormal eating behaviours, and reimbursing carers for food/drinks purchased on contact visits.56 Figures in Table 5-3 in the food column indicate that weekly FCEs food costs were lowest for infants ($29.55 compared with the BSU $25.70), increasing substantially for teenagers (from BSU $51.87 to FCE $59.65).

5.2.4 Clothing and footwear

Clothing and footwear budgets were based on the age and sex of individual children. The budgets cover the requirements for a complete wardrobe for a 12-month period

55 Research on foster children’s eating patterns reported eating problems and food-related difficulties, often characterised by excessive eating and food hoarding (Tarren-Sweeney, 2006).

56 An alternative approach, used by Oldfield, is to base food costs on those for children in a higher age group, for example, to give children, in the age-group 0-4 a food budget suitable for 5-10-year-olds (Oldfield, 1997: 117-118). This approach was not adopted for the Australian study.

138 for home, school and leisure. One of the greatest expenses for carers was meeting the needs for foster children’s clothing and footwear. Carers reported that most children placed arrived with little or no clothing and footwear. Carers found relating to a ‘cost per week’ for this budget item difficult to comprehend because, like most parents, they purchased items at specific times, mainly when a child was placed, at the change of season, at the beginning of a school year, or following a growth spurt.

There was a great deal of variability between the States in recompensing or providing reimbursements for clothing and footwear. Some States paid an additional clothing allowance (and/or an initial establishment grant) on a regular basis but not weekly. Other States required that all clothing and footwear costs be taken out of the standard subsidy. Other States made provision for school uniforms on placement, then paid for additional uniforms on an ad hoc basis. Many carers found the period around initial placement a financially difficult period. All carers said there should be an initial establishment clothing and footwear grant for all children. One carer interviewed in 2005 commented on the poor financial assistance available to New South Wales carers on placement, particularly for children who come with ‘nothing’:

You get $75 for the child, that’s it. [Regardless of age?] Regardless of age or sex, whether it’s a baby or a teenager, it’s $75. [When do you receive your first fortnightly Care Allowance?] The first payment sometimes can take four to six weeks.57

Carers reported foster children constantly mislaying, losing, giving away, swapping or destroying clothing and footwear. Unexpected expenditure occurred for carers of children with little respect for their personal belongings (i.e. clothing and footwear). Angry or upset children cut up their clothing. Children returning from access visits often returned without various items of clothing and footwear. This budget was one of the most problematic and expensive areas for carers. Many carers thought that doubling the amounts in the BSU clothing and footwear budgets would be closer to the costs they incurred.

57 This payment of $75 is expected to cover the cost of establishing a child’s placement in an emergency. For short- to medium-term placements (up to six months), a payment of $350 per child per first four placements per year, is made. For a long-term placement up to $1,400 is available to purchase items (furniture, bedding, etc.) (DoCS, 2006g).

139 Two approaches were taken to estimate clothing and footwear costs. The first approach was to provide carers with an initial allowance (i.e. establishment grant) on placement for immediate necessities. This was to be followed by a second grant to fully outfit a child for the current season. Calculations based on the clothing/footwear budget of a teenage girl indicated that just over one-third ($446) of the estimated annual clothing budget ($1190) was required to provide a teenager initially with a modest range of essential items (Appendix E). The second grant allocated for seasonal adjustment was around $149, bringing both grants to a total of $595 or half the annual total of $1190. 58 Based on this model, two grants per foster child would approximate half the annual costs for clothing and footwear for children (based on a child’s age and sex). Initial clothing grants are part of current payment systems in six States, and the approach adopted here standardises grants to the ‘actual’ costs of individual children. Oldfield’s study also recommended an initial clothing allowance as a one-off payment at the start of a placement (Oldfield, 1997: 118).

The second approach was to include, but not increase, BSU weekly estimates for clothing/footwear for individual children. This approach ensured ongoing funds to maintain and replace items.

The figures in Table 5-3 in the clothing column indicate increasing costs as children grow, from the youngest ($12.79 for a girl aged three) to the oldest ($22.84 for a girl aged 14 years), except in the case of the infant. The higher cost for an infant reflects exponential growth in the first 12 months. Shorter lifetimes were assigned to an infant’s clothing/footwear items and extra items were included to accommodate frequent wetting and soiling. A wider range of items was allocated to a 14-year-old girl, compared to a 14-year-old boy, accounting for higher costs for the girl ($22.84) compared to the boy ($16.76).

The provision of an establishment grant for clothing plus weekly reimbursements in the budget more adequately covers costs than simply including an amount in the carer subsidy. It accommodates the need for a basic wardrobe, recognises the higher-than- usual replacement rates of clothing/footwear, and the need for extra laundering (shorter lifetimes).

58 Annual costs for a 14-year-old girl’s clothing budget = weekly costs: $22.84 X 52.14 = $1190.8.

140 5.2.5 Household Goods and Services

Of all commodity areas, the household goods and services (HGS) budget contained the largest number of separate items (400), including furniture, household furnishings, whitegoods and linen, school fees/charges, stationery and postage. As in the case of the clothing budget, carers found it difficult to relate to a weekly amount to meet children’s needs.

Carers noted that the additional ‘wear and tear’ and soiling of household goods meant more frequent carpet cleaning and replacement of soft furnishings. Also higher than usual were more frequent purchases of cleaning/disinfecting products. Children’s mattresses and bed linen were also replaced more frequently due to bed-wetting, non- toilet-trained children and destructive behaviour. Mattress and pillow protectors and spare doona/sheet sets were seen as essential additional items. Damage to furniture and fittings, curtains, blinds and bedding, and electrical equipment, was addressed by further modifying the lifetimes of a number of goods.59 Some additional cleaning products and services were included.

In estimating costs of HGS for foster children, lifetimes of some furniture items and furnishings, particularly those in constant use (by foster children), were reduced by one-third. Oldfield also reduced lifetimes for similar items in this budget area. An increased allocation for cleaning carpets and soft furnishings was included for all children except the 12-month-old infant. A single-bed waterproof mattress and pillow protector, for children 3-10 years, were added to the budget. Extra sheet sets, doonas and doona covers, and extra cotton blankets, were allocated to all children (except the infant). Increases were also made in allocations of washing powder, laundry soap, bleach and disinfectant for all children.

Repairs and maintenance of household appliances, postage and telephone costs: In all budgets the minimal weekly allocation for repairs and maintenance of household appliances was doubled (from $1.69 to $3.37). To reflect additional telephone charges (contacting workers and/or birth families) and extra postage (e.g. cards, gifts, photos

59 In the original BSU research, the assumed lifetimes of a number of items was reduced to reflect the impact of wear and tear caused by the presence of children in the household (Saunders et al., 1998).

141 for birth families), the weekly allocation was increased by one-third ($2.97 to $3.96) for all children.

School fees: Some carers sent foster children to private schools and/or obtained tutoring at their own expense. Others received additional payments to cover school expenses or tutoring. Owing to the huge variability in fees charged by private schools, and with no statistical data indicating the number of foster children in private/public schools, no changes were made to the allocation for school expenses in the budgets.60

The figures in Table 5-3 in the column HGS indicate minor increases for the infant’s FCE from $15.49 (BSU) to $19.45. Increasing costs for children in the older age groups at the BSU level reflects additional furniture items assigned for school-aged children (desks and chairs) and higher school fees and charges for older children. The differences between the BSU estimates and the FCEs in this budget are substantial. They reflect the impact of the reduced lifetimes of many items, the additional items, and increased allocations.

5.2.6 Health

The BSU health budgets were framed around the availability of Medicare, the comprehensive public health care system for all Australian citizens. But even with the availability of Medicare, ‘gap fees’ for some medical services are not uncommon and not all health services or treatments are covered by Medicare. Private health insurance is an option exercised by many Australians due to concerns over public hospital waiting lists and to cover costs not included by Medicare. The starting point in developing the indicative health budgets in the original BSU research was to determine the costs of meeting a representative range of health care needs of people (including children) in general good health (Saunders et al., 1998: 308-9).

According to carers, ‘good’ health unfortunately is not the norm for fostered children. Many carers found the BSU health care costs bore little resemblance to their costs. Costs for foster children were highly variable and depended on specific health needs being met. Not all carers had access to doctors who ‘bulk billed’, and some carers

60 School fees/charges were based on school expenses for public (government) schools in NSW.

142 paid a ‘gap’ fee (prior to the introduction of Health Care Card (HCC) for all carers of foster children).61 In some States, public dental care was free for all primary school- aged children, in others it was not.

Both studies (2001-02 and 2005) revealed that foster children had extraordinarily high and diverse medical and health needs. Foster children attended paediatricians and specialists regularly and therapies of all descriptions were utilised: speech, occupational, physiotherapy, and counselling. Carers found the costs of medications, both prescription and over-the counter, to be higher than for their own children. ‘Over the counter’ medications under $20 are expected to be met from the subsidy with more expensive items fully reimbursed. All carers with a HCC for the foster child could use the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)62 to purchase prescriptions at a reduced cost.

It was not unusual for carers to experience extensive delays in obtaining a foster child’s Medicare Card (or number) and/or a HCC, with carers paying full price for visits/prescriptions and then applying for reimbursement. Interviewed carers reported being particularly frustrated at the inability of either Medicare or DoCS to provide a card, or an identity number, for fostered children. One irate carer interviewed in 2005, who had been fostering for 15 years, questioned why ‘the system’ treated carers so badly:

[For] foster children, you’ve got to wait for up to six weeks. And they [Medicare] won’t even give you a number over the counter. And they won’t even talk to you. Sometimes the caseworker [DoCS] has to do it. If the caseworker doesn’t do it, or doesn’t follow it up, it’s bad luck.

A number of carers mentioned difficulties in obtaining dental treatment and the extensive waiting period in the public system. One carer in 2005 after having a foster child’s teeth examined was quoted $1,500 for initial dental care. Her story revealed

61 Where the Medicare scheduled fee applies no additional fee is required to be paid.

62 The Commonwealth PBS provides for greatly reduced costs for expensive medications and prescriptions.

143 the ‘less than generous’ attitude of DoCS (the Department agreed to pay only $300 of the initial costs), and her inventiveness as she ‘worked’ the system:

The only way you can get them in is if you say the child’s in pain. Now, Adam wasn’t in pain because his teeth were so chronic, so I actually lied. He had to wait six weeks for an appointment. But as soon as they saw him they said, ‘OK’. I had to lie my way into the system, because the [carer] allowance didn’t cover the shortfall and he really needed dental care.

Many carers had private health insurance. Trying to include foster children in their cover, however, was fraught with problems. In some States, some funds would cover foster children in long-term care, but others would not. Carers reliant on the public health system said that, once they got into hospital clinics, they experienced lengthy delays for appointments and long waiting periods to see specialists. When using the public health system, carers of children with high health needs commented on the extra time and stress involved.

In budget standards methodology there is almost total reliance on the public health system in meeting children’s health needs, including accessing specialists (Saunders et al., 1998). This reliance on the public health system was also adhered to in deriving the FCEs, despite its drawbacks in meeting health needs.

In estimating health costs in the original 1998 BSU study, MBA householders were not entitled to a HCC. Consequently the cost of prescriptions for these households was high (Saunders et. al., 1998: 330). As all foster carers have access to a HCC, the allowance in the FCE health budget for prescription medicine was reduced to reflect the less expensive costs. However, the BSU costs for minimal, non-prescription medications were increased by 100 per cent in the FCEs, to reflect the high cost of over-the-counter medications, a point noted by carers. The UK study also noted the poor health status of foster children, and increased the allocation for over-the-counter medications (Oldfield 1997: 125-6).

144 Reflecting foster children’s additional health needs, the FCEs included six more visits63 to the GP than were included in the BSU estimates, although these were at no cost (a HCC ensures bulk-billing). Based on additional visits to the GP, the costs of three additional prescriptions were included for all children. The BSU budgets included an annual dental check up for all children (except the infant), plus a yearly scale for children (6-, 10- and 14-year-olds). For the FCEs an additional annual visit to a private dentist for emergency dental care was included for all children (excluding the infant).

Figures in Table 5-3 in the health column indicate a slight decrease in the FCEs for children aged 1, 3 and 6 years respectively, from BSU estimates of $2.03, $2.87 and $3.03 to FCEs of $1.39, $2.38 and $2.84. For children aged 10 and 14 years respectively the FCEs are higher ($2.55 and $3.23) than the BSU MBA estimates of $2.45 and $2.43.

5.2.7 Transport

The original BSU MBA estimates of transport costs for children were minimal. They were based on the assumption that younger children attending child care centres and school were dropped off and picked up by their parents on their way to and from work.64 Very little additional travel was factored in for children, except for twice- weekly local trips (102 per year, 5km round trip) to visit friends, or to go to birthday parties, attend sports training or games, or for other leisure activities. Transport costs for GP visits were also factored in (six per year/10 km round trip), but a child’s visit to the dentist coincided with an adult visit, so no additional costs were incurred. All day trips and annual holidays were taken together as a household. A key assumption underpinning BSU transport budget was that households spent a great deal of time together in all pursuits including leisure. Consequently there were significant cost economies in children’s transport budgets (Saunders et al., 1998: 343-78).

63 The cost of extra kilometres required for additional visits to the GP are factored into the transport budget for all children.

64 In the BSU MBA households, both adults are assumed to be in full-time employment and to have one car. En route to work the six- and ten-year-olds are dropped off at before-school-care, and the three-year-old at the child care centre. After work parents pick up the children. The 14-year-old boy is assumed to catch the school bus (BSU assumed free public transport travel to and from school).

145 But for carers, the everyday cost of transport for foster children was the area of second greatest concern, after clothing costs. Petrol was mentioned as the highest cost. Carers found the estimated transport costs for children absurd. A consistent response from all, but particularly from rural carers, was that an extra tank of petrol a week, at least, was required. Access to a private vehicle was also seen as essential by most carer families.

Given the minimalist approach taken in the BSU MBA budget, it was not surprising that carers reported higher transport costs. Carers were highly reliant on their cars with many stating that they would not be able to foster without one. Carers usually drove foster children (of all ages) to and from school, because of truancy concerns, or a child’s lack of confidence, or behavioural problems, or for safety reasons. Transporting foster children to medical, dental, counselling, access visits, school and sporting activities was also seen by carers as excessive relative to their own needs. Receiving reimbursement for transport costs was highly variable and many carers spoke of the difficulties they had had in trying to claim additional costs. Some carers were told that all day-to-day transport costs were included in their standard subsidy payment and they were not entitled to any extra reimbursement.

Very few of the carers interviewed in 2005 kept a log book to claim excessive costs.65 One carer who did claim transport costs said the level of refund of 27.5 cents a kilometre was low compared to public sector workers, who were entitled to 53 cents a kilometre (NSW, OIR, 2006).66 One carer fostering for a non-government agency, with a sibling group of five long-term foster children, had been given an agency vehicle. She paid the petrol costs and the agency paid the registration and insurance. She remarked:

They were really good … they were fantastic. I’ve got to give them that.

65 In NSW, logs to record expenditure for medical, school and travel are available from DoCS (and other non-government agencies) to help carers keep track of kilometres travelled.

66 In 2001, carers spoke of being reimbursed at 23, 27 and 50 cents a kilometre (McHugh, 2002).

146 Access and contact: Many carers undertook visits to birth parents and/or the foster children’s siblings. Carers revealed the extraordinary lengths they went to in maintaining contact with members of the foster children’s birth families. Carers used annual and school holidays to take foster children interstate (or intrastate) for family visits. Such holidays were expensive, as not all costs for the foster children were covered by agencies.

Vehicles: Carers (both in 2001 and in 2005) mentioned the difficulty of fitting everyone into the family sedan. They said they either had to update their vehicles to larger ones at their own expense, or negotiate with the Department to purchase a larger vehicle. A few carers fostering large sibling groups were provided with a larger vehicle by their agency. Some carers, with the financial assistance of their agency, had purchased a larger vehicle (7-9 seater). One carer interviewed in 2005 was given $8,000 by her agency towards the purchase of a ‘good’ second-hand vehicle ($43,000). She found the $8,000 ‘helpful’ but the shortfall was substantial. In New South Wales there appeared to be a typical scenario when negotiating purchasing a larger vehicle, whereby the Department and the carer each put in half the total amount (less the trade-in price of the carer’s original vehicle). Two carers in New South Wales interviewed in 2005 said they had only received a third of the total price (less the trade-in price).

In estimating transport costs for foster children, the BSU model, based on working- couple households, was found to be inappropriate for foster carers. Use was made of another BSU model, of a household with children with no adult labour market activity. This model better reflected carers’ lifestyles as it included travel for school trips and leisure activities.67 Extra kilometres were included for foster children to cover extra GP visits. A small amount, for public transport costs ($5 per week for 50 weeks) for 14-year-old foster children was included, to cover social/sports travel on weekends.

Due to the varied nature (distances travelled, frequency and number of trips, etc.) of access and contact visits, their costs were not included. Estimating costs for large

67 BSU transport costs include the associated proportional costs of tyres, repairs, petrol and oil. The transport costs were based on an eight-year-old Toyota Corolla (Saunders et al, 1998: 347).

147 vehicles was also not possible as there was no consideration of larger vehicle costs in the BSU budgets. The figures in Table 5-3 in the transport column indicate that weekly FCEs costs for younger children (one- and three-year-olds) are similar to the BSU estimates. In covering costs for public transport and school travel, transport costs for older children increased. For children aged six, 10 and 14, weekly estimates rise from the BSU costs of $2.15, $1.71 and $2.46 to $8.00, $7.58 and $12.84 respectively for FCEs.

5.2.8 Leisure

The BSU MBA leisure budget included a range of active and passive leisure activities and goods, including books and toys, and allocations for attending movies, family outings and day trips. The cost of one week’s annual family holiday away from home was also included. The budget assumed that school-age children participated in school sports and the cost for one, out-of-school sport (i.e. soccer, netball and athletics) was included. The budget assumed households as a group would participate in walking and swimming at the beach or beach pools.68 The intention underlying the leisure budget was to provide a consistent, coherent and normatively informed framework for healthy leisure expenditure that would allow people to make their own choices within it (Saunders et al., 1998: 381).

Many focus-group carers thought the estimated costs in the MBA leisure budgets did not reflect costs associated with their foster children, particularly school-aged children. Carers were encouraged to involve foster children in a variety of leisure activities. Despite the considerable expense involved in sport participation (uniforms and fees), most carers were covering these costs from the subsidy. The cost, in 2005, for a carer with four foster children, two of whom were learning the piano, was $2,000 a year for lessons. When asked if the Department helped with costs, she laughed and said ‘No, because they said I have to do it’.

Carers saw the outlays attached to leisure as expensive and not adequately covered by the subsidy. Carers used sports and activities as physical outlets for foster children,

68 Weekly swimming (pool entry costs for a family) was included as a family activity. Allocations for sunhats, footwear, swimmers, caps and goggles were made in the clothing and footwear budgets for children, as well as shorts/skirts, T-shirts and appropriate footwear for all named sports.

148 particularly those with challenging behaviours. For a few carers the costs for particular sports and activities were included in a child’s case plan and were paid for.

Gifts: Budget standards methodology excludes any allocation for the cost of Christmas or birthday gifts. The methodology used in budget standards assumes gifts are reciprocal exchange items. This model does not work well for fostered children for whom Christmas and birthdays were occasions of ‘feast or famine’. Some children never received gifts from birth families and others received gifts from both carer and birth families. At Christmas carers often bought small gifts for foster children to give to their siblings and parents. Overall, very few carers appeared to receive any additional financial assistance to buy presents or pay for parties.

Pocket money: No allocation for pocket money was made in the BSU leisure budget. Pocket money for foster children in some States is discretionary, in others, mandatory. In most States it is included in the standard subsidy. All focus group carers thought foster children, in general, should receive pocket money.

Gifts and pocket money were considered by all the Australian carers as necessary for the well-being of foster children. Allowing foster children some discretionary money was also seen as important by UK carers as it taught children how to handle, save, spend and make value judgements about money (Oldfield, 1997: 69-71). In relation to Christmas and foster children’s birthdays the Australian carers were adamant that foster children deserved the same treatment as their own children. An approach based on a UK model was adopted for the FCE children’s leisure budgets (Tapsfield and Collier, 2005). In the leisure budgets all foster children’s budgets were allocated an amount, equal to one week’s subsidy payment, for Christmas presents and at the time of their birthday. Pocket money was included for all school-aged children. The model for pocket money was based on DoCS’ approach of allocating an amount equal to the age of the child.69 Beginning at age six, $6 weekly was allocated, with increases each year up to $14 for a 14-year-old.

69 In the 2000 NSW carer allowance scheme, foster children’s pocket money was seen as part of the fortnightly subsidy with suggested weekly amounts ‘equalling’ age of children, i.e. $5 for a 5-year- old to $15 for a 15-year-old.

149 Photos: While most households take photos of family members to record special events and family gatherings, their importance in the case of foster children cannot be over-emphasised. Carers, particularly Indigenous carers, noted that keeping ‘Life Stories’ of foster children was, for some children, the only record they would have of their childhood and adolescence.70 Developing films and sending photos to birth families as well as keeping copies for foster children was an additional expense. Buying school photos and sending copies to birth families was seen as ‘almost compulsory’. The keeping of records and photos (i.e. Life Stories) of foster children was a carer responsibility in all States, with costs expected to be paid from the subsidy. In recognition of the importance of maintaining material records and taking photos, an extra $3 per week per child was included in budgets for foster children.

The figures in Table 5-3 in the leisure column indicate that the BSU estimates for leisure were lower for the youngest child, the infant ($2.15), gradually increasing to $28.85 for a 14-year-old girl. Higher leisure amounts for older children in BSU budgets reflect the inclusion of a computer, printer and software in the original budgets. Once the estimates for foster children are included the estimates increase substantially from $5.15 for the infant up to $43.33 for the 14-year-old girl.

5.2.9 Personal care

The range of items and products in the BSU personal care budgets reflected personal care practices in Australia, and contained allocations for hair cuts and a small amount of jewellery (e.g. watches) for older children.

The BSU MBA personal care costs were seen by carers as reasonably close to their own costs. Younger children (including babies), however, were seen to have high personal care costs due to carer preference for disposable nappies. Wipes, lotions and creams were also added expenses. One interviewed carer of three preschool-aged foster children spoke of the expense of disposables:

70 Life story books enable foster children to understand their history and identity (CSC, 2000: 71-2). A study of NSW, Indigenous foster children found ‘only one of the 15 children reviewed in the study had life story work occurring’ (CSC, 2001: ix).

150 I was getting two boxes of nappies a week at one stage. That was $36 a week, plus ‘the wipes’ and they’re $13 for 240 and we’d go through one of those at least per week.

Carers commented that up to school age some foster children needed to wear ‘pull- ups’ at night.71 Wet or soiled beds were not uncommon for children up to five years. Deodorants, acne preparations, skin washes, disposable razors, menstrual products (both napkins and tampons), contraception and hairdressing, were mentioned by carers as additional personal care costs for teenage foster children. In the focus groups there was animated discussion in relation to the ‘excessive amounts’ of toothpaste, shampoos, conditioners and toilet paper used by most foster children. Australian carers similar to their counterparts in the UK study perceived high wastage in this area (Oldfield, 1997: 110-11).

In estimating FCEs personal care costs for younger foster children, pull-ups (disposable nappies) were allocated for the three-year-old. Carers in the UK study also noted foster children were later to toilet train and required the use of disposables for longer periods (Oldfield, 1997: 102).72 Although carers of older children noted their preference for brand name toiletries (i.e. deodorants), no allowance was made in the budget to reflect personal tastes. The approach adopted was to assume that pocket money (or money from earnings) would be used for preferred products. This fits with Oldfield’s (1997) notions of ‘choice’ and ‘autonomy’ in the case of young people heading towards independence. It also fits with the idea of pocket money for older children being used as a means by which children learn to exercise preference and budgeting skills (Oldfield, 1997: 71, 111).

Waste and over-usage of toiletries by children was addressed by increasing by 50 per cent the amount for shared items (e.g. soap, toothpaste, shampoo, conditioner, talcum powder) in all except the infant budgets. Figures in Table 5-3 in the personal care column indicate that the BSU estimates for children aged 6, 10 and the 14-year-old boy were the least expensive, with infants, toddlers and the teenage girl higher

71 Pull-ups are disposable padded pants for older children.

72 A full description of Personal Care Budgets is in Appendix 11A (Saunders et al., 1998).

151 reflecting their specific needs as discussed above. Disposables for young children and sanitary products for the 14-year-old girl were substantial costs. For an infant the weekly FCE was the same as the BSU estimate ($36.57). Compared to the BSU estimate, the FCE for a three-year-old was higher due to the allocation of pull-ups (from $2.10 to $17.49 per week). Other BSU children’s costs increased marginally from $2.89, $5.97 and $13.59 (BSU) to $3.67, $6.75 and $15.79 (FCE), respectively for children 6 and 10, and the 14-year-old girl.

5.2.10 The extra costs of fostered children

In summary, carer responses in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study (McHugh, 2002) were that BSU allocations to meet costs, even at the higher MBA level, were not adequate to meet the needs of foster children. The above discussion indicates that modifications were necessary to more fully reflect the costs of fostering and to ensure adequacy in meeting needs.

The figures in Table 5-3 indicate that both child estimates (BSU MBA and FCE) vary by age and sex. Variation in costs occurred mostly in those commodity areas based on individual needs, e.g. food, clothing, HGS, transport, health, leisure and personal care. Costs are more constant in commodity areas where household expenses are shared, e.g. housing and energy. In general, child estimates in individual commodity areas indicate a steady upward progression as a child’s age increased.

There are however, some exceptions. For example, an infant’s overall costs at the BSU MBA standard are higher than for all children, except 14-year-olds.73 Higher costs for clothing, personal care and HGS budgets for infants were due to a requirement for a large wardrobe of clothes. In the first 12 months, babies experience exponential growth and hence need additional clothing. In addition extra infant clothing is needed for wetting, soiling and frequent daily changes. A large range of ‘baby’ items (cot, stroller, high chair, etc) increased costs in the HGS budget, and disposable nappies and toiletries substantially increased costs in the personal care budget. An infant’s costs for personal care were higher than in any other budget area.

73 Using the HES model, Lee (1988) also found that the cost of an infant was higher than the costs of other young children (2-4 and 5-7 years) (see Table 3-2)

152 For an infant, the impact of fostering on direct costs was less than for other children’s budgets. As a consequence, the overall cost of fostering an infant is only fractionally higher ($156.75 compared to $156.30) than for the three-year old.

Total budget costs (BSU MBA and FCE) for 14-year-olds are slightly different. A teenage girl is slightly more expensive than a boy of the same age due to higher costs for personal care (sanitary products), and clothing and footwear (wider range of items), though the boy’s food budget is higher (energy requirements) than the girl’s. Overall, a 14-year-old girl’s weekly budget, compared to a boy of the same age, was $8.35 extra at BSU MBA and $5.83 for the FCE.

The figures in Table 5-3 indicate that FCEs are higher than the BSU MBA estimates in most commodity areas for children in most age groups. The one exception is the health budgets, where the availability of a HCC for carers results in minimal costs for prescription medicines, reducing estimates for younger fostered children (ages one, three and six).

The amounts of additional weekly expenditure required for children of various ages are presented in Table 5-4. The figures indicate that fostering’s extra costs are considerably more for older children: teenage boy ($64.82) and teenage girl ($62.30). The increases for the three-, six- and ten-year-olds are $51.45, $49.41 and $56.13 respectively. The increase for the infant ($13.02) is the lowest of all, reflecting minimal increases in housing, energy, food, HGS and leisure, and decreases in the health budget. The main explanation for the minimal increase of 9.06 per cent in the FCE expenditures from the BSU MBA figures for the infant was due to the exclusion for this age group of a number of costs specific to fostering for older children, i.e. costs representing ‘wear and tear’, damage, additional items and the more frequent replacement of basic household items in the housing and the HGS budgets. The percentage increase for children in older age categories is more substantial, ranging from 34 per cent for a girl aged 14 years to 49 per cent for a three-year-old.

The figures in Table 5-4 indicate that the average percentage increase in costs between children in care (FCEs) and the BSU MBA estimates is 40 per cent. The average is based on children aged three, six, 10 and 14 years only. The additional fostering costs identified for a 12-month-old infant were excluded, as they were not of

153 the same magnitude. Their inclusion would have distorted the overall average. These findings on percentage increases for The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study are lower than for the UK study, where the extra costs of fostering represented 62 per cent, 54 per cent and 51 per cent for children aged four, 10 and 16, with an overall average of 56 per cent (Oldfield, 1997:130).

Table 5-4: Extra Costs of a Foster Child by Age and Sex (December 2000)

Age group BSU(a) FCE Extra cost per week Per cent $s per week Child, age 1 143.73 156.75 13.02 9.06 Girl, age 3 104.85 156.30 51.45 49.07 Girl, age 6 118.43 167.84 49.41 41.72 Boy, age 10 140.85 196.98 56.13 39.85 Boy, age 14 177.44 242.26 64.82 36.53 Girl, age 14 185.79 248.09 62.30 33.53 Average 40.14 Notes: a) BSU estimates are revised amounts based on the normative or itemised method

The inclusion of the grants for clothing and gifts, suggested as separate but preferably mandatory payments for carers, increases the average overall percentage increase in costs for fostered children compared with children not in care, from 40.14 to 51.16 per cent (McHugh, 2002: 100).

The FCEs represent amounts suitable for setting a level of carer subsidy for fostered children of various ages, because they incorporated the additional costs associated with the day-to-day costs of fostered children in particular age categories. The FCEs do not include additional grants (for clothing or gifts). To ensure the overall adequacy of carer remuneration, it is recommended that these additional payments be made to carers at specific points in a child’s placement. These grants could be classified as ‘one-off grants’ or ‘additional allowances’.

5.3 Impact of the 2000 Carer Payment Scheme in New South Wales

When The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study (McHugh 2002) was conducted, a ‘new’ payment scheme had recently been introduced in New South Wales, and most carers, regardless of the age of the foster child, were provided with a flat rate of $175 per week per child. At the time of the carer interviews in August 2005, the subsidy

154 was still $175 per week. Over the five-year period (2000-05), despite increases in the CPI, no adjustments had been made to the level of carer subsidy. The following discussion highlights the impact on carers of the payment scheme introduced in 2000.

Carers interviewed for this thesis fostered 76 children between them and all carers received a fortnightly subsidy (allowance) from DoCS or their agency. There were three levels of care allowance (paid fortnightly to carers):

1. Standard CARE Allowance (SCA) $350.00 2. CARE+1 (CA+1) $525.00 3. CARE+2 (CA+2) $700.00.74

Higher levels of subsidy (CA+1 and CA+2) were paid to carers of children with high or special needs. For the 76 foster children in the thesis study over three-quarters (n=58) were covered by the basic rate SCA, less than one-fifth (n=13) were eligible for CA+1, and one child was eligible for CA+2 (Table 5-5).

Table 5-5: Allowance Type by Number/Per Cent of Foster Children (September 2005)

Allowance type Number of foster children Per Cent SCA 58 76.3 CA+1 13 17.1 CA+2 1 1.3 Agency payments (NGO) 4 5.3 Total 76 100.0

Three carers received through their NGO agency payments that were considerably higher than those paid by DoCS. One carer with five fostered children had three DoCS’ placements and two with an NGO agency. She received SCA for the three DoCS’ placements, and for the two NGO placements she received $600 weekly for one child and $350 weekly for the second. Another carer received $430 weekly for the one child, comprising $175 (SCA) from DoCS, and the rest made up by the Agency.

74 After the interviews were completed, the SCA was increased. In September 2005 the level of fortnightly payments was: SCA $364 (4% increase), CA+1 $546 (4% increase), and CA+2 $721 (3% increase). From 2005 the subsidy was to be adjusted annually using the CPI.

155 Another carer was paid $500 weekly by the NGO. A fourth carer received DoCS’ fortnightly payments of CA+1 for two children placed through an NGO.

5.4 Adequacy of carer payments in 2005

It was debatable at the time of the earlier study whether the New South Wales approach of setting a flat rate carer allowance (with some additional payments for some extra costs), would ensure adequacy and equity for all carers. For the purposes of the thesis adequacy is defined as the amount of money (i.e. Care Allowance) perceived by carers as reasonable in its coverage of the day-to-day costs of a foster child.

Payment adequacy, carer satisfaction with the payment regime, and the overall merits of the carer reimbursement scheme, were discussed with carers in the interviews in 2005. Carers provided a range of responses to the question of whether they thought their allowance was ‘too high’, ‘too low’ or ‘about right’. Talking about ‘money’ in relation to foster children was a sensitive topic for some. In discussing adequacy and payments more generally, several carers reiterated at several points of the interview that they did not foster for the money. As one vehemently explained:

We’ve never, ever done it for the money. The money was never an issue for us. I remember when we first started it was only $129 a fortnight. In the whole 15 years of fostering, I’ve never claimed anything [extra].

Other carers were far more at ease discussing ‘money’. For example an experienced carer (aged 59) of children with special needs provided an entirely different perspective on payment. Her agency (non-government) had experienced recruitment difficulties and after letting the carer ‘go’ in 2004 (age-related carer retirement policy) rang and said they ‘desperately’ needed her back. Compared with generalist DoCS’ carers, in 2005 she was receiving $500 weekly to foster a preschool-age child, with special needs. In relation to adequacy of her payment she said:

It’s about right now. You’ve got to do a working wage! Because I was working and I gave up work twice to start fostering. You pack up the job to do the fostering and they must pay people a working

156 wage because the best quality carers are off doing other jobs. [You don’t have a problem with carers receiving a wage?] No. A living wage, yes. Because, if not, all you’re going to get is someone who wants to ‘aunty’ a few kids, and you just don’t, not with these children.

Similarly, a carer couple (aged 56 and 57) with 14 years of fostering experience, also fostering through a non-government agency, were quite frank about why the weekly payment of $430 they received, was ‘necessary’ for their fostered child:

(FM) We wouldn’t have done it for nothing because we couldn’t have afforded to, it gave us that stability because of the financial side. You can’t have that extra tension of worrying about where the money is going to come from, it just gets too much.

Most carers receiving the basic subsidy (18) did not see it as any form of compensation or reward, the money was simply to cover the costs of the children. Several carers thought that, at times, the subsidy did not even cover basic costs. Of 10 carers receiving a higher subsidy (CA+1 or CA+2), six felt the additional amount only met the extra/special needs such as medical (including medication) and educational (private school, uniforms, tutoring) purposes. These six carers thought they had more ‘to put up with’ and did more work (e.g. education/socialisation) with children on the higher subsidies. All the carers receiving higher subsidy payments frequently mentioned the additional time required to meet foster children’s special needs. Four carers thought, somewhat tentatively, that higher payments were some sort of reward/compensation for caring for children with special needs and felt ‘justified’ in spending the extra allowance on housekeeping services or purchasing pre-cooked meals. One carer, with one own child and three foster children (two receiving CA+1) all preschool-aged, was appreciative of the extra payment but did not see it as adequate compensation:

I think it comes across as compensation, very poor compensation I might add. I think from their [DoCS] perspective it’s supposed to be compensation for your time, but it doesn’t compensate me for the extra time.

157 In relation to the adequacy of the current payments the 30 respondents interviewed fell into three groups. The first group of eight carers said the amount they received was either ‘fine’, pretty good’, ‘about right’ or ‘adequate’. While expressing a number of concerns, the second group, making up of a third of the sample (12 carers), thought the payments they received were just ‘OK’. The remaining 10 carers thought the payment they received was ‘too low’ to meet the needs of their foster children.

Five of the eight carers in the first group received higher levels of subsidy: three DoCS carers were in receipt of CA+1 ($546 per fortnight) and two carers from non- government agencies received weekly agency payments of $430 and $500 respectively. Two of the eight were single parents. One Indigenous single carer received CA+1 for two siblings, and the second single carer with three siblings received CA+1 for two children and SCA for the third. Three married carers were on the basic SCA.

None of the eight appeared to have any specific financial problems ‘managing’ on the payments received, though one married carer on SCA mentioned the high cost of prescription medicines for two of her four foster children. One carer receiving CA+1 for two foster children also received Carer Allowance from Centrelink for one of the two.75 Similar to most interviewed carers she received Family Tax Benefit Part A & B for both foster children.76 She said: ‘In that respect we feel we’re getting more than adequately paid’. A second non-government agency carer, aged 56, fostering for 14 years, was extremely positive about the financial and non-financial support provided by her agency:

With us we’re lucky. We are covered financially. I‘ve heard people getting so frustrated working for DoCS because they don’t get money for this and that, they are battling.

75 Carer Allowance is a Commonwealth income supplement for people providing care at home to a person who has a disability or severe medical condition. The Carer Allowance (March 2006, $94.70 per fortnight) is not taxed or income/assets tested (FaCSIA, 2006).

76 Family Tax Benefit (FTB) has two components. Part A is paid for dependent children up to and including 20 years of age and is based on combined family income. Part B provides extra assistance for one-income families, including sole parents. Additional assistance is also provided for children under five years. Payments are made by the Australian government (AFCA, 2006).

158 The common theme of ‘managing’ but with some difficulty was strongly evident for the second group of 12 carers. Carers made comments such as: ‘You could always do with more, couldn’t you’ and ‘It could be a little bit higher’. One married carer with five foster children all on the basic SCA said: ‘Oh look, some weeks I could tell you it’s too low. I wouldn’t ever say it’s too high’. Another with one foster child who thought ‘more would be good’ said she managed on the day-to-day allowance but if children need any extras ‘it then becomes difficult’. Most (10) in the group were married and five were Indigenous. Four carers, two married and two single parents, were reliant on income support payments. Eight married carers had a partner’s wage/salary as the main form of household income. Six of the eight female carers were also in paid work (all part-time).

In the third group (n=10) most carers were in receipt of SCA and most thought their payments were ‘too low’. Five were married and five were single parents. Four carers were Indigenous. Only one (aged 32) of the 10 had part-time employment. Overall, carers in this group were as likely to be sole parents as married, less likely to be in any paid work and more likely to be receiving basic SCA. Their areas of concern were similar to the second group. Many in this group spoke of difficulty in meeting fostered children’s health needs. The costs for education, clothing and travel for access visits were also areas of concern for three carers

5.5 Claiming for expenses in 2005

When DoCS introduced the ‘new’ carer payment system in 2000 there were new arrangements for claiming expenses. For example, for child care, medical, dental, optical, pharmaceutical and travel (to medical appointments, tutoring, etc.) carers were required, on an annual basis, to meet a proportion of the costs from the fortnightly subsidy ($1,000 for most items, $4,000 in the case of child care), before they could claim for additional amounts (Appendix D). Keeping receipts/records of expenditure for several foster children over extensive periods of time (12 months) was an arduous task. For those who did, it was not unusual for carers to say that, when they tried to claim, workers would often argue the point and at time reneged on paying for certain things. It was apparent from their stories that claiming became ‘too hard’. Some simply gave up and did not pursue what they considered were legitimate claims for additional expenses. One carer with two preschool-aged foster children

159 explained how, even when she kept a logbook, including kilometres travelled, the payment ‘system’ did not work:

It’s too dammed difficult, we started out keeping the logbook, all the extra medical and all that. By the time you have done that and got the paper work in and then you [have to] battle to try and get it claimed: “well, you didn’t really go there that time, did you?” and so we gave up.

In general, only five of the 30 carers kept track of what they spent on foster children on a weekly basis. Most carers said the subsidy payments went into their bank accounts and money was spent equally on everyone, including the foster children. One carer’s comment echoed the sentiment of many carers: ‘It’s all in together’.

Carers expressed some concern with the new payment regime, although most had not experienced severe financial strain in the last 12 months. Carers of children in long- term placements, however, where $1,000 of additional expenditure had to be paid for before any claims could be made, struggled to find the first $1000 in a 12-month period. One carer with 15 years of fostering experience explained the negative impact of the ceilings:

One thousand dollars to some families is quite a lot of money, and the $350 we get a fortnight really isn’t much, not when you’ve got a babe and you’ve got nappies and formula and they’re drug- dependent – so you’ve got morphine to buy. It’s really not a lot.

For some carers providing short-term care (ceiling of $250 a quarter applied before additional claims could be made), the system was fraught with administrative delays. One experienced carer, providing short-term care, noted the difficulties in being reimbursed for approved additional costs (e.g. tutoring or dental work), when a child had moved to another carer:

Even getting that reimbursed, like, after that $250, is a nightmare. So basically you have to pay all of that up front, and then they take months to pay any backlog. So you’re initially out of pocket a

160 massive amount. [Did you get reimbursed in the end?] Yes, most of it, yes. [But not all of it?] No. So that makes it really hard.

Carers, who had fostered under the ‘old’ system (prior to 2000), where the fortnightly subsidy was quite low, but where additional costs were met through contingency payments, preferred the old system. They thought reimbursements had been more timely. They had not needed to wait 12 months (long-term carers) before submitting a claim. It was evident through the interviews that carers would not let foster children ‘go without’; they admitted they were often ‘out of pocket’ meeting children’s additional needs. Not letting foster children ‘go without’ in some instances (i.e. meeting health needs) required a degree of ingenuity and assertiveness, as one carer (a nursing sister) explained:

The boy that was deaf actually needed grommets and hearing aids. The Department was saying he should go on the public list [which] for getting grommets is something horrific, like six months. So, because my own son had been to a really good ENT [ear, nose and throat] specialist, we went to him and he did [foster child’s] grommets free. Then he referred us to somebody else to get the hearing aids. A lot of it was done by begging and pleading. People will do things for the foster children; he [ENT specialist] was great, he was really good.

Financial hardship (in the last 12 months), though not common, did affect some carers. Six carers mentioned having to move house (i.e. rented premises) or have extensions done to accommodate foster children. Two carers received financial assistance while others managed at their own expense. A common cause of financial hardship for some carers was when foster children ‘fell out’ of the payment system. All children in long-term care are supposed to be reviewed annually. The child’s caseworker has to complete a review of the placement to ensure carers stay in the payment system. When reviews are not done in time, payments cease until the carer becomes aware of what has happened (irregular check of bank account), and notifies the Department. A single carer of three foster children, two with severe disabilities, angrily explained her experience when a child’s regular payments, ceased due to no review being carried out:

161 And if they [workers] don’t do it, the penalty is that the foster carer doesn’t get their money. They still get their salary! The worker is supposed to come and see you. The whole point of having the review is that they [DoCS] know a home visit’s been done. I’ve yet to have one [worker] come down to review for the home visit, the children aren’t being seen.

A further issue of financial distress for carers was the length of time taken for money to be paid into their bank account when a child was placed. In 2005, an experienced, single carer (Age Pensioner) spoke of waiting eight weeks before subsidy payments for two preschool-aged children (siblings) were made:

I had to ring every day to find out what was happening. This is common that your payments are late – you just have to manage. I’ve got the kids and I can’t take them anywhere because my pension only feeds us ‘keeps body and soul together’ and then they [DoCS] just say “Well you are on the computer” and you are waiting and waiting and “you’ll get paid on Thursday”, but you don’t!

5.6 Updating the foster care estimates 2000-2006

To maintain their relevance over time, the FCEs were updated from 2000 to 2006 using the CPI. The updated calculations for the period 2000 (December Quarter) to 2006 (March Quarter) indicated that the cost of living rose by 20 per cent, leading to an increase in the level of the FCEs for all children (Table 5-6).

Table 5-6: Weekly Foster Care Estimates (FCE) for Children by Age and Sex (March 2000 and 2006)

Age and sex of child FCE 2000 (December) FCE 2006 (March) ($s Per Week) Child, Age 1 156.75 180.46 Girl, Age 3 156.30 179.95 Girl, Age 6 167.84 193.23 Boy, Age 10 196.98 226.78 Boy, Age 14 242.26 278.91 Girl, Age 14 248.09 285.62

All States’ subsidy levels (March Quarter 2006) were then assessed against the 2006 FCE benchmark. A comparison of the FCEs and standard subsidy levels in 2000 for

162 all Australian States found most States (except for New South Wales) provided a level of basic subsidy well below the FCEs. Figures in Table 5-7 indicate that, as in 2000, New South Wales was the only State in 2006 where the level of subsidy for young children (ages 1 and 3 years) was more than the level of FCE. Of all the States, New South Wales provided a higher level of subsidy to their carers. However, as noted elsewhere this finding is somewhat deceptive. This is due to the additional costs carers have to meet from the subsidy, which were not included as part of the FCEs.

Table 5-7: Weekly Levels of State Subsidies and FCE by Age of Child (March 2006)

Age TAS WA NT SA VIC ACT QLD NSW FCE of Child ($ per week)(1)

1 130 119 110 92 130 117 128 182 180 3 86 119 110 92 130 117 136 182 180 6 110 119 119 98 130 133 159 182 193 10 129 151 143 106 135 156 159 182 227 14 169 188 161 128 200 179 193 182 279/286(2) Source: State Foster Carer Associations and Departmental informants (various, 2006). Notes: TAS=Tasmania, WA=Western Australia, NT=Northern Territory, SA=South Australia, VIC=Victoria, ACT=Australian Capital Territory, QLD=Queensland, NSW=New South Wales. 1. All dollars rounded. 2. $279 FCE for 14-year-old boy; $286 FCE for 14-year-old girl.

In 2006 as in 2000, the variability in subsidy levels between the States for children in all age groups was still significant (Table 5-7), with South Australia paying the lowest amounts for children in all age groups (except for a 3-year-old).

163 Table 5-8: Weekly Levels of State Subsidy by Age of Child: 2000 and 2006

Age of TAS WA NT SA VIC ACT QLD NSW child Panel A Absolute amounts (2000-2006: $ per week)

0-1 70-130 89-119 97-110 85-92 85-130 92-117 76-128 175-182 3 70-86 89-119 97-110 85-92 77-130 92-117 93-136 175-182 6 70-110 97-119 101-119 91-98 77-130 105-133 114-159 175-182 10 72-129 97-151 120-143 98-106 93-135 123-156 114-159 175-182 14 90-169 142-188 136-161 118-128 157-200 141-179 138-193 175-182 Panel B Percentage increase, 2000-2006 (%) 0-1 86 34 13 8 53 27 68 4 3 23 34 13 8 69 27 46 4 6 57 34 18 8 69 27 39 4 10 79 56 19 8 45 27 39 4 14 88 32 18 8 27 27 40 4 Notes: TAS=Tasmania, WA=Western Australia, NT=Northern Territory, SA=South Australia, VIC=Victoria, ACT=Australian Capital Territory, QLD=Queensland, NSW=New South Wales.

While most States were not providing carers with amounts equal to the FCEs, some had made substantial increases to their levels of carer subsidy over the period 2000 to 2006. Figures in Panel A in Table 5-8 indicate the increased dollar amounts in standard subsidies provided to carers by all States for 2000 and 2006. Panel B in Table 5-8 indicates the percentage difference from 2000 to 2006.77

The figures in Panel B (Table 5-8) show that most States increased their level of subsidy, between 2000 and 2006, far more than the CPI increase for their State for the period. The exceptions were South Australia (8%) and New South Wales (4%).78 Some States – South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales – took a uniform approach to increasing their level of subsidy payments. Increases in other States were more mixed and variable. Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland had the largest increases in subsidy levels.

77 Only payments for the ages of children similar to those estimated in the FCE are provided here.

78 The CPI in all States increased in the period December 2000-March 2006: Victoria (19.7%), Queensland (21.9%), South Australia (23.1%), Western Australia (21.7%), Tasmania (21%), Northern Territory (16.1%), and Australian Capital Territory (21.1%) (ABS, Cat. No. 6401.0)

164 In absolute dollar amounts, from 2000 to 2006, the gap between the lowest and the highest subsidy level provided by the States narrowed. For example, in 2000 the gap between the level of subsidy for the youngest (0-1-year-old) and oldest (14-year-old) child, in all States, was $105 and $85 respectively. In 2006 the gap for similar aged children was $90 and $54. In 2000, Tasmania had the lowest level of subsidy. In 2006, South Australia provided carers with the lowest level of subsidy.79

The significant increases in levels of carer subsidy in Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland appear to have occurred in response partly to three major reports on foster care, carer reimbursements and costs of children (McHugh, Saunders and Chalmers, 2001; VDHS, 2003, QCMC, 2004), and partly to strong lobbying by representatives of State foster care associations. A report by AFCA to delegates at the 2005 annual national foster carers conference, on the updated FCEs, stated that the CPI was being applied more consistently (usually on an annual basis) across most States. New South Wales and South Australia, however, lagged behind other States in changing their subsidy levels to more accurately reflect changes in the CPI (AFCA, 2005). Nonetheless, while progress was patchy, there were distinct improvements in the levels of carer subsidies in the period 2000-06.

New payment regime in New South Wales, 2006: The usefulness of benchmarking and updating FCEs was illustrated in September 2006, when DoCS reverted to an age- related carer payment system similar to the one discussed in The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study (McHugh, 2002). The new fortnightly payments, Statutory Care Allowances, provided carers with $374 for children aged 0-4 years; $420 for children 5-13 years; and $564 for children aged 14-17 years.80 The new rates applied both to relative/kinship and to statutory carers. The new payment levels were backdated to the beginning of the financial year (1 July 2007) and paid to all carers. Higher carer allowances were to be paid to carers of children with special needs (DoCS, 2006d).

79 In one age category, a three-year-old, Tasmania’s level of subsidy ($86) was lower than in South Australia ($92)

80 Prior to the policy change in carer payments, DoCS conducted a series of consultations with carers. Feedback from carers and findings from research (McHugh, 2002) showed that the flat rate weekly payment of $175 did not reflect teenage children’s higher costs (NSW, Docs, 2006f).

165 Contingency payments (additional financial support) that had applied prior to the 2000 changes were reintroduced. Thresholds or ceilings for additional financial support that had applied from 2000 to 2006 were removed. Extra financial support, in the form of one-off contingency payments, was to cover spending specifically for: birth family contact, child care, tutoring, dental and optical treatment, professional therapies and additional travel. Approval from a caseworker was required for all planned additional expenditure requiring reimbursement. Annual indexation of the Statutory Care Allowances was built into the new payment system (NSW DoCS, 2006f).

Reverting to an age-related payment system and increasing the levels of carer payments allows for a more accurate comparison of New South Wales subsidies and the FCEs. The estimates for six individual children, updated to June 2006, were grouped to reflect the three age groups in the new Statutory Care Allowances. Estimates for children one and three years were averaged for the age group 0-4 years; the six- and 10-year-olds for age group 5-13 years; and the two 14-year-olds for age group 14-18 years. The FCEs for these three age groups were $183, $213 and $287 (Figure 5-1).

Figure 5-1: Average Weekly FCE for Three Age Groups (June 2006) (all dollars rounded)

12 month ($183) + 3 year old ($183) = $183 (children 0-4 years) 6 year old ($196) + 10 year old ($231) = $213 (children 5-13 years) 14 year old boy ($283) +14 year old girl ($290) = $287 (children 14-18 years)

A comparison of the weekly estimates with the age-related subsidy levels (Table 5-9) indicates that the levels of Statutory Care Allowance closely reflect the levels of the FCE (June 2006) for children in the three age groups. The levels of Statutory Care Allowance – $187 (0-4 years), $210 (6-10 years), and $282 (14-17 years) – are slightly higher than the FCE for children in the youngest ($183) age group, and slightly lower for children in the older ($287) and middle age groups ($213). The variations range from $3 to $5 per week.

166 Table 5-9: NSW Statutory Care Allowances (July 2006) and FCE (June 2006) Statutory Care Allowance (July 2006) Foster Care Estimates (June 2006)

Age groups ($ per week)(1) Age groups $ per week)(1) 0-4 years 187 1-3 years (average) 183 5-13 years 210 6-10 years (average) 213 14-17 years 282 14 years (average) 287

Notes: 1. All dollars rounded.

5.7 Carer concerns around associated costs of fostering

To this point the discussion has demonstrated that budget standards methodology has the potential for factoring into subsidy payments the estimated direct costs associated with fostering for children in different age groups. There are, however, related financial issues that were of concern to carers, for example, the variable costs associated with carer insurance, and foster children’s health and transport needs. These financial concerns were multifaceted and complicated. Resolving them within the regular subsidy payment system was not seen as the most appropriate solution. The change to the payment regime in 2006 for carers in New South Wales, and the return to reimbursing carers for additional costs without first meeting ceilings, may ameliorate some of the concerns expressed by thesis carers in Section 5.4 and 5.5 above. But the associated costs in related areas discussed below are not easily addressed by a change in payment regimes, and they do need to be considered.

Home Insurance: One of the most problematic areas for Australian carers is obtaining appropriate reimbursement for property damage caused by foster children. The data from both the interviews and the focus groups indicated that some carers with Home Contents Insurance were unable to claim for damaged property items without incurring some type of penalty (e.g. increased premium), while other carers faced outright refusal for any damage claim involving fostered children. No State government appears to have resolved this problem satisfactorily for carers, with inequitable, ad hoc decisions being made by workers/managers in relation to reimbursements. Carers were resentful that there were ‘winners and losers’ but no firm policy to guide decision-making in relation to their claims for damage. Concern has also been expressed at the inability of carers to obtain insurance cover for

167 personal liability, and about the likely prospect of litigation for carers (CAFWAA, 2007: 28; Gain, Ross and Fogg, 1987: 130).

UK studies report similar problems re insurance claims, with numerous disputes and disagreements over malicious or accidental property damage by foster children generating ill-feelings and a sense of unfairness. In relation to liability insurance in England, Wales and Scotland, cover was patchy, with many carers dissatisfied with their agencies’ policies in this area (Collis and Butler, 2003; Borland, Hill and Triseliotis, 2000; Verity, 1999). In the US, a review of States’ coverage for liability insurance/damage claims by foster carers reported many studies identifying liability insurance – subsidised or provided at no cost to foster parents – as a key to retaining qualified foster parents (NRCFCPPP, 2007).

Health: Meeting the health needs of foster children is also of considerable concern to carers. Numerous national and international reports document the fact that, compared with children not in care, foster children experience more serious physical, mental and emotional health problems, many undiagnosed and untreated on entry into care (Becker, Jordon and Larsen, 2006; CREATE, 2006; DoH, 2002; Fostering Network, 2005; Jackson, Williams and Maddocks, 2000; Jones, 2006; NCB, 2005; RACP, 2006; Tapsfield and Collier, 2005; Tarren-Sweeney, 2006; Tzioumi and Nathanson, 2006; Zinn et al., 2006).

US studies have found that the fastest growing group of foster children – babies and young children – have very high rates of ‘medical illnesses, developmental delays and substantial risks for psycho-pathology’ which require extensive services (Clyman, Harden and Little, 2002: 435; Jarmon et al., 2000: 6; Robertson, 2005). Other US research suggested that hospitalisation costs and services for foster children are significantly higher than for non-foster children (Becker, Jordan, Larsen, 2006; Courtney, 1999; Geen, Sommers and Cohen, 2005).

In Australia, there is little statistical data and limited research in relation to the health status of foster children and health care costs. Two studies, in New South Wales (n=297) and South Australia (n=326), found a high incidence of poor mental health (Sawyer et al., 2007; Tarren-Sweeney and Hazell, 2006). In the South Australian study the prevalence of mental health problems for foster children was found to be

168 two- to five-times higher than in the general child and adolescent population (Sawyer et al., 2007).

A national comparative study of Australian foster children (n=364), aged 4-18 years, with high support needs who had experienced placement breakdowns, found two- thirds (65.4%) had a conduct disorder and a third (33.8%) suffered depression and/or anxiety. Over a quarter (32.4%) had a diagnosis of ADHD, 30.5 per cent had an intellectual disability, 15.7 per cent had a personality disorder or a mental illness, and 12.9 per cent had a physical disability (Osborn and Delfabbro, 2006: 47). In the period 2000-2006, there appeared to be few specific purpose programs or initiatives to meet foster children’s specific health needs, though a range of well overdue initiatives and strategies (including carer training) were in developmental stages in most Australian States (CREATE, 2006; RACP, 2006).

The important role that carers appear to play in addressing the health needs of foster children cannot be overemphasised (Miles, 1999). A study with Australian foster children (n=281) found that the carer was the main person who ensured the health needs of foster children were met (CREATE, 2006). Carers in 2005 were dismayed and at times angered at the lack of support they received around fundamental aspects in meeting children’s health needs. Most aspects had a financial aspect to them, if only indirectly. For example, carers were concerned at the poor level of financial support for over-the-counter medications; the delayed availability of foster children’s Medicare Cards; extensive delays to specialist services through the public health system; inability to include foster children in a carer’s private health fund; and inadequate information on foster children’s health issues.

Over-the-counter medications and availability of a Medicare Card: The policy in a number of Australian States is to reimburse only those costs for over-the-counter medications of $20 or more, all other costs have to be covered by the subsidy. The lack of a foster child’s Medicare Card, and delays in receiving one, were inconvenient and costly for carers. Stringent criteria introduced by the Commonwealth in 2002 for accessing medications under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme means pharmacists have to sight a child’s Medicare Card (or be provided with the Medicare number) in order for carers to obtain a reduced rate prescription, otherwise the full price has to be

169 paid. Carers can apply to their agency for reimbursement of costs but delays in payments are lengthy.

Access to specialist services and private health insurance: With lengthy waiting times for public specialist services (6-12 months), private specialist services were seen by some carers as a preferred option. In 2005 some, but not all, carers had private health insurance. For carers with private health cover, some but not all were able to include foster children on their policy. The proposal by some States to establish specific hospital clinics for foster children may well assist some carers with reasonable access to these clinics; other carers will be no better off (CREATE, 2006).

Information on foster children’s health: It is not unusual for foster children, particularly those with multiple placements, to have significant gaps in their health records (NCB, 2005). Perceived confidentiality issues have seen some carers denied adequate knowledge of fostered children’s medical and psychological background (RACP: 2006). Carers in 2005 commented on the paucity of past and current medical/psychological information, for example, immunisation records, drug and alcohol use, chronic conditions (e.g. asthma), and behaviour problems (e.g. lying, stealing, damaging property). A lack of knowledge of the psycho/medical background of a foster child can put carer families at risk, threatening their safety and security.

US and UK research studies have identified similar barriers that have prevented carers meeting foster children’s mental and physical health needs (Children’s Rights Director, 2005; CSCI, 2006; Geen, Sommer and Cohen, 2005; Hochman, Hochman and Miller 2004; Pasztor et al., 2006; Sargent and O’Brien, 2004).

Additional transport costs: Due to their highly variable nature, two substantial costs to carers in the transport budget were not included: travel for access/contact visits, and the purchase/use of larger vehicles for fostering purposes. The costs of transporting foster children to birth-family contact and access visits are a growing and additional impost on carers. Many access visits are inter-urban; others are intrastate/interstate visits with, occasionally, accommodation required for carers. Travel (kilometres covered) can be recorded in a carer logbook, though few interviewed carers appeared to do this. For those who claimed, reimbursements for travel were made at around half the rate applying to paid workers in fostering agencies (OIR, 2006). Additional

170 expenses for carers, in relation to access/contact visits, should be reimbursed in full on a similar basis as for workers in the public sector.

Larger Vehicles: In most Australian States there does not appear to be clear policy guidelines on financially assisting carers who required larger vehicles for fostering. A ‘rough and ready’ reckoning was applied in splitting the total purchase costs between carers and an agency. Some carers with the capacity to do so accepted that they needed a larger vehicle to foster, and bought one without any financial assistance. Only one Australian State, Tasmania, appears to provide a subsidy loading for transport costs. For example, for large sibling groups (3-6 children) placed together, carers received a special weekly care allowance (ranging from $105 for three children to $210 for six children) to assist with the additional costs (DHHS, 2005).

In Scotland, some authorities pay enhanced allowances (up to 100% of basic allowance) to carers of sibling groups (Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000). In Wales, a variety of schemes (car hire, low cost loans for vehicle purchase, loaning agency cars) were used to assist carers fostering 3+ children (Collis and Butler, 2003). In Oldfield’s study, calculations of foster carer weekly transport expenses, including the purchasing and running costs of larger vehicles, indicated costs approximately four times higher than that for smaller vehicles (Oldfield, 1997: 122-23).

Discussion: This chapter utilised findings from focus groups and interviews with carers on the direct costs of fostering. Explanations were provided as to how the original BSU estimates of child costs were revised (and updated) using a more sophisticated model (the IVM method) to provide more accurate estimates. A comparison of the levels of State subsidies to the revised BSU child estimates (for non-foster children) indicated that most States were providing carers with age-related amounts closer to the level of LC budgets, with few examples of payments approximating the higher MBA levels. Of all States, New South Wales was paying the highest level of carer payment, higher than most MBA estimates. This high level however was deceptive, with carers required to cover a number of additional costs (e.g. for health, education and travel). Only when ceilings ($1,000 per annum) were reached in certain expenditure areas could carers claim for additional costs. While the regular amount provided to carers ($175 per week) appeared high compared to other States, no process had been put in place to ensure carers in New South Wales,

171 particularly those in low socio-economic circumstances, were not being financially stressed in covering additional costs as they occurred.

The child estimates (for non-foster children) at both LC and MBA were discussed with carers in a series of focus groups around Australia in 2001. Carers were unanimous in agreeing that the MBA costs were closer to their costs. In a number of budget areas they opined their costs, when fostering children, were considerably higher. Based on their comments and feedback the estimates were adjusted to more closely reflect the ‘real’ costs of fostering. The chapter provides the findings on costs for foster children in all budget areas and presents these costs as the FCEs. It was suggested that the FCEs could be used as benchmarks for a basic foster carer subsidy for all Australian carers. A comparison of the FCEs and revised BSU estimates of child costs indicated the costs of fostered children are on average 40 per cent higher than the costs for other children. Other research studies on the costs of fostering report the costs for foster children as significantly higher (between 25-50 per cent) than for children not in care (Culley, Settle and Van Name 1977; Kind, 1999; Oldfield 1997; Purdon, 1994).

For the period 2000-2006 the CPI was found to be of value for updating the FCEs. The updated estimates were compared with all States’ subsidy levels in 2006. The findings indicated that there were distinct improvements in the level of subsidy, with all States increasing their levels, some well above CPI changes. By 2006 most States were updating carer subsidy levels according to changes in the CPI. In 2006 New South Wales reverted to age-related carer subsidies, reintroduced contingency payments for additional care costs, and removed all ceilings on cost to be met by carers. The new payment regime was based on the FCEs developed by the SPRC, and carer subsidies were to be updated on an annual basis. It is too early to tell whether the new payment regime introduced in 2006 is perceived as adequate by carers in New South Wales. It does however, auger well for carers that DoCS has used evidence-based research to change the payment system to better reflect the estimated costs of children in care.

The chapter also discussed carer concerns in 2001 and 2005, in a number of areas (insurance, health and transport). The complexity of these costs meant it was difficult to include them in a regular carer subsidy. These were not costs that could be easily

172 addressed by a budgetary approach; some were better dealt with on a case-by-case basis; others, such as in the insurance area, required policy change in all States to address equity issues for all Australian carers.

Whether carers in 2005 perceived their fostering payments as adequate appeared to depend, in part, on their personal financial resources (i.e. earned income from one, if not two, working parents), and/or higher levels of carer subsidy payments. If one or the other, or both, scenarios operated, then carers were more likely to perceive subsidy payments as ‘fine’ or ‘OK’. Having said that, there were four carers on income support and not working who also found their subsidy payments adequate. Satisfaction appeared to be related to past fostering experience when, for many years, they had managed on relatively low levels of carer payment.81 Three of the four were older Indigenous carers receiving the basic fortnightly SCA ($350). They had fostered for extensive periods of time 11, 18 and 23 years and, prior to 2000, had managed on fortnightly subsidy payments of $129. While expressing concerns around paying for extras (e.g. tutoring costs) they were managing on the improved 2000 subsidy level. The fourth carer on income support (a couple) received a higher level of subsidy (CA+1 for two of their three foster children) and said they also managed well.

While the sample of Indigenous carers in the thesis study was small (10 carers), the trend for some low socio-economic Indigenous carers to be managing ‘OK’ on the basic subsidy, was similar to findings from a Queensland study. Thorpe (2006) suggested that some low-income Indigenous relative (kinship) carers ‘are used to surviving on the bread line’, and as a consequence were more likely to be satisfied with the level of their allowance. Not all Indigenous carers in the Queensland study, however, were satisfied with carer payments, with some asserting that fostering should be paid as a job (Thorpe, 2006: 2006). Of the 10 Indigenous carers in the thesis study, two agreed with being paid to care, four disagreed and four were undecided.

The thesis sample also included a small number (4) of carers fostering through non- government agencies. Three received weekly amounts considerably higher than

81 Research in the UK also suggests that satisfaction with payment for carers with longer time in fostering may be due to longer-serving carers’ experiences of rises in payments over time (Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2006)

173 DoCS’ highest level of subsidy, CA+2. Their perceptions of higher payments contained elements of compensation or reward. They stated that the money provided them with financial security and financial stability. For one carer it was compensation for personal abuse, disrespect and damage to her home. Similarly 10 DoCS’ carers who received higher carer subsidy payments, CA+1 or CA+2 noted the heavier demands on their time. They thought they had more ‘to put up with’ and did more work (e.g. education/socialisation) with their fostered children. Four of the 10 suggested, somewhat tentatively, that higher payments were a type of reward/compensation. Due to extra demands on their time, they felt justified in using the payments for housekeeping services or purchasing pre-cooked meals.

Though DoCS states quite clearly that higher payments are not intended to supplement the income of the foster carers, it is understandable that costs (direct/indirect) involved in fostering cannot be kept in distinct and separate categories. Carers rarely distinguished what was spent on fostered children and what was spent elsewhere and for what purpose. If money was available (and even when it was not) carers did not let fostered children go without what they needed.

The intangible benefits to carers of higher payments, in terms of compensation/reward for their time, or a sense of financial security and stability, are salient factors. Feeling less stressed about financial issues, and having more time to attend to foster children’s needs, are positive aspects for carers and for foster children. The next Chapter (6) addresses the indirect costs of fostering for carers.

174 Chapter 6 Indirect Costs of Fostering

This chapter utilises data from face-to-face, in-depth interviews with 30 active carers in New South Wales.82 The analysis is framed around the topics from the interview schedule (see Appendix B1). Thus the first section is on carers’ initial and continuing motivation, and explores the role the subsidy plays in relation to motivation. In the second section, attention is paid to the role of foster carers, whether carers consider fostering more like ‘parenting’ or more like a ‘job’, and whether carers think they should be paid. The third section focuses on the emotional costs of fostering, and the fourth section looks at time costs: the additional time it takes the carer to provide the various tasks and activities connected to fostering. In this section, the proxy good (replacement cost) model is applied to estimate the value of carers’ time. The fifth section focuses on the opportunity costs (foregone earnings) that carers face due to constraints on labour market activity, and calculates a wage representing foregone earnings. The last section brings together the direct and indirect costs of fostering.

It was anticipated that many carers would find talking about fostering and money (payments) sensitive issues, particularly when the focus was on making connections between what they did and why, where money fitted in with their motivation, the nature of what they did (parenting or a job), and whether they should be paid to care. The time it takes to provide a fostering service, and the emotional cost associated with fostering, were also seen as highly personal individual issues most appropriately discussed on a one-to-one basis. The face-to-face interview process allowed participants time to reflect, respond and elaborate on their concerns, feelings and personal experiences in relation to fostering, money, time and emotional matters in ways that would not have been possible in other methodological approaches such as focus groups or a survey.

Characteristics of interviewed carers: In relation to their fostering careers, the 30 interviewed carers were quite diverse. The length of time carers had fostered, for one continuous period, ranged from one to 23 years. One-third (10 carers) had fostered 1-4 years; another third (10 carers) 5-14 years; and another third (10 carers) from 15-23

82 Three carer interviews were conducted with both foster parents present. While foster fathers’ contributions to caring are recognised and acknowledged, the main focus of the analysis is on female foster carers.

175 years. Five women had a ‘broken’ history of fostering, two took a break (6-12 months) for personal reasons and three because of issues related to fostering.

At the time of the interviews (August - November, 2005) two thirds (n=23) of the carers were providing one type of care only, either long-term (50%) or short- term/bridging care (26.7%).83 Three carers (10%) had both short-term and long-term placements. Four carers (13.3%) provided a mix of care types (e.g. respite, emergency and short-term). Overall, the number of children fostered by carers ranged from two to 150 in total. Around half (50%) had fostered between two to 30 children and the other half from 32 to 150 children.

Fostered children: At the time of the interviews, the carers were fostering 76 children between them. Thirty-five children (46%) were pre-school age (0-5 years) and 41 (54%) were 6-14+ years of age. Twenty-seven (36%) were Indigenous and 49 (64%) were non-Indigenous. In a small number of cases, Indigenous carers had non- Indigenous placements, and non-Indigenous carers had Indigenous placements. Just under two-thirds (19) of carers were fostering sibling groups.

Carers fostered varying numbers (1-6) of foster children (Table 6-1). Just over a quarter, 26.7 per cent (n=8) had one child; 30 per cent had (n=9) had two children; and close to one quarter (23.3%) (n=7) had three children.

Table 6-1: Number of Current Foster Children (2005)

Number of foster children Number of Carers Per Cent One child 8 26.7 Two children 9 30.0 Three children 7 23.3 Four children 2 6.7 Five children 3 10.0 Six children 1 3.3 Total 30 100.0

83 Placements designated as ‘bridging’ are those awaiting an outcome in the Children’s Court in relation to the permanency of the placement (i.e. long-term/short-term).

176 A small number of carers fostered larger groups of children. Two carers had four children, three had five, and one carer had six children.84 Those carers who were fostering larger numbers of children (4-6) were relatively experienced, with four having been fostering for between 13 to 15 years, and another two carers for four and five years. Of these six carers, three were Indigenous. Figures in Table 6-2 indicate that over a third (35%) of children had been with a carer between 0-12 months, while a quarter (25%) had been in care for 1-3 years. Over a third (39.5%) of the foster children had been with a carer for an extensive period of time: four to six years for 18 of the children, and 7+ years for 12 of the children. These figures taken at a point in time do not indicate the length of time foster children may spend in care, or the multiple placements of some children with different carers. Some children in foster care ‘cycle’ through the system, coming in and going out of care at various times during their childhood. Some experience a placement ‘breakdown’, others move from short- to long-term care (permanent carer) after a change in a Court Order. Of the 76 foster children, only four (all siblings with one carer) were related (grandchildren) to the carer (Indigenous). She had been an authorised carer for 13 years, and over that period had fostered 30 children, including her grandchildren.

Table 6-2: Time spent by foster children with foster carer (September 2005)

Time Period Number of Children Per Cent 0 - 12 months 27 35.5 1-3 years 19 25.0 4 - 6 years 18 23.7 7 years + 12 15.8 Total 76 100.0

At the time of the interview 20 carers were caring for their own dependent children plus foster children. All the own children of the remaining 10 (older) carers had left the family home. The interviewed carers had between them 37 own children living at home, and 30 who had left home. Including all own children of carers, fifteen had one or two children, five had three, four had five, one had six, and two carers had seven

84 Five foster children (siblings) of one carer had been placed elsewhere days before her interview. The interview focused mainly on her experiences in fostering these five children.

177 own children each. All the own children of seven of the carers were adopted (previously fostered by the carer).

6.1 The motivation of carers

There has been little investigation into the motivations of foster carers in contemporary Australian society, particularly in relation to the money they receive. Whether carers are motivated by a desire to help children or by the money they receive, or a combination of the two, was considered an important topic to examine.

The interviews revealed that the motivation underlying fostering varied. For many carers it was a combination of factors. One emergent theme was that an underlying need to foster came at the ‘right time and place’ in their life cycle. For some, the ‘time’ was right when their own children had left home, or if still at home, were of school age or older. For some younger women, it was when they realised adoption or having their own children was not possible. Others who had given up work, or were retired, had ‘time’ on their hands and space for a child. For five women the ‘trigger’ to foster was reading a foster carer advertisement in the paper.

An example of the ‘time, place and life cycle’ phenomenon was provided by a married carer, with six own children, fostering for around 13 years. On moving from the country to Sydney she decided she would foster. First she wanted her youngest son to start school and when he did she said ‘this is the ideal time to do what I want to do’.

While time, place and life cycle were important, sometimes a ‘spark’ set things in motion. One carer, prompted by a DoCS advertisement, explained:

My children were grown up and gone. My husband was away a lot (sailor) and I just needed something to fulfil me, that empty nest syndrome. One day I saw an ad “foster carers needed” and I thought that’s it! And we talked about it and we agreed [carer and husband].

Around a third (n=11) of the carers (six Indigenous) had first-hand experience of fostering, coming from families where parents, aunties or sisters fostered. For these carers an ethic of care-giving had developed early in their lives. Three knew about

178 fostering from immediate neighbours who fostered. Three carers, two of whom were Indigenous, had been kinship carers prior to fostering non-related children. Four carers mentioned ‘looking into’ overseas and/or local adoption, either because they did not want any more children of their own, or because they had experienced difficulties in conceiving. For these carers the long waiting period for adoption and/or the expense involved led them to foster instead.

For half of the women (n=15) deciding to foster appeared to be a ‘joint’ decision by the family. For one carer it was her husband’s suggestion to foster. Another carer had to ‘talk’ her husband into it. For other carers, particularly the 10 sole parents, decision-making was easier as they did not have to consult a partner about their decision.

Overall, there was little difference between the responses of Indigenous or non- Indigenous women in relation to the motivational factors that prompted them to foster. Indigenous women however were more likely to mention having been brought up in families that fostered, or always had extended family in their home. One Indigenous woman commented poignantly:

One of the reasons I came into fostering was because my mum was one of the stolen generation, and her family had been split up, sent everywhere. And growing up, my parents had a lot of other kids live with us.

For several women a vocational element guided their decision. One married Indigenous carer with two grown-up children who gave up full-time work to foster said: ‘I always knew I wanted to foster, I always knew’. Another explained how she felt when she made the decision to foster: ‘I just made a phone call one day. It was something in my heart that I wanted to do’. In contrast, an Indigenous woman (aged 66) said an event six years ago precipitated her entry into fostering. Her sister, a foster carer living close by, was approached by DoCS to take three siblings. Her sister had room for only two, so she offered to take the third child, to keep the group together. Later DoCS asked her if she would like to become a carer. As she had enjoyed the experience so much, she said ‘yes’.

179 Basically I just fell into it. I used to see my sister doing it and I would think “Oh! I don’t think I can do that really” (laughter). That’s why I started so late’.

Motivation and the carer subsidy: Carers were asked how they had thought they might manage financially when they started to foster. The aim of this question was to examine the influence of the subsidy, as a source of motivation, encouragement or incentive to foster. Many (n=14) responded that, either prior to commencing as a carer or when attending training, they ‘had not thought of’ of it, or they ‘didn’t know’ how much the subsidy was or whether they would receive payment.85

One carer’s comment summed up the feelings expressed by most carers when they decided to foster: ‘money wasn’t an issue with the decision’. Often it was only during initial training that carers became aware of the existence of a subsidy. They said that it was not uncommon in times past for carers not to receive the subsidy at all, even after the children were placed. One carer fostering for 15 years said:

Even though we’d been through the training, we still didn’t know there was an allowance. It was only when somebody said to me, “Are you getting any allowance?” I’d been fostering three months and I hadn’t got any allowance (laughter). Nobody had put it in.

For over two thirds (n=21), their careers as foster carers commenced at a time when the carer subsidy was relatively low. For example, in the period 1996-2000, DoCS’ carers received age-related payments that ranged from $65 per week for a younger child (0-5 years) to $121.50 for an older child (15-17 years). One carer, who had been fostering prior to 2000, commented on the financial difficulties carers faced on the relatively low subsidy payments:

It was very difficult [as] we were paying the house off. I was forever asking Bob (husband) for money so it was a bit of conflict in our

85 Given the voluntary nature of fostering, newspaper advertisements for foster carers rarely mention ‘payments’ or levels of payment. Fostering information is available on the internet and information on subsidy levels is available for most Australian States.

180 marriage because he didn’t realise, he didn’t think about the cost. It was hard in the early days.

But while the subsidy (prior to 2000) was relatively low, the contingency payment system was seen as very important. As one carer couple related, the subsidy level was ‘poor’ but ‘everything was claimable’. Both thought the ‘old’ system was more reliable.

When contemplating fostering, only one carer (married) stated that money was a consideration. Having worked for most of her married life, she left work at the age of 42 to commence fostering for an NGO agency. When interviewed in 2005, she was receiving $430 a week for a 13-year-old, comprising $175 from DoCS and the rest made up by the Agency. She stated she always knew she would receive more from an NGO than if she fostered with DoCS (my emphasis).86 The foster father was employed, but the mother said they would not have considered fostering without receiving reasonable recompense:

We would not have gone into it unless it was financial to do it because that is too much stress. Oh, people say “you’re only in it for the money”, it’s not. You weigh it all up and you work it out. That extra stress is shocking these days with money and kids. It’s not like the old days where you made do. These days, kids have got high expectations. Sometimes to “fit in” you’ve got to have certain things [Aged 56, fostering 14 years].

This carer’s realistic and honest portrayal of the importance of the money provided to carers is important. While not negating other carers’ responses to the issue of money and motivation, it highlights the perception that talking about money matters in relation to fostering was possibly, for many other interviewed carers, a ‘taboo’ subject (Kirton, 2001a: 312) and something they were not entirely comfortable with discussing.

86 The early costs study (McHugh 2002) found that over two-thirds (64%) of agencies stated they provided carers only with the standard subsidy. The remaining 36 per cent indicated that they ‘topped up’ the standard subsidy using funds from fundraising and donations, and in some cases from special government grants. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that non-government agencies often provide carers with higher subsidy levels than DoCS (McHugh, 2002: 13).

181 Continuing motivation: The question on their continuing motivation to foster evoked an intensely emotional response from most carers. The majority of responses focused on the foster children, for example, ‘It’s just little kids, and the way they bring joy to your life’. In responding to this question, the theme of ‘love’ dominated carers’ responses. It was the ‘love’ carers had for foster children past and current, and the ‘love’ foster children brought to carers. Carers ‘loved’ knowing they had been able to help a child and ‘loved’ seeing the improvement in them. This theme of the importance of love fits in closely with carers’ initial perceptions of their fostering role, which was also around responsibilities, relationships and helping children emotionally and physically.

Several carers, usually those providing long-term care, saw the children they fostered as part of their family: ‘they’re our kids’. This theme was also strong in carers’ initial perceptions of their fostering role. It dominated many carers’ motivations to continue fostering, especially Indigenous carers:

I’d hate to see the system go back to the old homes for the kids where they don’t get to grow up as part of a family. I think that’s really important for kids to be part of a family, even if it can’t be their own natural parents.

The Indigenous tradition of caring for a wide network of kin, clan and others was also evident in one carer’s response: ‘It wasn’t official but my mum always had other people’s kids all her life’. Another Indigenous carer, conscious of her age, but deeply committed to fostering said:

Oh, I think I’m getting older [58] and who knows how far down the line that I either won’t be able to or won’t feel like it. I would like to keep going as long as I can and make some difference to their lives.

The responses to carers’ continuing motivation to foster were similar to those given for the most positive or rewarding aspects of fostering for carers. The dominant theme for over half (n=17) speaking about the positive aspects of fostering, was the enormous pleasure carers had in seeing children ‘thrive’ and ‘improve’ whilst in their care. In contrast, carers’ commitment to fostering was sorely tested at times by the

182 Department or by workers, with many carers describing dealings with their local office or agency as the most negative aspect of fostering.

6.2 The role of foster carers

Carers described their fostering role in relatively simple terms. Their responses did not encompass the wide range of fostering’s tasks and activities they revealed in other parts of the interviews. Some carers gave more than one explanation in discussing their role. The strong themes emerging from carer’s roles were around responsibilities and relationships:

 taking care, caring for, providing a caring/safe place and love (n=24);  looking after children, helping children emotionally and/or physically and meeting children’s needs (i.e. medical, food and clothing) (n=20);  making children happy (n=2); and  similar to being a mother (n=4) or a grandmother (n=1).

A general principle for most carers was to treat foster children the same as their own children, to make them ‘part of the family’. Carers providing short-term care (around one-third) saw their role as a temporary measure until reunification with the child’s birth (or extended) family occurred, or some other permanent arrangement was made. Being able to keep children together as a family was a positive factor for carers with sibling groups. One carer couple in their late 50s, initially providing short-term care for a group of five siblings, accepted them as a long-term placement when their agency could not find a permanent carer: ‘we just thought we’d give it a go. We made the commitment and the commitment is still there’.

The notion of commitment (i.e. an enduring relationship) and an ethic of care was a clearly expressed theme. Carers providing long-term care expressed their strong commitment to foster specific children till they were 18, with one carer of a sibling group of three saying: ‘I’ve had them for so long, I couldn’t see my life without them’.

Three carers had originally planned to do short-term fostering only. Due to the agency’s inability to find carers to foster the children on a permanent basis, they made a commitment to take them until they left care. Whether carers took children for the

183 short- or the long-term, however, was not clear-cut. Some ‘short-term’ placements lasted for extensive periods of time. For example, one married carer aged 60 had cared for two siblings for four years while her agency attempted to find a permanent carer.

Reality of fostering: A further theme emerging from the discussion was that carers were somewhat surprised, even shocked, at the ‘reality’ of fostering. One carer thought her role would be to ‘basically look after the child, not to have to advocate on their behalf and push for things to be done’. Another said ‘there’s a lot more to it than what I imagined there would be; their needs, their emotional needs’. Some carers thought some ‘extra love’ would suffice, but they quickly realised it was not enough. Two carers thought that new carers often saw fostering through ‘rose-tinted’ glasses.

Once carers had been in the ‘system’ for some time, they became more confident, as their skills, knowledge and competencies developed. Many felt their experiences over time had led them to understand what was ‘best’ for foster children. For some, their ongoing experience of ‘the system’ had led them to become more assertive, especially when the foster children’s needs were not being met. Their stories revealed the evolving nature of the multi-faceted role they played, particularly their role as advocate. One carer, a trained nurse aged 42 and mother of two, fostering for seven years, spoke of becoming more assertive:

I think we’ve kind of changed our approach to fostering. I think we’ve become a lot less naïve. I’m much more forceful, much more assertive. The boy that we had for 18 months we had to be so assertive … he didn’t even have a caseworker for six months.

When the child was placed the worker had said that he was slightly developmentally delayed and had not spoken till he was four. The carer soon realised the child was deaf. After informing DoCS several times and getting no response she went ahead and arranged ‘everything’. A specialist found that the child was 80 per cent deaf in one ear and 60 per cent in the other, and he was fitted with hearing aids.

A carer’s role is more complex than ‘love and caring’. Experienced carers are aware of the importance of advocating for support services for foster children, and they willingly implemented various therapies, often on a daily basis. Carers used their

184 initiative, skills and experience spending considerable amounts of time to get good outcomes for foster children. To improve their skills, knowledge-base and professionalism, some carers took on additional work in a voluntary capacity, organising carer-training and support groups. For one carer, aged 51 and fostering for 14 years, organising and running ongoing training sessions and support groups for foster carers had increased her confidence and ability. She saw it as part of her role to advocate for her own and other carers’ foster children.

Another carer’s story shows how prior skills and knowledge and continually working with a foster child (ongoing physiotherapy) could achieve a positive outcome:

I had a little boy, he was 14 months old, [he] couldn’t sit. With constant physiotherapy and helping him, I thought, “All I want with this child is to see him walk out of my house”. I didn’t care how long it took. Anyhow, at the age of two years he was returned back home and he actually ran out of the house, whereas at 14 months he wasn’t even sitting. [Have you had training in child development?] I’ve done nursing so I knew. I went to the physio at the local hospital - I caught on to what I had to do. And he just responded, oh, so well [Aged 54, fostering 14 years].

Skills, knowledge and life experience provided the confidence for some carers to take on a more challenging role: fostering children with severe disabilities. One carer, mother of five and carer of 32 foster children over a period of 21 years, reflected on her ability to foster children with disabilities. When asked if this was because of her experience, her prior skills (preschool teacher), or simply her response to the challenge, she said it was all three. She said: ‘Once I did it - then I felt “I can do that”. So I’ve taken on children with much more severe disabilities’.

Carers’ assertiveness, however, was at times tempered by their understanding that, while considering they were acting in the best interests of foster children, they were not always comfortable making decisions for them. The State has legal custody of the child and caseworkers are the legally recognised decision-makers. Carers have to seek permission to undertake quite ordinary childhood activities that most parents would

185 take for granted. However, like the carer who went ahead with treatment for a foster child without waiting for DoCS, a carer of five children in long-term care said:

I’ve now become inclined to expect less. I don’t wait for them [DoCS] to ring me back. I make decisions now that I really shouldn’t. I sign forms for my children to go away on camps, because they’re trivial things to DoCS – for them two weeks is nothing. [But] two weeks to a child waiting to go on a camp can mean the difference between getting a place in that camp or [not]. If I think it’s something my kids need, I just do it now.

6.2.1 Parenting or a job?

Carers described their fostering role as more like parenting or an extension of mothering, although they did not reject the job-like aspects of fostering. They were equally divided about whether fostering was like parenting (15) or a combination of both parenting and a job (15). Carers in the second group placed a stronger emphasis on the parenting than the job role. There was little difference between long- and short- term carers. Those who discussed ‘parenting’ focused on their role as a mother. Like the discussions of ‘money’ (carer payments), the job aspects caused discomfort to some carers. One married carer, with two foster children, revealed her uneasiness with the topic:

I got into it to be their mum and love them and make sure they were safe and happy. The job side is somebody else, it’s my other side. I try to keep the children away from it so they are not affected.

One experienced carer providing long-term care for a group of five siblings said: ‘I see it as a job because otherwise I wouldn’t survive if I saw it as a parent’. She explained why caring for the siblings, who from her own account were ‘very disturbed’, was different from her own children:

I love these kids, don’t get me wrong; but they’re not mine. It’s a different kind of commitment. You can’t expect the kids to function as your child, you’d like them to be able to but you can’t undo all the damage that has been done.

186 In light of her past difficulties with the children, she was realistic and honest in acknowledging that, despite her best efforts, the damage (i.e. past abuse) could not be undone. Her commitment (i.e. socio-emotional investment) to the children was a qualified one, it was different. In contrast, a similarly experienced carer, with long- term care of two sibling groups (five children), saw herself as the parent of the foster children. In explaining her role and expectations, she emphasised: ‘I do the mothering role. It’s not just looking after them, it’s mothering them’. It was evident her relationship with the fostered children was strong, but her relationship with the children’s caseworkers was poor. She was highly critical of a worker’s lack of support which had led to an earlier placement breakdown. She stated that her relationship with DoCS had changed, she now ‘expects less’. Not surprisingly, the stressful and emotional impact of the placement breakdown was still evident in her words, as she explained why fostering for her was being a parent:

I see it as being a parent. I don’t see it as doing a job. If I thought along those lines, I’d hate it as a job, and I’d probably want to quit, resign. Because if I thought this was a job, I would probably become very bitter towards my employer. I would think this is a really shitty job. (laughter)

Differences in parenting foster children: Carers were asked about the differences in parenting between the foster children and their own. Eighteen carers focused on the key differences. ’Responsibility’ and ‘accountability’ to birth parents and DoCS, and the required ‘paperwork’, defined fostering as more job-like than parenting. Working with DoCS to get services (health, dental, tutoring) for foster children was seen as very different from parenting their own children. For some carers, the job aspects were carer-training and support meetings. Some carers described the difficult aspects of fostering (interactions with workers and birth families), or its intense emotional nature (when children were ‘very naughty, boisterous and very disobedient’), as times that were ‘more like work than parenting’. The theme of fostering’s ‘work-like’ nature was evident through the interviews. Carers emphasised the demanding and time- consuming, 24 hours/seven days a week, nature of fostering, many noting the ‘hard work’ as they rarely had a break from it.

187 The ongoing nature of appointments at GPs, specialists and therapists (including tutoring) was very different from carers’ experiences with their own children. Dealing with service providers was also different when details of children’s ‘fostered’ status had to be revealed. Another major difference was that foster children needed a ‘lot more’ parenting than carers’ own children. As a consequence, carers often remarked: ‘the parenting is harder’. Teaching foster children about respect, routine and responsibility, and establishing boundaries with them, were mentioned as being usually necessary for all foster children when they first came into care. This was different from their own children as they had been brought up with these aspects as part of their daily lives. In the first weeks/months of placement, reaching agreement on rules and boundaries with foster children and their caseworkers was often difficult.

Some carers spoke somewhat tentatively about their feelings for foster children being ‘different’ from the love they had for their own. A major difference for carers providing short-term care was that they always knew foster children were not theirs. They would eventually move to a permanent placement or family restoration. As one carer said ‘you can’t love them the same as your own – there are different levels’.

Respecting and valuing the role of carers: Carers provided mixed responses about whether or not they were valued and respected by workers. A significant number (9) said they thought workers’ lack of respect for carers had got worse, and 16 carers were not sure whether there had been a change for the better. Only five carers felt they were valued and respected. Despite the perceived lack of value and respect, carers retained a robust commitment to fostering. Carers’ professionalism evolved as they utilised their various capabilities, skills, knowledge and personal qualities in achieving the best outcomes they could for the children, in health and education, and in emotional and behavioural development.

6.3 Being paid to care

Carers were asked to respond to the suggestion that: ‘Foster carers should be treated like other workers in caring occupations, i.e. paid employees with all the benefits attached to paid work – e.g. leave entitlements, superannuation contribution, long service leave, workers’ compensation, etc. and the payment of income tax’.

188 This proved to be an engaging topic generating robust discussion with all carers. The responses reflected carers’ strong orientation towards fostering as parenting and not a ‘job’. Thirteen carers were adamant that foster carers should not be paid; seven supported the general idea of a payment for carers; while ten carers were more ambivalent about payment seeing both positive and negative aspects. The quotes below illustrate the strong positions taken towards the ‘no’, the ‘yes’ and the ‘ambivalent’ responses.

[No] No, it’s not a job. It never was a job. If you’re fostering for a job, then you’re not giving the kids the emotional connection that they need. If you start treating it like a job, you’ll have the wrong people in foster care. I don’t want to be paid. If I’d wanted a paid job, I could have got a paid job. It wasn’t about that.

[Yes] I totally agree … even income tax. Because I can’t go out and get a job while I’m doing a job, so to speak. I feel that I’m doing a service for the government even though I personally want to do it. And it’s hindering me from getting a job. Yet, I’m only being paid enough to cover the child’s day-to-day needs. So I reckon it should be classed as a job I really do. [Do you have a sum of money in mind for fostering?] I’ve never thought of it but I think it should be around $300 to $400 a week – look at a hairdresser or a child care worker they only work 8 hours (laughter), they don’t get up in the middle of the night!

[Ambivalent] I think there may be a place for that, although I also have some difficulty because I would also hate to be a child thinking, “The only reason you have me is because you’re being paid”. But I think at the same time there needs to be recognition that there are times when a carer must stay at home and can’t do some other employment and still needs to have financial areas sorted out, so their bills can still be paid.

Carers spoke of both the advantageous and the disadvantageous aspects of being paid. Six carers said they could see no advantages and three said they ‘didn’t know’ or were

189 ‘not sure’ of any advantages. Overall, the interview data contained 43 responses to perceived advantages and 40 responses to perceived disadvantages. No particular payment method was suggested to carers. For those carers who spoke about pay, the consensus was for two components: a subsidy for the child and a fee for the carer.

Responses in favour of fostering as a paid job were loosely grouped into four categories:

1. perceived benefits of paid work (i.e. income, leave, superannuation, workers’ compensation and financial security) – 16 carers; 2. financial support for potential carers (e.g. sole parents) –13 carers; 3. benefits to fostering (i.e. better carer-screening/assessment, encourage skill development, increase professionalism; improve respect and assist with carer recruitment/retention) – eight carers; and 4. assist fostered children (i.e. attract younger/qualified people) – six carers.

Responses not in favour of being paid also fell into four categories:

1. non-beneficial for fostering (i.e. attract the wrong people/fostering for the money) – 17 carers; 2. non-beneficial for children (i.e. negative impact, needs may not be met; inappropriate placements might be made) – 10 carers; 3. non-beneficial for carers (e.g. loss of pension and associated benefits; payment of income tax) – eight carers; and 4. incongruity between public/private spheres (i.e. how do you fit an ‘eight hour working day’ into 24 hour/7 day-a-week care work?) – five carers.

Carers provided thoughtful and positive responses to the notion of fostering as ‘paid work’. There were those who thought a carer-payment would assist with carer recruitment by attracting more women. Others emphasised the notion of fostering becoming more professional and the need for ‘more qualified’ people. Payment was seen as important for sole parent carers without the financial support of a husband/partner. A carer who liked the idea of some element of reward commented: ‘That way I could really look at it as a job’.

190 Carers concerned about a pay element thought it might attract inappropriate people motivated only by the money. Several carers were concerned that fostering would change and the needs of fostered children would not be met. They thought that, if children were placed long-term, they should be accepted as part of the family and carers should not benefit financially. Older carers were concerned that they would lose government income support payments (and associated benefits) and have to pay income tax. Carers struggled to understand how conditions usually accompanying paid work, such as recreation and sick leave and set hours, could ever apply to fostering. One laughingly said:

What would you do for a sickie? Oh, sorry, just ring the office. You can’t get anyone to ring back at the best of times, and the office is closed on Thursday for half a day. So don’t get sick on Thursday because you can’t ring anybody to replace you. I get respite once a month to go out to dinner now, after five years. How would I get a holiday?

The carers who were equivocal about payment could see the benefits of pay and superannuation, but they could also see why the concept was problematic. They moved back and forth between the positives and the negatives, as they grappled with the idea. Their concerns were mainly with how foster children would be treated, whether they would miss out, how paid carers could really care, how children’s emotional needs would be met and what would children think, if they knew their carer was paid. One carer tried to disentangle the ‘work’ and ‘love’ aspects:

I don’t like to think that the kids are a job. It is a job I suppose, emotionally, it’s a love job, put it that way (laughter). That’s how I think of it. It is a love job and it’s hard work.

In summary, carers pointed out both advantages and disadvantages of paying carers. Financial security and assisting carer recruitment/retention were possible benefits, as was attracting qualified people. Carers’ main concerns focused on the impact on children and the likelihood of attracting the ‘wrong’ people.

191 6.4 Emotional and psychological costs of fostering

Throughout the interviews, it was clear that fostering, a dynamic, evolving process, brought with it both positive and negative aspects. These aspects at times appeared to be quite extreme in their impacts on carers, revealing the high emotional costs involved in providing a caring service, costs which impacted not only on their own lives, but also on the lives of their spouses, their children and even their grandchildren. It was in these discussions that the underlying stress and tension connected with fostering became apparent, revealing one of the indirect costs of fostering to carers: the emotional/psychological effects. The carer relationship involves not only the foster children, but also caseworkers and other Departmental staff, members of the carer’s own family, friends, and foster children’s birth families. The emotional/psychological costs are deeply embedded in the continuous and complex interactions between the carer and all these others.

Relationships between carers and foster children: Carers spoke of issues around attachment and bonding.87 Many said they found it difficult not to become attached to foster children, and vice versa, although workers advised them not to become ‘too emotionally involved’. The longer the time a child spent in the placement, the more difficult the separation became (e.g. reunification with birth family or placement with a permanent carer). Either event could cause carer families to go through a grieving process. Rarely was a carer’s grief addressed by caseworkers or by the provision of counselling services.

In responding to whether she had ever received counselling when a placement ended, an experienced carer who had fostered 70 children over a 6½ year period, commented: ‘No, no, you just go to the next one’. The distress of ‘letting go’ was obvious for a 64- year-old Indigenous single parent, fostering for 18 years, as she spoke of her two current foster children. The eight-month short-term placement of two children (two and five years) was about to come to an end:

I’m going to miss both of them something fierce. This was another reason they had to go, I’ve had to stop the youngest child [aged two]

87 In foster care the term ‘attachment’ is most often used to describe the relationship between a child and a caregiver.

192 calling me mummy. And it is just too long. They are attaching to me and I’m attaching to them.

A carer who has fostered over 100 children over a 14-year-period (respite, crisis and short-term care), noted how ‘hard’ it was when children moved on:

When the kids leave your care, you’ve got to let go, and psychologically it’s really difficult. It’s really hard to explain, actually. If you’re not a strong person, if you get too attached, you can’t do it.

This was borne out by the story of another highly experienced carer, fostering for 15 years. When the supposedly ‘short-term’ (two-year placement) child she had had in her care since birth was returned to his mother, she experienced a great deal of distress. The foster family had developed a good rapport with both birth parents (incarcerated), and an orderly transition process had been planned over several weeks.88 Then DoCS made a decision not to return the child to the carer after a short transition visit to the birth mother, without informing the carer family. They had no opportunity to say goodbye and the foster mother found the loss of the infant ‘very hard’. When contacted by a worker two days later to take a new placement, she was not sure she could manage, but said she would try. ‘I said that, because they’ll [DoCS] really push. I said, “I’ll try”’. The placement broke down within a few days when the carer could not face putting the new foster child in the previous foster child’s cot. Recalling that time she said emotionally:

You know it was actually like losing a son, like losing one of your own children. I felt like I was really wrongly done by. I thought, “How dare you take him off me”. Now, I’ve had kids come and go and whatever. Nothing ever impacted on me like this did, nothing.

No counselling was provided for the carer, although a DoCS worker visited to help her teenage son who was blaming his mother for the foster child’s removal. The carer’s husband was a great support and comfort to her at the time. Since that event in

88 Birth mother was to be reunited with her child in a half-way house organised between the Justice Department and DoCS.

193 early 2005, she has fostered two short-term placements, including an infant currently in her care. She thought that it was now becoming a little ‘easier’ to foster.

‘Handing over’ can be a particularly vulnerable time for both child and carer. How well it is managed is often highly dependent on the empathy of the caseworker. An Indigenous carer, aged 43, fostering for five years commented:

Some caseworkers I’ve had have been good. They’ll support you when you do the handover. A lot of the time I’ve taken them [foster children] either to the office or to the person’s house. I used to meet the caseworker at the house, so I could have that goodbye. And it was good, let alone I’d walk out and blubber. You saw them with their parents and had that feeling that they could settle.

However, smooth transitions, with good caseworker support, did appear to happen on a rather ad hoc basis, as one carer’s story revealed:

When the child had left the caseworker came the day after and made sure that we were all right. Only once has that happened. And afterwards I thought, “That was really nice. That should actually happen every time” [Married, aged 42, fostering seven years: 17 short-term placements].

Sometimes the carer formed an attachment but the child didn’t, and this could be difficult too. An Indigenous carer, fostering five children (two sibling groups) in long- term care, spoke sadly about the time an older foster child left her care to return to his mother. Her story clearly reveals the depth of the relationship she had formed and the difficulty of letting go:

Of course it’s emotionally hard. They get older, they just want to go home. They always want their mother, they really want to leave you. And you think, “This is not fair, this is not fair” … that’s how it is for me anyway [Married, aged 46, fostering five years].

194 Placement breakdown can be devastating for carers, but it could often be avoided with more support. One carer, fostering for 15 years, who has set up a carers’ support network, spoke of the lack of support from DoCS:

Carers just give up, carers just walk away because they can’t take the lack of not having the support. And it could be, “Look, I just need respite”, and a worker saying, “Oh look, we can’t find respite”.

“I’m sorry? You can find respite. You’re just not looking hard enough”. And it’s when the placement breaks down, that’s the horrible thing.

Allegations of abuse were a worry for all carers and they were extremely aware of their vulnerability if an allegation was made against them. Carers spoke of needing to ‘protect’ themselves, keeping their ‘guard up’, and being ‘careful’. Carers spoke of the need to document anything that might be seen as ‘abusive’, and situations where children could vexatiously accuse carers of abuse (or had done so).

Relationships between carers and the Department: One cause of carers’ stress is the uncertainty of their role. In regard to decision-making about the foster children in their care, they were not autonomous agents. Several carers mentioned the fact that they were accountable both to DoCS and to the birth families. As one explained:

I think there is more stress involved partly because they are not yours, because there are other people [DoCS/birth families] you have to be accountable to and also because of the issues that are involved [Married, aged 60, fostering 15 years].

There was at times an uneasy, even antagonistic, relationship between carers and DoCS workers and/or case managers. For some carers the lack of communication with and support from DoCS was deeply felt. Not being believed, having workers go back on their word, not being able to talk to anybody when serious problems arose, were all sources of distress for carers. One carer couple voiced the views of many carers: ‘Dealing with the system. The system is the problem, that’s the big problem’.

195 One carer (aged 50, six foster children, fostering for 15 years) spoke of her irritation with DoCS and with workers’ failure to complete their part of the bargain:

I get so frustrated with the Department at not getting things done. I plan everything months before it happens, and then for somebody to have not done their part of it, really pisses me off. When I’m fighting for my kids, and I don’t think I’m being listened to, I get really emotional. I get really angry with myself because I’m getting emotional. But I’m emotionally attached to these kids, and if a manager’s giving me all the garbage about how it’s not possible, then I’m going to be that raging banshee … that’s me.

Another carer (three foster children, fostering for three years) spoke of an experience that had a huge psychological impact on her. One of her foster children had been reunited with her birth mother despite the carer’s concern about the birth mother’s ability to care for the child. The birth mother severely abused the child, who required prolonged hospitalisation, and when she was readmitted into foster care, she was placed with different carer. Our carer took court action to have the child returned to her. Struggling to explain her emotional reaction to the experience she said:

I mean, I found stuff in myself that I never thought I had. I knew I was a strong person. There’s that saying “To whom much is given, much is required”. And I have been given a lot. And the children are worth every second of it [Single, aged 34].

The usual contact with a child’s caseworker was by phone or email unless a crisis occurred (e.g. placement break-down, allegation of abuse). Because of their limited contact with workers, some carers were uncertain whether they had been allocated a caseworker. Infrequency of visits from a worker was not uncommon among carers of children in long-term care, as one carer of a sibling group (three children) revealed:

It’s over six years since I’ve had a case conference for these kids. In the ten years I’ve had them, they have had three, all together. Most of the time I’ve not had an officer for these kids. I had one good officer for a while but she retired.

196 Five of the carers felt that many new caseworkers were ‘young and inexperienced’. They resented being told what to do by workers who knew little about children, let alone their foster children. In contrast, there were five carers who spoke positively about their relationships with workers, commenting that they were valued and respected and consulted about decisions. One experienced and assertive carer with 15 years of fostering behind her felt that things had improved:

I have a wonderful relationship with my worker for the kid. I feel more respected now than I did 10 years ago. They’ve seen what I’ve done and what I want to do. So they do respect me for that.

In discussing the issue of being valued and respected nine carers thought the situation had deteriorated. One carer’s response summarises these views:

There is a general, an overall attitude that suggests that carers are still the bottom line of the pecking order. “You’re just a carer” kind of attitude still comes across quite a lot.

Relationships between carers and their families: Most carers (n=19) commented, both positively and negatively, on fostering’s impact on their relationships with their own children and their spouses.

Several carers felt fostering had benefited their own children by making them ‘more nurturing, more responsible’ and more understanding of what ‘other children can go through’. Their older children (and husbands) helped in practical ways with feeding, clothing, bathing, etc., and also with sporting activities. Other carers noted, however, that their own children, and sometimes their spouses, had to be ‘put to one side’ due to the demanding nature of some foster children. Two women with children in long- term placements said their own children were concerned about the stressful impact on their mother’s health, and wanted the children ‘given back’ to DoCS.

Other carers spoke of the negative impact fostering had on their own children, with some older children leaving home prematurely, or withdrawing from family interactions (e.g. meals), because of foster children’s behaviour. Carers spoke of the time it took to settle in children with challenging behaviours, often to their own children’s detriment. They were aware of not neglecting the relationship with their

197 own children, particularly school-aged children. Finding equal time to spend with their own and their foster children was a difficult balancing act for many carers. One carer with three of her own children (two previously fostered) and three foster children, had given up her paid work to spend more time with her own family:

I loved my [paid] work, just for some time out, and I’ve really had to give it up because it wasn’t fair on my husband and my biological child. I was spending a lot of time with the foster children, because they needed extra care, and they [husband and child] were put in the background.

Seven carers said fostering had caused stress in their relationship with spouses. Not being able to spend time alone together was hard for some couple carers. A lack of respite almost precipitated a breakdown for one married carer. An Indigenous carer (aged 46), she had fostered five children for five years. Her requests for respite were taken seriously only when she broke down in tears in the local DoCS office: ‘they knew that I was really fragile, and they knew they had to do something’. She now has one night a month approved respite:

They came here and sat down and worked out the logistics and what it would cost, to put five children into respite overnight – it’s a huge expense to them. So they pay her [carer’s older daughter comes to babysit] $125, once a month for us to go out. It’s huge for us.

For three other couple-carer families, fostering had caused stress and disagreements, but it had also brought the couple closer. One carer (fostering for 15 years with four children in long-term care and two previously fostered children) summed up:

It does affect your relationship with your husband. There’s been times that, I’m sure that he would liked to just walk out the door (laughter). And there’ve been times I would, too. And we don’t have that intimacy that we used to have because that space has been invaded by these little creatures. (laughter) But, I think the love for the kids has kept us together as well. We’ve given up – but we’ve received as well.

198 Married carers often said their husbands were a great support:

I mean he’s a typical bloke so he doesn’t talk much. (laughter) But he kind of takes everything in. But certainly he would be my main support person, and we bounce things off each other a lot. He’s very good that way [Married, aged 42, fostering for seven years].

One couple fostering a child with severe disabilities said that they ‘get tired and cranky’ with one another, but that they have one another ‘to back each other up’. They get away for short holidays by taking advantage of the Commonwealth Respite Program for families caring for people with disabilities. The father commented:

It’s something that we have jointly gone into – fostering. I certainly wouldn’t have got into fostering if [foster mother] wasn’t interested, no question of that. But given that she wanted to do it, she was interested, she was happy, well, all right, let’s get into it and make the most of it [Couple, late fifties, fostering 21 years].

For another seven carers, the impact fostering had had on their personal lives was the most difficult aspect. It had isolated some carers from both friends and family. Older carers found that friends who had ‘moved on’ from child-rearing wanted to go out and go on holidays without children around. Younger carers found that friends were not keen to socialise because of the behaviour of foster children, as one explained:

My whole lifestyle changed when I had foster children especially two with ADHD. I lost a lot of friends. My going out and visiting stopped because I had two difficult children that would scream, throw things, smash things. In the end I usually invite people to my home; I don’t visit [Indigenous, aged 35, mother of three own and three foster siblings with high needs in long-term care].

Grandparents said they had less contact with their own (grown-up) children and grandchildren because of the foster children’s behaviour. Two carers’ grandchildren had been abused by foster children (one sexually). Some carers found their extended family very supportive, but still worried they might be expecting too much from them. Three carers mentioned ‘falling out’ with some family members because of fostering

199 and having no further contact. In contrast, some younger carers said their grandparents had taken on the role of grandparents to the foster children.

Birth families: Carers had had both positive and negative experiences with birth families. They saw the maintenance of relationships with birth families, including contact/access visits, as important for the children, although at times it was an uneasy relationship. Several carers mentioned birth families as one of the most negative aspects of fostering, and they struggled to be understanding when parents missed access visits or forgot their children’s birthdays. Many carers spent considerable time travelling long distances to maintain regular access visits with birth family members, including siblings fostered elsewhere, grandparents and other relatives.

One married carer (aged 54, respite, crisis and short-term care for 14 years) explained how she negotiated relationships with birth families:

We do a communication book and we can send that with the child at access. I did one for the other baby I had and [we] formed a really nice relationship. We’ve ended up being really good friends. You can suss people out.

Now, this one’s parents [current 16-month-old foster child]. I’m just not going to have a communication book, because they’re a little bit violent. They hate me anyhow because I’ve got their child. So I’ll have nothing to do with them.

It appeared that carers try to have a degree of equanimity when thinking about and dealing with birth parents, but in some instances it was a struggle not to be judgemental. A carer of young children in short-term care remarked:

I never judge any of the children’s parents. I try and not feel any hatred, I try and understand why they’ve done it. [Is that difficult?] It is, because you’ll see a child come in ODed [overdosed] on drugs and their parents are drug addicts, and you look at this poor child and you think, what the hell have they done to it? And I was angry. But I had to think if I did end up meeting the parent you’ve got to be

200 cordial, for the child’s sake. So that’s really hard [Married, aged 54, fostering 14 years].

Another carer (fostering for 12 months, with three siblings in long-term care) had reluctantly taken out an AVO against the birth parents of her foster children:89

The fear of them coming around, if you stop and think about what could be done and what can happen. But I try and not think about it.

Another carer said she felt even more protective of the foster children than she did of her own children. Because of the way the birth father behaved towards her six-year- old foster child, she felt a need to protect him. She was reluctant to let the boy have phone contact with his father ‘because of the games that are played on the telephone’ and because the father kept missing access visits. She said:

He is getting really upset when his dad doesn’t come at the last minute. You’re not attached like you are to your own children, but you still get protective; you can’t go on hurting this little person, that’s really unfair [Married carer, aged 42, fostering for seven years].

Handling the emotional/psychological impact of fostering appeared to be a fine balancing act for most carers. One married Indigenous carer cautioned anyone who thought about being a carer to think long and hard about what they expected to get out of caring for abused and neglected children:

You will not just go out to dinner. You will not just have a night away or just go on a holiday. And you will feel like you’ve given everything to them. And you think, “Why am I doing this? Am I crazy?” Sometimes people are saying, “You should have a medal”, and I say to them, “No, just a different piece of metal, right through the head (laughter) a bullet! I must be bloody mad!” [Sometimes you feel like that?] Yes, all the time, because it is really emotional highs and lows [Married Indigenous, aged 46, fostering five years].

89 Apprehended violence order (AVO)

201 It is not possible to assign a monetary value to the emotional/psychological costs of caring. As researchers have said: ‘regardless of how sophisticated economists have become, no economic model has yet put a figure (i.e. cost) on love and emotion’ (Percival and Harding, 2002:1). Rather, the aim was to make visible a hidden aspect of the substantial indirect costs borne by foster carers, the love and emotion that are such important aspects of the investment in children and young people.

6.5 Time costs

Using time-use survey data to calculate the amount of parental time spent caring for children is a relatively new field of enquiry (Budig and Folbre, 2004:51). Both primary activities (direct interactions with the child) and secondary activities (being present with the child while doing other things) are considered in these calculations (Bittman and Pixley, 1997; Budig and Folbre, 2004; Craig, 2006a; Folbre, 2003; Ironmonger, 2004). Using the 1997 ABS Time Use Survey, one researcher calculated that primary and secondary activities for children take similar amounts of time. Daily time, for both kinds of activity, was 12 hours (Craig, 2006a).

The age of the child is relevant when estimating time spent on care of children. For example, in a one-child household care provided by both parents ranged from 29.3 hours per week for children 13-14 years, to 84 hours for children 0-1 year, with an average of 60.5 hours for all children (0-14 years). The younger, more dependent the child, the greater the numbers of hours required (Ironmonger, 2004: 103). Mothers in couple households provide 70 per cent of the total time (primary and secondary activities) for children. Ironmonger (2004: 103) estimated that mother’s daily time spent in child care tasks and activities was 2.9 hours per day for 13-14 year-olds to 8.4 hours for 0-1-year-olds, with an average of 6.5 hours (Table 6-3). Fathers and other household members (e.g. grandparents) contribute the other 30 per cent. Other studies report similar hourly estimates of the daily time spent by mothers in caring for children (Craig, 2006; Joesch and Spiess, 2006).

202 Table 6-3: Hours of Care Provided by Mothers in One-Child Households

Age of child (Years) Hours per day 0-1 8.4 2-4 7.8 5-9 6.8 10-12 3.6 13-14 2.9 0-14 (all children) 6.5 (average) Source: Ironmonger, 2004: 103.

Comparing the time spent with fostered and non-fostered children: Because of the reasons that bring them into care (e.g. abuse and neglect), foster children are likely to need more time spent with them than other children do. The time costs of foster caring are complex, diverse and highly fluid and so estimating this ‘extra’ time is fraught with difficulties. For example, although it is predominantly women’s extra time that is involved, in larger families older own children and/or foster fathers often help with the cooking, feeding, clothing, bathing and transporting/supervising of foster children. This time is difficult to take into account when only primary carers are interviewed. Estimating time for individual tasks is also difficult due to multi-tasking by mothers, and simultaneous caring. In planning, preparing and cooking evening meals carers often assist foster (and their own) children with homework. In daily living multi- tasking or synchronised activities are everyday occurrences for mothers. Designating which task/activity belongs with the foster child is not always easy.

The focus here is on the time spent with foster children which is different from, or additional to, time with own children. This was not always possible. For carers whose own children had long grown up and left home, it was difficult to remember. In other areas, for example, in the qualitatively different time involved in fostering’s administrative tasks/activities, it was relatively easy to determine the time taken. Carer difficulty in distinguishing ‘usual’ from extra care time and possibly overestimating the extra time has been highlighted by others (van den Berg, 2005).

All the carers interviewed were provided with a one-page mini time-diary (Appendix A.2) on the back of the information sheet about the study. In preparation for the interview, carers were asked to think about the time (minutes/hours) it took for various tasks/activities that was different from the time taken with their own children,

203 and to write down these estimates. It was anticipated that the information would assist in constructing a series of tables of time taken in tasks and activities for fostered children. Unfortunately this did not eventuate. Ironically, the reason given at the interviews, particularly by carers with their own children and two or more foster children, was that they simply had not had time to fill in the sheet (see Table 6-1). Others had mislaid the form or forgotten to fill it in, while others said it was ‘too hard’ to estimate accurate times due to the variable and intermittent nature of caring.

The chaos and disorder of foster-family life became evident during the interview process. Crying or hungry babies, talkative younger children, visiting community nurses, and carer phones ringing, interrupted the interview process on several occasions. One carer had to leave an interview to pick up school-age children. (A return trip to finish the interview happened on another day). Carers said, however, that they found the diary useful in thinking about their time spent in caring. Four carers completed the mini-diary.

Other researchers have noted the time-consuming nature of completing diaries (van den Berg, 2005). A comprehensive review of the methods used for collecting time-use information suggested that direct questions, especially to female participants, produced more accurate time-estimates than diaries (Baxter, 2006: 5). This method did prove relatively successful with the interviewed carers, although not in all areas.

The nature of fostering time: For those carers with their own and foster children of similar ages, the time taken with foster children was relatively easy to determine. Carer responses however were dependent on foster children’s ages, the number being cared for, their level of need and/or disability, and how long they had been with the carer family. The time involved is not static but evolves as the placement progresses. For example, it was not unusual for foster children in all age groups to arrive with few social skills, and little understanding of expected behaviours in relation to eating, hygiene and settling down at night, behaviours mothers take for granted once their own children reach a certain age. Not surprisingly, carers noted the most difficult and time-consuming period was at the beginning of a placement as foster children settled into the carer household. One carer commented on the work required at this time:

204 When you get a child it takes two weeks for the child to settle into your way. After two weeks you start to feel you have picked up your routine and it’s not so time-consuming, but up till two weeks everything takes double time.

The ‘two weeks’ mentioned was probably a fairly conservative estimate. For foster children with special needs or challenging behaviours the extra time taken to care was a constant ongoing factor. What was also apparent was the ‘knock on’ or domino effect in time costs, as problems in one area flowed through to another. For example, bedwetting by a disturbed older foster child led to periods of lost sleep (personal time) for the carer, more time changing beds and washing linen, and more time spent in emotional support and with therapists/doctors.

6.5.1 Personal care time

All carers discussed the additional time spent with foster children at meal times, bath- time and bedtime. Some emphasised one area much more than another, often it depended on the age/sex, number and behavioural problems of the children. A strong theme emanating from the responses was the incredible patience required by carers in dealing with abused and neglected children. For many carers the time spent in personal care with foster children was not different from the time spent with their own children, but there was more of it. One carer remarked thoughtfully:

Without a foster child I can get off to school easily at least 40 minutes/half an hour quicker than when I have a foster child so I guess every task [meals, bathing, bed] I’m allowing an extra half hour.

This perception of additional time taken with foster children was echoed by another experienced carer who said, ‘You spend twice as long doing everything. Oh, everything gets doubled and trebled in time’.

Food preparation/feeding: An Indigenous single carer (three foster children, two with special needs, and three own children), explained how the time spent at mealtimes with one of her foster children was different:

205 He is in a behavioural management program. If he sits at the table with everyone else he throws his food at everybody. He sits on his own and I feed him first, he’s four and half [Foster child has been with the carer for four years].

Two other carers commented on the reasons why extra time is required at mealtimes for some foster children and why patience is an advantage:

Generally, they are not taught to sit at the table like we do for meals. I want to teach them to sit. That’s a big thing, [it] takes me a lot of extra time.

Mealtimes are chaotic. Dinnertime’s the hardest, because you have to sit there with her [two-year-old foster child] and persevere. [How much time does it take you?] Sometimes, over an hour of a night. This is a regular occurrence at the moment with her.

Carers fostering large sibling groups found mealtimes very different from those spent with their own children. Seating a large sibling foster group plus own children plus the carer couple themselves, can be a physical impossibility around a normal-sized table. The two teenage boys of one carer chose not to eat with the five foster children (four to 14 years). This carer found that the time spent preparing, cooking, serving and eating much more than the time she spent with her own children:

When you’re doing a meal large enough for nine and you’ve got the odd one who doesn’t eat this and the other one that doesn’t eat that, you’ve got to account for these differences. Even though my own children didn’t want to eat with them it actually worked better because we could fit seven comfortably at the table without over- crowding and we were able to monitor their manners.

For children with eating problems or special dietary needs, food preparation and/or attending to special equipment (e.g. tube-feeding) was time-consuming. For around a third of the sample (n=10), time spent was little different from time with own children, it was just more time. For these carers, routines had been established and the

206 children were settled within the carer family. Establishing routines, however, was not always easy (unlike the ‘two weeks’ mentioned above). As one carer explained:

Mealtimes just took time. The first six months were probably the worst because they didn’t like rules, they didn’t like this, they didn’t like that. But after that they slowly understood and now it’s just fine.

Hygiene/bathing: Here the foster child’s age is an important consideration. Infants and young children were less time-consuming than older children. One carer gave several reasons why older children took extra time:

All the school-age children we’ve had have come with nits. You’ll spend hours on the really basic hygiene stuff, fixing their hair up, even getting them to brush their teeth, getting them to remember to put their dirty clothes out. Initially they take a lot of time in personal hygiene. That initial few weeks takes a lot more time.

With children who had been sexually abused, extra time and patience with bathing was a necessity:

You don’t make them have a bath, you’ve got to work at it. It just adds onto your private time, you sacrifice a lot of your own personal time.

Bathing, toileting and attending to foster children’s hygiene quite often became a foster mother’s sole responsibility as some couple carers decided it was not appropriate for fathers to be involved: ‘it’s the allegation side of it, things like that’.

One carer thought the age of the foster child was irrelevant. In her experience foster children generally lacked basic hygiene skills:

I suppose they’re not doing what your children were at a young age, you’re doing more for them at an older age, like toileting, brushing … explaining to them that they need to brush their teeth.

207 This was also the experience of a carer fostering five siblings. She was taken aback at the poor hygiene skills of all five children:

Even up to the 14-year-old they didn’t have any hygiene skills – they didn’t wipe themselves. They just did not know basically what was appropriate. They had to be constantly reminded to do things like flush the toilet. I cleaned the bathroom and toilet twice a day so that was additional. I generally clean it twice a week. They would have been happy not to have a bath at all!

For the majority of carers, the time taken for most personal care for foster children was more than, but not different from, their own children. However, even for older foster children, constant timely reminders were needed to ensure children maintained basic hygiene.

Bedtime: At bedtime, however, a number of extra tasks increased the time spent with foster children, especially younger children. One carer explained managing bedtime and the patience it required:

They might be scared of the dark, something might have happened [e.g. abuse] in the bedroom. So from teatime onwards it can be big hassles. [Can you give an exact time?] Well, with damaged kids it could be hours. You’ve got these kids screaming and yelling and swearing and carrying on. [Do you sit with them?] Oh yes, yes, I always leave the light on if they don’t like the dark.

For carers of drug-dependent babies, it was ‘twice as hard’ to get them to sleep. As one carer graphically described the time spent:

When we first got her she was still on the morphine. She’s a lot better now, but she still has the crying fits at night. [What happens during the night?] Well, she could be sound asleep and she’ll wake up and she’ll just scream. And she can scream anything up to three hours straight. For drug-dependent babies there’s nothing you can do for them, you have to let them cry it out. [How often during the night would she do this?] Just the one time. But it can go anywhere,

208 from 45 minutes up to three hours [New born with carer for 14 weeks].90

For those carers with large numbers of children, time spent on personal care was substantial, but was it qualitatively different for the foster children? Certainly, with foster children with special needs, challenging behaviours (e.g. ADHD) or disabilities, the additional one-on-one time required for personal care activities was additional to the time spent with their own children, and for some foster children this appeared not to diminish regardless of their age or the time spent in the placement. It is true that additional time would also have been required had a carer’s own child had special needs, but foster children are more likely to be children with special needs.

6.5.2 General household activities time

Over three-quarters of the carers (25) mentioned that time spent on household activities (cleaning, clearing up, laundry, maintenance and repairs) was different from time spent on similar activities for their own children. Carers often found foster children disrespectful of carers’ furniture, furnishings and appliances, and sometimes destructive. Five carers thought the time taken was much the same, but added comments such as: ‘It’s just the more [children] you’ve got the longer it takes’, and ‘cleaning and clearing up is more of the same as far as time goes’. A married carer, with five foster siblings and two of her own teenage boys, commented on the extra workload and the time it took caring for seven children: ‘I’d basically get up at 6am in the morning and I would not get to bed till 11 or 12 at night’.

Carers said they were not too fussy about tidiness. Housework could pile up when children had ‘bad’ days. One carer of a drug-affected baby noted: ‘You can’t put them aside. These children need more specific care, so you just leave everything’. A few carers of children with special needs or disabilities used paid cleaners. They used the higher subsidy payments (CA+1 or CA+2) to purchase such services. As one carer of three preschool-aged foster children, two with special needs argued:

90 Research reports specific challenges in caring for substance-exposed infants: ‘irritability, inconsolability, difficulties with feeding, difficulty settling and being soothed, and sensitivity to change or stimulation’ (Marcellus, 2006: 117).

209 I want the floors done and the bathrooms done and everything. I can’t guarantee that I’m going to be able to thoroughly clean, whereas I can guarantee that Lily will. [How much does it cost you?] $80 a week and she’s worth her weight in gold! (laughter)

There was extra laundry for some carers due to bedwetting, or because children with disabilities or developmental delays were permanently in nappies. Laundry was an exhausting task for carers with large families as one single parent of four preschool- aged children, three foster (two with development delays) and one her own explained:

I’ve had to buy a 10kg washing machine. There are four to five baskets of washing in my room. I’ve got an ironing press because of the volume of ironing. The increased washing load is dramatic.

Carers could not differentiate the time taken in general household activities into separate components. Most activities were part of general household tasks. The time taken to complete these tasks was often not different from that for own children, but more of the same. For carers with foster children with behavioural problems, developmental delays or special needs the time taken was extensive. For those on higher payments and able to afford it, buying-in cleaning services was a great help.

6.5.3 Travel time

For most carers having access to a private vehicle was crucial. Extensive travel for numerous medical, dental, therapeutic, tutoring and access visits for foster children was common.91 Most carers transported foster children to and from school, unless they had made other arrangements with DoCS (paid escorts or taxi services). A few carers had foster children attending pre-school. It was not uncommon for carers to state: ‘It seems like I spend my whole life in the car (laughter)’.

Travel to different schools could be extensive. Carers tried to maintain newly placed foster children at their original schools until the end of the term or the year, to maintain educational continuity and contact with friends. Time for the morning school run was often extended if teachers needed to talk to carers (or vice versa). When

91 Travel time to attend access visits is included in the next section: ‘Administration of placements’.

210 problems arose, which they often did, there was an expectation that carers would be available whenever called upon by a school counselor, principal or teacher. Carers frequently spent time with teachers discussing disruptive behaviour, bullying, swearing, physical violence and a lack of attention to schoolwork. One carer was forever at the school for her ‘troubled and troublesome’ foster son:

He was bullying other kids. He was punching and swearing and that took time away from my own son because I was concentrating too much on this one.

One carer of a sibling group (five foster children) found transporting children to school too onerous and requested DoCS to do the school run on some days:

I would leave just before eight o’clock. By the time I had the meetings with the school I generally would not return until eleven. I was no sooner home than I had to turn around and go back for the pick-up. I found it easier just to do two mornings and [talk to] the teachers, otherwise I would have days when I was hardly at home.

Carers of school-age children estimated it took a minimum of an hour each morning and afternoon, for the school ‘run’. These could be highly stressful, said one carer, as schools all finished at the same time. Getting from one suburb to another to pick up children on time was not easy, especially if there was any traffic delay. Carers could not easily calculate the kilometres they travelled or how many hours they spent on travel, because they often combined food shopping and appointments with the school run. Only one carer kept a travel log for claiming expenses. The travel time that was different for foster children involved the regular and ongoing medical and therapeutic appointments that were excessive compared with their own children. These visits could involve extensive travel (and waiting) times.

6.5.4 Therapeutic activities time

Most carers made reference to foster children’s physical and mental disabilities or special needs that necessitated ongoing therapeutic interventions. Rarely had carers spent similar amounts of time with own children. Many foster children attended weekly or fortnightly appointments at public hospital clinics, or at specialists’ or

211 therapists’ rooms. Carers travelled substantial distances and spent considerable time accessing a variety of services, including psychologists, school counsellors, occupational and speech therapists, physiotherapists, tutors and feeding clinics. One carer explained her travel time:

You could go for miles to doctors and specialists and the paediatrician – I couldn’t even add that all up. This baby probably goes to the doctor every three weeks, the skin specialist once a month and we go to the baby clinic to get weighed and measured. Many of these visits would take an hour or an hour and a half easily [Two foster children, two own children].

Carers also provided therapeutic treatments at home, including daily exercises, massages and stimulation activities. Supplementing weekly occupational therapy sessions for preschool-age children took carers around 20-30 minutes per day. Getting one an older foster child to attend professional counselling was not an easy matter: ‘It can be very tiring, especially when you have to argue with the children to go’.

A single parent carer with three preschool-age foster children (two with disabilities) explained how time-consuming accessing services can be. Her comments illustrate the interweaving of indirect (time) and direct (money) costs:

I go to day care three times a week. I do three access visits a month.92 Two of them [foster children] have ongoing speech, occupational and irregular physical therapy. They all have paediatricians’ appointments. I probably go to Westmead three or four times a month, at least (laughter). That’s $12 just for parking; we have to get a sandwich and a drink because we are there for so long. In terms of not even petrol, just incidentals, that costs $25.

Homework: While not strictly speaking a therapy, homework was mentioned by all carers of school-aged foster children as something they spent time on, either supervising or helping. Mostly this was done as mothers prepared the evening meal.

92 Travel time for access visits is included in the next section: ‘Administration of placements’.

212 Most carers saw this as a norm, and one carer said: ‘The Department say it’s not something they expect you to do, but it’s something that’s needed’.93 Four carers thought the time they spent on homework was ‘nothing more than you do with your own kids’, but for one carer of four foster children, the time taken was extensive:

My foster children all have learning difficulties. I’ve one in kindergarten, one in Year 1 and two in Year 2, four learning those very basic skills. It takes lots of time. We try not to spend more than one hour [per day], they do homework from 5:00 till 6:00 while I’m cooking tea and watching over their homework.

Regular suspensions from school for troublesome behaviour resulted in carers spending whole days at home with suspended children. Carers noted that children’s disruptive behaviour at school was often a consequence of a lack of age-appropriate levels of literacy and writing skills. Experienced carers mentioned discussions with school principals about some foster children repeating classes to ensure they could keep up. DoCS’ permission was not always given willingly. One carer had a particularly difficult time convincing a caseworker it was inappropriate for a 12-year- old semi-literate child to go to high school, although the local primary school supported the carer’s decision for the child to repeat the last year of primary school. The carer’s own words provide a graphic description of the time, energy and emotional costs involved in achieving a positive outcome for the child. The carer was very proud of the foster child’s achievements:

He was terrified of going to high school. And the way he dealt with it was – he’d just fight everybody at school, so that he got this sort of respect at school by fighting. We went to DoCS and I said, “I’m not going to let him go to high school”. I just wouldn’t sign the high school forms or anything.

93 Australian and UK research reporting significant educational deficits for fostered children highlights the invaluable contribution of carers (and teachers) in building sensitive and responsible relationships with foster children in redressing educational disadvantage and providing a positive experience in school (Burnside, 2004; CSCI, 2006; Fernandez, 2007; Sinclair, 2005).

213 He stayed with us for four and a half years, we got him a tutor, we got all the things we needed. DoCS never offered us any support to get any of this. He wanted to learn to read. He went to tutoring twice a week – he had to start from the very basics.

He’s in 3rd year at high school now, and he’s just a joy. He plays football, he has heaps of friends. Never be a Rhodes scholar, but he can cope. He will get a job, he will become a productive member of society. He’s a happy person. And he’s what makes it rewarding.

Sporting activities: Most school-age foster children were involved in sporting activities (football, soccer, netball, dancing, swimming). The time spent on these activities was similar to that spent with their own children. While it took up considerable travel and personal time, carers enjoyed being involved. Often it was a family affair on weekends with everyone going along to participate or watch.

In summary, the time spent travelling was high for carers of school-age foster children, because of attendance at school and sporting activities. It was equally extensive for other carers meeting preschool children’s health and developmental needs.

6.5.5 Time for administration of placements

New South Wales carers have a number of responsibilities in administering a foster care placement, including: attending foster care meetings or case conferences; attending carer-training; maintaining records (e.g. Life Story Books); and recording relevant information on injuries, illnesses and accidents (NSW DoCS, 2006e).94 Apart from keeping school and medical records and taking photos, carers saw these activities as very different from those they would have observed with their own children. The administrative tasks taking additional time included all of the above, as well as computing, access visits and attending carer support groups.

94 Life Story Books are provided to NSW carers by DoCS to record key events and keep copies of photos, school and health records for foster children.

214 Life Story Books: Keeping Life Story Books for foster children was mentioned by close to two-thirds (19) of the carer families, though it was a relatively new phenomenon for some carers, having been supplied with books only since 2005. Hence estimating the amount of time involved with maintaining these books was not possible. A number of carers admitted they were a ‘bit slack’ in keeping a record. Others meticulously noted daily events and school progress, and frequently filed school reports, photos, certificates of achievement (e.g. sport), and art/craft work.

Computers: It became apparent during the interviews that over half (n=16) of the carers used personal computers for fostering’s administrative tasks. Five carers kept a diary (on computer) recording relevant information about the child’s placement, e.g. injuries, illnesses and accidents, access visits. Another carer kept a paper diary, writing down ‘everything’ about the child: ‘I spend quite a bit of time with that, maybe an hour a week’.

Most carers contacted their caseworker by phone or email if anything needed to be recorded on a child’s file. Being computer literate (i.e. able to word process, send emails, produce flyers for training/support groups) has made some carers’ lives much easier, though busier. Some carers preferred to use the email system, although it often took an inordinate amount of time trying to contact caseworkers, leaving numerous messages and waiting days for messages to be answered.

Composing emails to workers was not easy for one carer: ‘It takes time thinking about how I word it, so she understands what I’m talking about, and how important this email is’. She estimated spending between 30 to 60 minutes a day on the computer. Emailing workers allowed one carer to keep a record of discussions:

It’s verification and no misunderstanding. From the Department’s point of view, initially they said, “Oh, we love the emails because we can just copy and paste it into the file”. I think that all carers should communicate in writing.

Carers found the Internet an invaluable resource for researching foster children’s dietary needs and challenging behaviours. Some carers spent many hours a week on the computer, depending on their involvement with training, support, mentoring or research. One estimated ‘about four hours per week’, another ‘five hours on Sunday’,

215 and another ‘half an hour to an hour, four or five days a week’. A Foster Care Association representative spent 15 hours weekly reporting/recording/emailing information to workers and carers, and conducting research. Time involved in the ‘administration’ of placements in one form or another (written or computer) took up considerable, though variable, amounts of time for all carers.95

Access visits: Close to half (n=14) the carers facilitated access visits to birth families. They often travelled considerable distances, e.g. from Sydney to the Central Coast (150 km return trip) to visit a grandmother, or to a gaol (80 km return trip) to visit a birth parent. Carers often had no option but to wait around while visits took place. Only one carer kept a travel log for claiming associated expenses. On some visits at ‘neutral’ venues (e.g. McDonalds, RSL club), carers paid for the shared meal, while acting as volunteer quasi-supervisors. Paying for food/drinks on access visits is a further illustration of the overlap of indirect costs (i.e. time) with direct costs (i.e. buying meals).

Carers concerned about safety issues left supervised access visits to DoCS. One-third (n=10) of carers did not carry out any access visits, preferring to let DoCS organise them. But these arrangements were often unsatisfactory, because workers did not turn up at the agreed time, or they changed the time of visits without consulting carers. Carers were also annoyed when access visits clashed with foster children’s weekend sports commitments. One noted: ‘It just cuts into their lives and ours – as much as they must keep up the contact with siblings and family’.

DoCS’ Resource Guide for Foster Carers states that carers are to be kept informed of dates and times of arrangements, consulted about changes in arrangements, and have other demands on their time considered when contact is being arranged (NSW, DoCS, 2006d: 48). For many carers this did not happen.

Time spent on access visits is sometimes considerable. One carer of an infant in short- term placement stated she spent ‘four hours weekly on access’ with siblings who were with two different carers. An Indigenous carer and her husband (five foster children in

95 The increasing use of the Internet by foster carers for information, advice, support and for formal online training has been reported elsewhere (Pacifici et al., 2006).

216 two sibling groups, long-term care) carried out numerous access visits with two birth families: mothers, other siblings, and a grandmother. Another carer commented on the time she spent on access visits:

For the little boy [four ½ years old] I’ve just negotiated down from 32 visits a year to 20. The little girl [second foster child] is about to move into a long-term placement – her access visits up this point have been three times a week with each visit taking about three hours in total.

In summary, the time taken by carers for travel to and waiting at access visits was highly variable and impossible to calculate with any accuracy. When reunification was part of a case plan, or when infants were involved, access visits were more frequent. Not all carers were involved in access visits; it depended on the relationship between carer and worker, and between carer and birth family.

Case conferences: The Foster Carer Resource Guide states that all foster children’s case plans should be reviewed annually. Carers are usually expected to be present (although not if the birth parents attend) to provide updates on the child’s progress and discuss any needs not being met. The aim of the conferences is to provide carers with information to assist them in their role (NSW, DoCS, 2006d: 29-32).

Some foster children had been with their carers for too short a period to require a case conference, but nine carers said they had attended a foster child’s case conference. 96 One carer had attended an annual case conference for each of her four long-term foster children. Meetings usually took about two hours including travel time. Carers said they thought children in long-term care had to be reviewed annually, and six- monthly for children in short-term care, but that this did not happen. Carers of children in long-term care reported not having had a conference for some years. One carer, fostering three siblings over a ten-year period, remarked: ‘Most of the time I’ve not had an officer [caseworker] for these kids’. A number of carers were angry that,

96 All foster children after initial assessment and placement have a specific case plan developed to meet their needs.

217 not only were case conferences held without their attendance, decisions were made about the foster child without their knowledge.

Carer training: All foster carers mentioned carer-training. Seventeen carers spoke positively about their experiences of ongoing training. Some carers had attended daytime sessions (2-4 hours), others had attended evening sessions (2 hours). Travel time usually added a further 30 to 60 minutes each way. Some carers were attending training frequently: ‘every week’ or ‘every two weeks’ or ‘once a month’. For others it depended on when training was available, which could be every six months. Carers who attended day training were usually provided with child-minding. Several carers paid $5, at regular four-hour training sessions, to cover lunch and child care. Carers were not reimbursed for their travel expenses. Other carers had training at monthly carer-support groups.

Some carers were not able to take advantage of available training, while others lacked opportunities. For some, the training offered was not applicable to their skill development, or to the age of their fostered child, or they simply did not have time. Two experienced carers spoke quite negatively about carer-training feeling it was a ‘waste’ and ‘irrelevant’. A carer of preschool-age children would have preferred to attend evening training with babysitting provided by the department.

Six carers thought ongoing training had become a more critical element in fostering in recent years. They felt all carers should undertake compulsory ongoing training, with payment for attendance, a favoured option being at least four mandatory one-day training sessions annually. They also felt that specialised training should be made available for carers of children with special needs. It was not possible to determine an average time for carer attendance at training. For regular attendees it was a minimum of three hours per week.

Carer support groups: Carer support groups are for sharing information, networking, mutual help and learning and can fulfil a need for training, education and support (Smith and Smith, 1990). Twenty-four carers were regularly attending a carer support group and six had attended a group in the recent past. On a monthly basis, 15 carers were attending one support group, seven attended two groups, and one carer three groups. One carer, an employed carer-trainer, attended six groups per month. Most

218 groups lasted 3-4 four hours with additional time for travel. Most were organised and run by experienced carers through their local DoCS office. Some carers spent extra time preparing flyers and arranging speakers.

Carers thought the groups were important, with many of them developing warm and strong relationships with other carers.97 Experienced carers also supported ‘new’ carers who contacted them for mentoring and advice. One carer, fostering for 14 years, who made herself available for carers to contact, remarked on the time- consuming nature of this role:

Yesterday, I was on the phone for two hours with another carer, because she’s only a new carer. She can’t get onto her caseworker and she’s having problems. [It] can take hours if you’ve got a new carer who’s really upset and you’re trying to build their confidence.

It was not uncommon for Indigenous carers (or non-Indigenous carers caring for Indigenous foster children) to state that they often attended two monthly groups one Aboriginal, the other mainstream. One experienced Indigenous carer spent 30-60 minutes, four or five days a week, organising group meetings, maintaining ongoing contact with the FCA (Foster Care Association) and ABSEC (Aboriginal Secretariat) and Indigenous carers in her group.

6.5.6 Time supporting foster children

Twenty-five carers thought the time taken supporting foster children with the emotional/psychological aspects of caring (e.g. developing relationships and dealing with adjustments) was very different from the time taken with their own children (and five thought their foster children took about the same time as their own children did). Trusting was not something that came easily to most foster children regardless of their ages, as two carers explained:

97 UK research also highlights the importance of training/support groups for carers and the benefits of carers ‘getting to know one another’. The formation of carer networks may over the longer term far outweigh the benefits of the training itself (Ogilvie, Kirton and Beecham, 2006; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000).

219 These kids have been abused so it takes a lot of time getting them to trust again, showing them that there is love. It takes them a long time to accept [you]. Your whole day is taken up, from the time you get up in the morning till the time you go to bed and then they wake up in the night. So 24 hours a day (laughter) sounds a bit like it! [Married carer fostering 14 years]

Constant reinforcement of trust was time-consuming, as another carer made clear:

Your own children don’t have to be taught to re-love again. Most foster children do. They have to learn how to trust again. It would have to be at least half to one hour a day, it’s constant, it’s got to be done and redone. Lots of time has been spent with the eldest child [five-year-old] in this placement because she is so fearful [Two foster children with carer for eight months].

Estimating the time spent in providing emotional/psychological support was quite difficult. Some carers thought older children ‘demanded’ more time than younger foster children did. One carer who has fostered 21 children over four years spoke of the varied time required for support:

The older ones probably are more so, with the younger ones, once you’ve got that routine going they are satisfied. [How much time on a one-to-one basis?] I would say probably around an hour a day, not necessarily all in one block. You’ve got all these different blocks, it could be more, it could be less.

One carer thought the children coming into care now were a ‘lot more emotionally damaged’ than they were when she started fostering seven years ago. She reflected on the emotional time foster children required:

You know, maybe that’s one reason why carers often take the smaller children, because they come with physical needs but often their emotional needs aren’t as great. We have to be really aware of just how much time some of the foster kids actually suck from us, the emotional time. So we have to be really careful that we still have

220 time left with our own kids [Married, aged 42, fostering for seven years, two adolescent own boys].

The time aspect of carers’ emotional ‘labour’ was evident in other reflective responses. While at times a primary activity, on other occasions it was a secondary activity, as one carer indicates:

You have to work at it, [long pause] I don’t know, [it’s] difficult to estimate time. I would be doing it all through the day while the child is awake, while I’m doing my housework. So it’s hard to pinpoint a time, but the rest of the time that I’m spending with the child while I’m driving or even hanging the washing out [Married carer, fostering three years].

Children’s reactions to particular events or situations could cause heightened levels of anxiety for child and carer. Children were often difficult before and after access visits, and some children were devastated when parents failed to appear. One carer noted the difficulties of balancing her own children’s need to be ‘listened to’ and to have time spent with them on a one-to-one basis, with the foster children’s needs. There were times when she needed to be with the foster children after access visits that had not gone well, and it often took 20 minutes or more to settle the child down, with her own children resenting the time it took:

I’ll go into the room and just talk to them on their own, they like the attention, lots of listening. My kids used to get very jealous because I was spending that time, so you try not to. But all the children need some time with me and it does take time [Married with four own and three foster children, fostering for 14 years].

There were other carers whose own children also saw their mother’s time with foster children negatively. One carer of two developmentally-disabled foster children who had been in her care for ten years, said her own children, all older than the foster children, had told her that she was ‘just consumed with these children to the detriment of them’. Most carers felt foster children needed more intense emotional support than their own children did. For one carer there were days when one or another of her five foster children just needed to be held as they cried inconsolably for their mothers.

221 Being stigmatised or bullied at school is not unusual for foster children. One Indigenous carer tried to support the child in the face of this offensive behaviour:

You can nurture the child and talk to a child “Yes you’re beautiful” and I don’t see her scars [self-mutilation]. Year 7 is really hard for a “normal” child. She has had a really hard time this year. And when anybody’s hurting, particularly children, if they are upset, the people who cop the backlash are the closest people to them [Like you?] Yes [Single parent, aged 62, foster children aged 11 and 13 years].

In summary, although the aim in this section had been to present a range of estimates (in minutes/hours) of the ‘extra’ time taken in various areas of fostering, this was not possible. Fostering’s tasks and activities were variable and multi-faceted, and they blurred and overlapped with each other and with other simultaneous activities done for other household members, making it difficult for carers to isolate specific extra time for individual tasks with foster children. It was evident that the time required for foster children was sometimes qualitatively different from time spent with carers’ own children, due to a number of factors including the impact of past abuse and neglect, and the extent of the special needs common among foster children. Regardless of the intensity of these needs, they all took carer time to address. While the exact minutes and hours were difficult for carers to quantify, it was evident that substantial amounts of extra time were a necessity, not an option.

6.6 Measuring fostering’s extra time

There is only one study that has measured the extra time it takes carers to provide fostering’s tasks/activities, and that is Oldfield’s UK study. The researcher suggests that examining the extra time taken up by fostering is important as ‘there are many different psychological and physical disorders found in foster children which manifest in poor behaviour and special needs’ that require extra time in caring (Oldfield, 1997: 140). This study was based on a sample of 32 foster families (28 married couples, four sole parents), with 47 foster children comprising children aged 0-4 years (n=14) 5-10 years (n=9) and 11-16 years (n=24) (Oldfield, 1997:133).

Around the same number of mothers were interviewed for the thesis study (n=30) as were interviewed in the UK study (n=32), but the numbers of foster children in each

222 study differed significantly: 76 children (thesis sample) and 47 children (the UK sample). Given that the UK carers were fostering smaller numbers of children, with only 15 of the 32 families fostering more than one foster child this may have made it somewhat easier for them to provide estimates of time. The fact that the Australian carers were fostering larger numbers of children in multi-child households may be the reason why it was difficult to determine with any degree of accuracy the time taken with individual children.

Oldfield’s (1997) approach (see section 4.2.3) adopted for the thesis study estimated the ‘extra’ time it took carers to complete care tasks/activities for personal care, general household care, travel, therapeutic care, administration and emotional support. The adoption of the same approach enabled a limited comparison to be made between amounts of extra time taken for various tasks/activities in fostering by the Australian carers and the UK carers. The comparison is limited due to missing time estimates in the Australian data.

Comparing foster time for the Australian and the UK carers: Carers in both studies reported that simple everyday tasks took excessive time requiring persuasion, constant supervision and, for some fostered children, inordinate patience. Multi-tasking was typical of all foster carers in both studies. There was a great deal of similarity between the studies in the types of activities/tasks which needed ‘extra’ time.

Additional time for personal care: For both sets of carers the estimated extra time spent on personal care for foster children was highly variable, but similar, with some carers reporting extremely high inputs of time and others fairly minimal. In the UK study the range of weekly time for personal care was 0-10 hours with an average of approximately 2.5 hours for younger children (0-4 years) and 3 hours for older children (5-16 years) (Oldfield, 1997: 141). There are no Australian estimates, so they cannot be compared.

Additional time for household care: The factors that increased the time spent in general household chores were similar in both studies. These included: fostered children’s medical conditions/behavioural problems; incontinence or poor toileting/hygiene practices; and destructive behaviours. Carers in both studies discussed the workload generated by foster children in terms of extra cleaning and

223 clearing up, more laundry (washing and ironing), and extra maintenance, repairs and replacement of household items. The weekly range of estimates by UK carers was 0-8 hours, with an average of around 2 hours for younger children (0-10 years) and three hours for older children (11-16 years) (Oldfield, 1997: 144). There are no Australian estimates, so they cannot be compared.

Additional time for travel: Extra travel (and ‘waiting’ time) when fostering, for medical, dental, therapeutic and tutoring appointments and access visits, were also similar for the carers in both studies. Time required for school travel was mentioned by the Australian carers, but not by the UK carers. Average times suggested by Australian carers for individual hospital clinics/specialist visits was 3-4 hours (travel/waiting time); 1-1½ hours for each GP/dentist/therapist visit, and an hour each day for school (and child care) drop-off/pick-ups. Carers (n=14) facilitating access estimated an average of 2.5 hours of travel per visit. In the UK study weekly travel ranged from 0-5 hours, with less (on average 1 hour) travel required for younger (0-4 years) compared to older children (5-16 years), and an average of 1.5 hours (Oldfield, 1997: 145).

Additional time for therapeutic activities: The range of activities and extra time spent on therapeutic interventions, homework assistance, educational games and therapeutic play was similar for both studies. The Australian carers reported a range of different therapies that often required follow-up time at home of around 30 to 60 minutes per day. Homework supervision on school days, on average, took an hour per day. In the UK study, time for therapeutic activities ranged from 0-16 hours per week, with an average of 2.1, 2.5 and 3.2 hours required for children 0-4 years, 5-10 years and 11-16 years, respectively (Oldfield, 1997: 146).

Additional time for placement administration: For the Australian carers administration had several components. Attendance at case conferences/other meetings, while infrequent for most carers, averaged around two hours per meeting. Monthly carer- support meetings (which were attended by most carers) took five hours on average, including travel. Frequency of carer attendance at ongoing training was variable. Monthly training sessions were usually a half or a full day, with an average of 5.5 hours (including travel) per training session. Time spent by the Australian carers on communicating/contacting DoCS and/or caseworkers by phone and/or email was also

224 highly variable. Over 50 per cent (16) of carers spent on average 4.5 hours per week on their computers. Most administrative aspects (preparing reports, filling in life-story books, meetings, reviews and communicating with workers by telephone) noted by the Australian carers also applied to the UK foster carers, though no mention was made in the UK study of computer use or attendance at training or support groups. Overall, for carers in both studies, the extra time required for placement administration was extensive. In the UK study time for administration ranged from ¾- 17 hours per week, with an average of 5.7, 4.8 and 4.1 hours required for children 0-4 years, 5-10 years and 11-16 years, respectively (Oldfield, 1997: 146).

Additional time for emotional support: The extra time spent in emotional/psychological support by most carers in both studies was significantly different, both in type and intensity, from time spent with own children. There were many commonalities between the studies in the emotional support offered. Carers noted the need to allay fears, reassure children re their security and safety, and build up trust. Due to the ongoing and repetitive nature of emotional support, the Australian carers found it difficult to estimate the time taken, as it often accompanied other daily task/activities. The UK study found the older children required the most weekly time, 19.1 hours on average, followed by 5-10 year olds (13.7 hours), and 8.6 hours for children 0-4 years. In the UK study the time spent counselling (emotional care) foster children by carers was designated as secondary time (done in conjunction with other essential care tasks/activities). It was not included in the primary time costs of fostering. This approach is also adopted for this thesis study.

There was a strong symmetry between the studies in the findings for the extra time required for fostering’s tasks and activities. However, it is difficult to say whether Oldfield’s figures are over- or under-estimates of time for Australian carers. As the UK study did not include any allocation of time for computer use, attendance at carer training and support groups, or transporting children to and from school, it is likely that the UK figures may be under-estimates. In addition, while both studies allocate emotional care to secondary time, occurring simultaneously with other task/activities, its importance as a support for foster children cannot be over-estimated. For some foster children the severity of emotional/psychological aspects of past abuse and neglect may well require at times the undivided primary attention of a carer in

225 providing appropriate emotional support. Research studies have noted the significant role of contemporary carers as surrogate or parent-therapist for foster children (AFCA, 2001; Cashmore, Dolby and Brennan, 1994; Steinhauer, 1991). Nonetheless, despite these reservations around the comparability of Australian time costs with UK costs, Oldfield’s study provides a valuable guide for estimating the time costs of fostering. The two studies are similar enough to suggest that Oldfield’s time estimates can be applied as a proxy for the amounts of extra time taken by the carers in this thesis study. These estimates are presented in Table 6-4.

Panel A, Table 6-4 shows that the average extra weekly time costs for foster children are remarkably consistent and increase slightly with age, from 13.2 hours for children 0-4 years, 13.5 hours for children 5-10 years and 14.5 hours for older children (11- 16+ years), with an overall average of 13.9 hours. Given the Australian carers’ emphasis on the repetitive nature of reinforcing social behaviours, at ages well beyond what is normally required for children, combined with the special needs of children in care, this consistency across age groups in the extra time taken to care is not surprising. The figures in Panel B, Table 6-4 indicate that on average all foster children require around two hours per day for essential tasks/activities that are extra to the usual time spent providing care to children.

Table 6-4: Extra Time Spent in Foster Care Tasks and Activities by Age Group

Primary Time 0-4 years 5-10 years 11-16+ years All ages Panel A Hours per week Personal care 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.8 General household 1.8 1.9 2.9 2.4 activities Travel 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.3 Therapeutic 2.1 2.5 3.2 2.7 Administration 5.7 4.8 4.1 4.7 Total 13.2 13.5 14.5 13.9 Panel B Hours per day 1.89 1.93 2.07 1.99 Panel C (Secondary time) Hours per week Emotional care 8.6 13.7 19.1 14.9 Source: Oldfield, 1997: Table 4.9

226 Oldfield’s estimates of the average weekly time spent in emotional support (Panel C, Table 6-4) of 8.6, 13.7, 19.1 hours for children aged 0-4, 5-10, and 11-16+ hours respectively, treated as a secondary activity, echoes the Australian carer’s responses that older children required more time in emotional care than younger children.

Australian Time Use Survey data (see below, Table 6-5) shows the ‘ordinary’ time (non-fostering) required in caring (combines primary and secondary time) for other (non-foster) children, along with estimates of the extra time taken to foster. The figures in Table 6-4 indicate that fostering’s extra time costs are fairly constant across all age groups, in contrast to the estimates of time for children not in care. Ironmonger’s (2004) study indicated that, as children (not in care) grow and develop, they are able to take care of themselves for longer periods, and less time is required by parents to provide care. The estimates of time in Table 6-5 are based on caring for a single foster child. They suggest that, at a minimum, the average time required to foster (foster + non-foster time) is 7.5 hours per day.

Table 6-5: Estimated Daily Fostering Time by Carers and Other Child Care Time (non-fostering) by Age Group of Child98

Area 0-4 years 5-10 years 11-16+ years All ages Hours per day Extra child care time: fostering(a) 1.89 1.93 2.07 1.96 Child care time (non- fostering) (b) 8.1 5.2 3.3 5.53 Total time child care 9.99 7.13 5.37 7.50

Source: a) Oldfield, 1997: Table 4.9. b) Ironmonger, 2004: Table 5.6. Notes: The hours of care required in Ironmonger’s five age categories (0-1, 2-4, 5-9, 10-12 and 13-14 years) were adjusted to more closely reflect Oldfield’s three age groups (0-4, 5-10, 11-16 years).

The estimates take no account either of economies of scale or of simultaneous caring when more than one child (own and/or foster) is with a carer. The estimates in Table 6-5, combining UK estimates for the extra time required when fostering (Oldfield, 1997) and Australian estimates for non-fostering time (Ironmonger, 2004), are the

98 These age categories are comparable with the age categories (0-4, 5-13 and 11-17 years) selected by DoCS for the new age-related payment system introduced in 2006.

227 best estimates available to guide the discussion in the following section in estimating the value of a replacement wage for carers, using the proxy good approach.

6.6.1 Proxy good (replacement cost) model

The most appropriate replacement cost of a foster carer (see section 3.2.3) is the wage of a residential care worker (as suggested by Oldfield, 1997). In Australia, residential care is used as an alternative to foster care for children with high and complex needs requiring an OOHC placement. In New South Wales, residential care workers are covered by the Social and Community Services Employee (State) Award (SaCS) (Flynn et al., 2005: 22). There are six grades of Community Services Workers (CSW). Varying wage levels are set for these six grades according to years (1-3) of service. Workers are classified into different levels based on skill, experience and level of responsibility (up to managerial level), and are paid according to their employment status: full-time, part-time or casual.

For the purpose of this estimation, a lower and an upper bound of imputed wage values for carer time are used. The lower estimate is the lowest level of the SaCS award (CSW Grade 1, first year of service) for beginning carers. The upper bound is the SaCS award (CSW Grade 1, third year of service) for experienced carers. Use is made of the casual hourly rate of pay reflecting the often episodic nature of many fostering placements (e.g. respite/emergency, short and medium term). In 2006, the casual hourly rate for a CSW Grade 1 (1st year) was $15.87 and for a CSW Grade 1 (3rd year) $17.07.99

Figures in Table 6-6 provide estimates of the level of wages for carers based on the time taken to provide a fostering service. The figures in Panel A (from Table 6-5) are the hours of care required in caring for fostered children in various age groups. The amounts in Panel B are estimates of carer wages based on the daily and weekly rates of pay (casual hourly rates) of Grade 1 CSWs in their 1st (lower bound) and 3rd year (upper bound) of employment. The wage estimates in the table indicate that younger children (0-4 years) are more expensive to care for than older children 11-16+ years.

99 The casual rate is equal to one thirty-eighth of the weekly rate plus an additional loading of 15 per cent (NSW, OIR, 2006).

228 The average estimated weekly wage rate of $832.80 (lower bound) and $895.78 (upper bound) was calculated for 52.5 hours per week. These weekly wages are considerably higher than the weekly full-time wage for community service (residential care) workers: $524.08 (Grade 1, 1st year) and $563.78 (Grade 1, 3rd year).

Table 6-6: Lower and Upper Bound Values of Foster Time by Age Group of Foster Child (July 2006)

0-4 years 5-10 years 11-16+ All ages years (average) Panel A Hours per day Extra child care time: 1.89 1.93 2.07 1.96 fostering Child care time (non- 8.1 5.2 3.3 5.53 fostering) Total hours 9.99 7.13 5.37 7.50 Panel B Daily rate $15.87 per hour (1) $158.54 $113.15 $85.22 $118.97 $17.07 per hour (2) $170.53 $121.71 $91.67 $127.97 Weekly rate(3) Lower Bound $1,109.79 $792.07 $596.55 $832.80 Upper Bound $1193.71 $851.96 $641.66 $895.78 Notes: 1. SaCS CSW Grade 1 (1st year) rate July 2006 2. SaCS CSW Grade 3 (1st year) rate July 2006 3. Based on a working week of seven days

These CSW wages are, however, based on a 38-hour, 5-day week, not the seven days a week required for fostering. In addition, the estimated wage for carers is based on the rate paid to casuals, which has an additional loading of 15 per cent on the hourly rate for full-time workers. What is less obvious from these calculations is that providing the 24-hour care and supervision of foster children by residential workers would require three full-time workers, each working an eight-hour day. A 38-hour week also implies the use of additional workers to fill the gap when workers take their two rostered days off per week, an entitlement not available to foster carers. Numerous research studies (including this present one, section 6.4) report difficulties for carers in accessing respite.

229 These wage estimates differ from Oldfield’s estimates. In the UK study all foster children, regardless of age, were treated as ‘a second child in a household’ and were allocated a minimal amount of time (1.36 hours per day) for non-fostering care. Oldfield’s total time (fostering and non-fostering) estimates were 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 hours per day (for children 0-4 years, 5-10 years and 1-16+ years respectively) considerably less than those estimated for this thesis study (i.e. 9.9, 7.13, 5.37 hours), and did not include secondary care activities and tasks (Oldfield, 1997: Table 4.10). The reason for taking a different approach here, in estimating non-fostering hours in caring for children, was outlined in Section 3.2.3. In estimating the value of care, not only are the estimates ‘very sensitive’ to the estimation methodology used, but also the amount of time allocated to provide care.

The fact that these foster care costs are age- and time-based does not mean that a carer-wage would be based on a child’s age, or increased for households with larger numbers of children. However, it might be advisable to pay a premium or an enhanced wage, to encourage the fostering of siblings or larger numbers of foster children per household. A carer wage/fee would in all probability be paid per household, similar to developments in the UK and some European countries (Colton and Williams, 2007; Hutchinson, Asquith and Simmonds, 2003). There are other factors to be considered when estimating a wage level for fostering. Carers’ qualifications, competencies, skills, or a commitment to undertake professional training, may be important factors to be taken into account in varying the amounts paid to carers. In addition, whether a foster child is categorised as low or high needs (i.e. work and time required is more demanding) may also be given consideration. For example, in Sweden where a wage component is paid to carers, the age and needs of the child determine both the level of wage and the level of the subsidy (Hojer, 2006).

These estimates give recognition to the demanding and time-consuming nature of fostering. Similar to the direct costs which indicated that foster children cost more than other children, these indirect costs indicate that foster children take more time to care for than other children do. In determining a monetary value for time it takes to provide a fostering service it needs to be borne in mind that, similar to the original BSU estimates and the Foster Care Estimates, the estimated time-costs of children and the dollar amounts assigned to them are precisely that – estimates.

230 6.7 Opportunity costs

In the discussions with carers on their forgone earnings (opportunity costs), the time- consuming nature of caring for foster children is further evidenced by the minimal number of hours carers can commit to paid work when fostering. Carers discussed paid work and what they might be doing if they were not fostering (e.g. jobs, or voluntary or leisure activities). Thirteen carers (those not in receipt of age pension/retired or in paid work) stated that fostering prevented them from taking on paid work. Most (8) were younger carers, between the ages of 34-49 years, and five were aged 51-58. Eight were married and five were single parents. The main reason given by these carers was the heavy demands of fostering stemming from either a foster child’s age, or their special needs, or their challenging behaviours.

Foster carers of preschool-age children saw little point in paying babysitters or using day care so they could go to work. The barriers to paid work mentioned by carers of older children included suspensions (and expulsions) from school, and having to change schools when teachers failed to cope with disruptive and challenging behaviours. Having to be ‘on call’ in case a teacher/principal called, having to attend therapies and/or medical appointments, or to be available to do access visits, also precluded any thought of paid work. Carers were of the opinion that to meet all contingencies when fostering: ‘Someone has to be at home’.

Due to fostering’s demands, three carers gave up paid work because it was too difficult to do both. One married carer, aged 51, unable to ‘juggle’ fostering and paid work, regretted leaving her job, which had been her ‘little bit of independence’. One married carer, aged 43, gave up her evening job in hospitality because her family (husband and sons) were missing out. On realising she paid more for babysitters than she earned, she left the job to spend more time with her family.

Carers in paid employment: Eight carers (27%) worked part-time. Getting the balance right between working and fostering was not always easy. Combining the two roles was dependent on the willingness of partners or other relatives to care for foster children while the carers worked. One carer working four hours three evenings a week as a data operator explained how organised she had to be before she could leave the house: ‘I have to have the children all fed and bathed and everyone ready for bed and then I go off to work’. Her job satisfaction came from being able to contribute to

231 paying the bills, rather than any feeling that the job gave her some worth. She would rather have worked during the day but said: ‘I wouldn’t sacrifice my fostering for it.’

One married carer, aged 42, was a permanent part-time nurse with three school-age children (two own and one foster). Due to the difficulties arranging child care for preschool-age foster children, she now only fosters school-age children (short-term); she works school hours or at night. Another married carer, aged 51, worked approximately 24 hours per week as a consultant foster-carer trainer. Care of her fostered child while she worked was provided by her mother, also an authorised foster carer. Two carers worked at home (no pay) providing administrative assistance for their husbands’ businesses. One of the two, an enrolled nurse, would have liked a paid job. However, she was concerned that working at night, while her husband cared for the foster children, would mean she would not be able to cope with the four foster children during the day.

Importance of paid work: When asked what they might do if they had to make a decision between fostering or their paid work, five of the eight in paid work were adamant that they would continue to foster and give up paid work. Three carers were more hesitant in their responses. One married carer, providing admin assistance for her husband, would stop fostering if she had to work. Two married carers, age 42 and 51, both working substantial part-time hours in professional occupations (nursing and training) found the question really hard, but said that they needed to work because of mortgage payments. In general, most carers appeared cognisant of the opportunity costs of fostering. However, only one carer (trainer), who thought she may be out of work in the near future, intimated she may have to stop fostering to find another job.

When all carers were asked what they might be doing if they had not chosen to foster, two-thirds (20) said they would be in paid work. Ten carers, many older, said they would be holidaying, travelling, volunteering in another capacity or retired. These older carers had moved from rearing their own children to fostering, with little or no employment in between. When employed as young women they had been in low paid, mostly unskilled work in factories (labourers), hospitals (cleaners) or offices (clerks). Many spoke of needing retraining if they were to take up employment again. Due to their age, lack of skills and work experience they felt they would have difficulty in getting paid work.

232 Some carers, with dependent own children, said they would only ever work part-time while their children were at school. While the prospect of paid work may have been enticing for some carers, most gave it only cursory consideration. Their comments indicated that the choice they had made to foster was a definite commitment that would not be changed lightly. They valued their role as carers very highly.

6.8 Opportunity costs of foster mothers

As noted in 3.2.2, the opportunity costs model does not reflect the time it takes to provide a fostering service. While ‘time for caring’ is involved in both models, the different approaches suggest the resultant dollar estimates could vary considerably. The approach adopted here to estimate opportunity costs is to examine the level of earnings of mothers who are in the labour market, who are in similar circumstances to foster mothers, and who have returned to employment after child-bearing. A number of factors strongly influence the employment decisions of women in their child- bearing/rearing years (Gray and Chapman, 2001; Oldfield, 1997). Among those factors are:

 age;  marital status;  age of the youngest child;  number of children in the household; and  education, training or employment backgrounds.

In estimating forgone earnings the following section focuses on those carers who were either in employment already, or who could have been in paid work (n=26), given their education, training or employment backgrounds. An examination of mothers’ employment by age and marital status is also considered in estimating forgone earnings. For the eight mothers in paid work a comparison is made between their level of earnings and those of other Australian mothers employed in similar industries.

Four carers, two aged 55 and 64 and two aged 66, for whom paid work was not an option, were excluded from the exercise. The characteristics of the 26 carers were quite diverse as the following indicates:

 age range of 32-58 years;

233  eighteen were married and 8 were single parents;  seventeen carers (aged 32-54 years) had 1 to 3 dependent own children at home;  all had one or more dependent foster children aged <1 to16 years;100 and  sixteen of the 26 had either a foster/own child (0-5 years).

A common characteristic was that, regardless of age, marital status and numbers of own/foster children, all had one or more dependent children in their care, the majority (16) with a child

The eight carers worked in the areas of health and community services (2), education (1), property and business services (3), retail trade (1) and accommodation, cafes and restaurants (1) (Table 6-7). Six of the eight worked outside the home. Three were professionals: nurse, foster-carer training officer, and special-needs teacher. The nurse, with a post-graduate counselling diploma, had a permanent part-time position of 20 hours. One carer was a data-entry operator. One Indigenous carer, (self- employed canteen attendant) operated a Saturday football canteen (6/12 seasonal work), and one carer was a sales assistant. Two carers worked at home, providing general clerical assistance for their self-employed husbands. Neither received a salary/wage.

100 In NSW foster children’s age range is from <1 to 18 years.

234 Table 6-7: Carers by Industry/Occupation, Hours of Work and Wages (2005)

Industry/Occupation Weekly Weekly Implied Hours after tax hourly wage rate after tax wage rate ($) Health/community services (registered nurse) 20 550.00 27.50 Health/community services (training officer) 24 454.00 18.92 Property and business services (data entry 12 300.00 25.00 operator) Retail trade (sales assistant) 10 180.00 18.00 Education (special needs teacher) 6 166.50 27.75 Accommodation, cafes, restaurants (canteen 4* Self- n/a attendant) employed Property and business services (general clerk) 5 nil n/a Property and business services (general clerk) 6 nil n/a Notes: * Hours for six months averaged over a 12 month period

Based on their previous week’s wage, carer earnings ranged from $166 (teacher) to $550 (nurse) with an hourly rate ranging from $18.00 (sales) to $27.75 (teacher) (Table 6-7). All five, except the registered nurse were employed as either contract (n=1) or casual workers (n=3). Among western countries, Australia has one of the highest rates of casual and contract workers. Such workers, often female, do not have entitlement to leave (annual/sick) and superannuation contributions, but usually receive a higher hourly pay rates as compensation (ABS, 2006b: 50; Campbell and Charlesworth, 2005; Howe and Howe, 2005). Most carers were reliant on their husbands to provide child care while they worked. One researcher sees this arrangement as an additional opportunity cost to women. Arranging work schedules to ensure one parent is always at home reduces opportunities for couples to spend time together (Folbre, 2003: 11).

Of the 18 carers not in employment, 11 were married and seven were single parents. All had past employment histories. Fourteen had worked in health/community settings: nursing or allied health workers; teaching, driving (community bus), librarian (assistant) or family day care. Four had experience in the service sector, retail, horticulture and hospitality. The occupational profile of a significant number of carers, in health/care or community services-related industries, is similar to other

235 studies’ findings that foster carers’ employment often reflects their interest in working with children and adults (Andersson, 2001; Bebbington and Miles, 1990; Fostering Network, 2005; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 1998).

In relation to the industry profile of employed Australian women (age group 25-64 years), many carers’ employment or employment prospects, as outlined above, reflect the predominant trend of women’s employment in the industries of health and community services (20%), education (13%) retail (13%) and property and business services (12%) (ABS, 2006c: 7).

6.8.1 Methodological issues in valuing the opportunity costs of foster mothers

Foster mothers are unlike the general population of Australian mothers in a number of ways. Fostering is repetitious, particularly for those providing emergency/respite, short- and medium-term care, and carers have dependent children ‘coming and going’ in rapid succession over a number of years. Depending on an agency’s needs and/or their own preference, some foster mothers care continually for younger (preschool- age) children. For some carers the cyclical mothering of very young, dependent children is ongoing. In comparison, non-foster mothers’ child bearing/rearing is episodic, with number/age of children following a generally predictable path over time to independence.

Non-foster mothers, increasingly fluid and mobile, move in and out of the workforce depending on the age/number of birth children (Pocock, 2005: 37). This is not the case for most foster mothers who do not appear to transition from one family type to another (i.e. mother/carer to mother/worker), but continue in a full-time mothering role well beyond the norm. Employment options for foster mothers are constrained, as only ‘approved’ carers (e.g. other carers, husbands, formal child care centres) can assist with minding foster children.

Employment prospects for foster mothers are further hindered as foster children’s need for ongoing care can extend into their adolescent/teenage years. The demands on a foster mother’s time in providing a fostering service is extensive, inhibiting both the type and hours of work foster mothers might do. It means fewer foster mothers are likely to participate in employment, thus increasing their risk of loss of income.

236 From the interviews it was apparent that few ‘career’ carers of increasing age, who had not been employed since before commencing to foster, were contemplating a return to paid work. Researchers suggest that, the longer the period of mothers’ leave (discontinuous attachment) from employment, the more likely is the ‘loss of skills and therefore reduced earnings on return’, an outcome that may continue over their working life (Baxter 2006:2; Breusch and Gray, 2004). Himmelweit (2002) suggests that to obtain a lifetime perspective, both the short- and long-term effects of women’s discontinuous attachment, should be included.

For some older foster mothers who have not worked for many years, and have no plans to enter employment, estimating forgone earnings on the basis of current earnings could well result in an overestimate.

6.8.2 Applying the opportunity costs model

The employment patterns of Australian mothers: When mothers engage in paid work they are most likely to be part-time workers, though the age of dependent children and the marital status of mothers affects the proportion in full-time compared to part-time work (ABS, 2006d: 6).101 Figures in Table 6-8 indicate that the overall labour force participation rates (LFPR) of 62.6 per cent for married mothers is higher than that of single mothers (54.7%). The younger the child, the more likely mothers are to work part-time. As children grow older there is an increase in the LFPRs of both married and single mothers.

The LFPR for married mothers with children aged 0-4 years is 48.5 per cent. It increases to 73.8 per cent for mothers with dependent students aged 15-24 years. The increase for single mothers is of a similar magnitude, increasing from 35.2 per cent for mothers of preschoolers to 71.1 per cent for those with dependent students (ABS, 2006e). The higher rate of part-time employment compared to full-time reflects the need for women in child-bearing/rearing years to balance paid work with family responsibilities (Baxter 2006; Campbell and Charlesworth, 2005; Pocock, 2005), although mothers’ part-time work is not limited to the time when children are young.

101 The ABS defines part-time work as less than 35 hours per week and full-time as 35+ hours per week.

237 Both foster mothers and non-foster mothers reduce hours of paid work in supervising children through high-school years (Breusch and Gray, 2004: 127).

Table 6-8 (Panel A) indicates that married mothers (like the mothers in this study) are more likely overall to work part-time (35.8%) than full-time (23.6%) for all ages of dependent children until their children are older (15-24 years), when more are working full-time (36.5%) than part-time (34.7%).

In contrast, single mothers (Panel B) are just as likely to be working full-time (25.7%) as part-time (25.7%) by the time their children are aged 10-14 years. While the overall participation rate of both married (73.8%) and single mothers (71.1%) with children aged 15-24 years is similar, more single mothers (40.8%) are in full-time employment than married mothers (36.5%). Of interest is the higher overall unemployment rate of single mothers (8.2%) compared to married mothers (3.2%), indicating that more single than married mothers are looking for paid work.

Table 6-8: Labour Force Participation Rates of Married Mothers by Age Group of Dependent Children (September 2006)

Age of dependent Full-time Part-time Unemployed Participation children Rate (Percent) Panel A: Married Mothers 0-4 14.1 31.4 3.0 48.5 5-9 20.1 38.3 3.6 62.0 10-14 28.0 38.5 3.3 69.7 15-24(1) 36.5 34.7 2.6 73.8 Total 23.6 35.8 3.2 62.6 Panel B: Single Mothers 0-4 9.9 17.3 8.0 35.2 5-9 18.1 25.5 9.0 52.6 10-14 25.7 25.7 8.4 59.8 15-24(1) 40.8 23.2 7.1 71.1 Total 23.1 23.3 8.2 54.7 Source: ABS (2006e), Labour Force Survey, (STFAB), Cat. No 6291.0.55.03 (data cube), September Notes: 1. Dependent students

In Australia the LFPR of single mothers compared to married mothers is low. Barriers to single mothers’ higher labour force participation are thought to be: the lack of a

238 partner to share child care responsibilities; the effect of high marginal tax rates from the interaction of income support payments, tax and earned income; and lower educational attainment and workforce skills (compared with married mothers) (Gray et al., 2003). In couple families also, the complexity of the tax-benefit system in Australia, with income support payments withdrawn as earnings increase, has been shown to be a strong disincentive for the employment of primary carers (usually mothers) (Baxter, 2006: 8). A lack of suitable and affordable child care is also a barrier to paid employment for mothers (Cassels, Lloyd and Harding, 2005).

Analysing opportunity costs: Because the employment profile of Australian mothers with dependent children is predominantly part-time work (also the pattern of foster mothers), calculations of the opportunity costs of foster mothers are based on the average weekly part-time earnings of women in the main industries where the interviewed carers, and women more generally, are employed: health and community services, education, retail trade and property and business services. Earnings by marital status and age are also included in the analysis.

The analysis is based on published ABS data on female employee hourly earnings by industries for May 2004 (ABS, 2005a), and female employee average part-time hours worked per week (ABS, 2005b).102 Average weekly part-time hours are available for both married and sole mothers. The analysis uses hourly earnings (Ordinary Time) for full time workers in the predominant industries where mothers are employed.103 Table 6-9 gives women’s hourly wage rates at May 2004 in the industries where they are mainly employed. The average hourly rate was $21.40. These rates reflect full-time earnings. The actual rates for casual workers (though not part-time) will usually be higher because of the higher rate to compensate for lack of entitlements. Part-time employees are more likely to receive a lower hourly rate of pay (Rodgers, 2004). Average part-time weekly hours worked by Australian married and sole mothers with dependent children (<15 years) are very similar, 20.93 hours (married) and 20.68 hours (sole) (ABS, 2005c).

102 Data on part-time hours worked is available for 2006 but not for hourly earnings. For the sake of consistency both data sets are for May 2004.

103 No published data is available on employee’s part-time hourly earnings.

239 Table 6-9: Average Hourly Rate for Females by Selected Industries, (May 2004)

Industry Hourly rate based on full-time earnings

Retail Trade $17.00 Health and Community Services $21.40 Property and Business Services $21.70 Education $25.50 Average $21.40 Source: ABS (2005b), Cat. No. 6306.0 Employee Earnings and Hours, Australia, May 2004, Table 2

Among the foster mothers interviewed for this thesis study, the trainer (24 hours) and the nurse (20 hours) were closest to the ABS average of 21 hours per week. The average hours worked by foster mothers in paid employment (n=5) was 14.5 hours per week. Table 6-10 gives a range of earnings for both married and sole mothers based on the average hours worked by Australian mothers.

Table 6-10: Average Part-Time Earnings for Married and Sole Mothers with Dependent Children by Selected Industries

Industry Married Mothers Sole Mothers ($ per week part-time earnings) Retail Trade 355.73 351.48 Health and Community Services 447.80 442.45 Property and Business Services 454.07 448.65 Education 533.59 527.21 Average 447.80 442.45 Source: ABS (2005c), Cat. No. 6306.0 Employee Earnings and Hours, Australia, May 2004

Comparing the earnings of the foster mothers with those of all married mothers indicates that only the nurse (20 hours) had higher earnings than the ABS averages for married mothers in part-time employment in the selected industries (Table 6-11). The other employed foster mothers working fewer hours, possibly due to factors such as their fostering commitments, employer arrangements, or their own preferences, meant earnings were lower for the four carers, in training (24 hours) sales (10 hours), data entry (12 hours), teaching (6 hours).

240 Table 6-11: Foster Mothers’ Earnings and Average Earnings for all Australian Married Mothers Working Part-Time by Selected Industries

Industry Foster Mothers All Married Mothers ($ per week part-time earnings) (1) Retail Trade (sales) 180 356 Health and Community Services (nursing) 550 448 Property and Business Services (data entry) 300 454 Education (teaching) 167 534 Education (training) 454 534 Average 303 448 Note: 1. All dollars rounded

Education and earnings: Education levels can also be important determinants in relation to employment decisions and can impact on opportunity costs. Data from the 2001 Census in the Availability of Foster Carers Study indicated that only 8.8 per cent of female carers (New South Wales) had tertiary qualifications. Two-fifths of married foster mothers had post-school qualifications compared to a third of single foster mothers (McHugh et al., 2004a: 20). A carer survey (n=450) conducted for the Availability of Foster Carers Study found that fewer than half (42%) the female carers had completed Year 10 (or equivalent), and only a third (34%) had completed Year 12 or equivalent. Over half of the primary carers (56%) in the survey, however, did have a post-school qualification (McHugh et al., 2004b). These findings on level of foster carer post-school qualifications are similar to findings from an Australian Foster Care Association study (AFCA, 2001).

Foster mothers are similar to mothers in general in relation to post-school qualifications except in the area of tertiary degrees. Over half (58%) of all women aged 25-64 in the labour force have a post-school qualification. Of these women, close to two-thirds (62%) had tertiary degrees compared with 38 per cent with certificates. Findings from the Census on female foster carer tertiary qualifications (8.8%) mean that they are far lower than for the population of women more generally (62%) (ABS, 2006f). This is possibly because of the higher average age of foster carers compared with the average age of all women in the labour force population.

Age and earnings: Other ABS data indicated that age is also an important factor in relation to women’s earnings. Women aged 35-44 years and 45-54 years are more

241 likely to have higher weekly part-time earnings ($446, $461 respectively), than women in age groups 25-34 and 55-59 ($412, $421 respectively) (ABS, 2006g). Foster mothers tend to be older, so their earnings would be less than for younger women, except those in the youngest age group (25-34 years).

Part-time work and employment entitlements: Opportunity costs for foster mothers are increased by a lack of entitlements to other employment benefits such as leave (holiday, sick, long service and maternity) and superannuation. For part-time female employees, where their part-time job is the main job, over half (51.8%) have one or more leave benefits, although fewer than one-third (22.9%) have all leave benefits. In regard to superannuation, most (81.8%) female part-time employees had coverage by their employer (ABS, 2006h: 32, 36).104 This suggests that, if the carers in the thesis study who were not currently employed had the opportunity to work hours similar to other Australian mothers, their earnings and other entitlements would have been substantial.

As already noted, only one of the five employed carers (the nurse) was earning more ($550) than the average weekly part-time earnings ($448); the other four were earning less. The weekly earnings of three carers – in teaching (6 hours), sales (10 hours) and data entry (12 hours) – were considerably lower than average earnings, due in part to the minimal part-time hours they worked compared with the average (21 hours). In the case of the fifth carer, employed as a trainer, her hours of employment (24) were more than the average (21 hours) but her weekly earnings ($454) were less than the average ($534). If we extrapolate from these findings, it appears that, when foster mothers are employed, they are likely to earn less than their counterparts in the wider society.

All of the employed foster mothers in the thesis study were married, indicating that for sole foster mothers, as for sole mothers more generally, participation in the labour force is a more difficult enterprise than for women with partners to support them. This finding highlights the need for closer attention to be given to the financial situation of the sole mothers who foster, to ensure they are not financially stressed when fostering.

104 Employers are exempt from superannuation contributions if their employees are paid less than $450 in a calendar month (ABS, 2006e: 4)

242 6.9 Combining direct and indirect costs

The total cost (both direct and indirect) of providing a foster care service for children in specific age groups is presented in Table 6-12. The direct costs come from the FCEs in New South Wales in 2006 for children in three age groups: 0-4 years (combining costs of infant + 3 year-old); 5-10 years (combining costs of 6 + 10-year- old); and 11-16 years (combining 14-year-old boy and girl).

Table 6-12: Total Weekly Cost of Foster Children (Direct and Indirect Costs) (2006)

Time Costs Model (lower bound)(1)

Panel A Foster Care Estimates Estimated Weekly Wage Age group $ per week Per cent $ per week Per cent Total Costs ($) 0-4 years 183 14.2 1110 85.8 1293 5-10 years 213 21.2 792 78.8 1005 11-16 years 287 32.5 597 67.5 884 All children 228 21.5 833 78.5 1061

Time Costs Model (upper bound)(2) Panel B Age group $ per week Per cent $ per week Per cent Total Costs ($) 0-4 years 183 13.3 1194 86.7 1377 5-10 years 213 20.0 852 80.0 1065 11-16 years 287 30.9 642 69.1 929 All children 228 20.3 896 79.7 1124 Notes: All dollars rounded. 1. SaCS CSW Grade 1 (1st year) rate July 2006 2. SaCS CSW Grade 3 (1st year) rate July 2006

Indirect costs are estimated from the time costs model. The opportunity cost model is not included in this exercise due to the unavailability of comparable earnings data for 2006. In addition, estimates from the proxy good model are preferred to the opportunity costs approach as it was evident that fostering affected the wage carers were able to earn. The labour force experiences of Australian foster carers leads to a similar conclusion to that of Oldfield’s in relation to carers in the UK:

243 It is more appropriate to value the time spent in fostering work with a pay scale which reflects the tasks of child care undertaken rather than the market value of current employment. (Oldfield, 1997: 155)

Data in Panel A represent time costs at the lower bound, and Panel B time costs at the upper bound in 2006 (Table 6-12). For children in all age groups, the indirect costs (time) of fostered children are considerably higher than the direct costs. Columns three and five show what percentage of the total costs is represented by direct and indirect costs respectively, At both the lower and upper bound, indirect costs on average are around four times the value of direct costs (shaded lines in Table 6-12).

In a similar exercise, Folbre (2004) calculated the value of parental time (indirect costs) caring for children in the US, compared with the average subsidy (direct cost) provided to foster carers, for children aged 2 and 9 years.105 For the younger child (2 years) the indirect cost (79.4%) was around four times the value of the carer subsidy (20.6%) (direct cost). For the 9-year-old, reflecting less child care time required for an older child, the indirect cost (76.5%) were over three times the value of the subsidy (23.5%). Folbre’s estimates of the value of parental time in the US are not dissimilar to the findings here.106 She suggested that one outcome of the minimal amounts of subsidy provided to carers ‘is a shortage of high quality foster carers’. She concluded that it was hardly surprising, given the low level of carer subsidy in the US, ‘that most children in foster care suffer from low levels of social and economic well-being’ (Folbre, 2004: 22).107

Oldfield’s calculation of time costs (indirect costs), which were much lower than those used here, indicates a similar pattern of higher indirect costs than direct costs. The proportion of the estimated indirect cost for UK foster children in age groups 0-4,

105 Similar to Australia, the US Foster Care Maintenance (i.e. subsidy) Payment System is noteworthy in that the levels of age-related carer payments vary extensively between regions or counties within each state. Different supplemental payments may be provided for a variety of expenditure; and there are variable criteria used to determine different levels of higher carer payments (NRCFCPPP, 2007)

106 Imputed value of parental time based on minimum wage ($US5.15 per hour) for supervisory care and average child care worker’s wage ($US7.43 per hour) for parental care activities (Folbre, 2004: Tables 3 and 5)

107 Work in the US in the late 1970s on fostering’s costs suggested the total costs (indirect and direct) of children are likely to be two to three times higher than the USDA (direct) child estimates (Culley, Settles and Van Name, 1977)

244 5-10 and 11-16 years was 62.3, 60.1 and 55.6 per cent of the total costs, respectively. On average for all children the value of indirect costs (59%) were around 1.5 times higher than the direct costs (41%) (Oldfield, 1997: 130, 156).

Combining both direct and indirect costs is useful because it indicates the true extent of the total costs of fostering. However, it is important to keep the estimates as two discrete payments to ensure that carer subsidies to cover the costs of children maintain their adequacy over time. The issue of separate payments was highlighted in a recent Scottish study. Carers in Scotland receive a subsidy and fee component paid as a single amount. Carers are not aware what proportion is meant to cover a child’s costs and what is meant to cover their own costs. The study suggests that the practice of paying a single undifferentiated sum is of concern because:

It blurs the line between allowances and fee payments and prevents a transparent account of how much is being allowed for the maintenance of the child and has the potential to undermine the relevance of the recommended minimum allowance [in the UK]. (Fostering Network, 2007: 11)

The amounts of reimbursement provided to carers to cover the day-to-day costs of each individual child fostered are based on the direct costs. Payment levels can be adjusted depending on the needs and age of the foster child, and increasingly the value of the estimates is being adjusted on a regular basis (e.g. annually) in line with changes to the CPI.

In contrast, indirect costs are concerned with the reward or compensation aspect of the provision of a fostering service by carers. This aspect (e.g. fee/wage/salary) would normally be based on the qualifications, skills and experience of foster carers, and as with other wages any increase in the level would be based on the changes to average weekly earnings. It is already common practice in most of the countries providing a wage component for foster carers to allocate two separate payments, one for a child’s costs and the other a wage or fee component which recognises the occupational nature of fostering (see 7.3). Two separate payments also acknowledge the episodic nature of fostering where a retainer (the wage component) may be a necessary source of household income when a carer is between placements.

245 Discussion: This chapter used in-depth interviews with 30 foster mothers to examine the indirect costs of fostering. The discussion in the first section focused on carer motivation, the role of carers, fostering as ‘parenting’ or a ‘job’, and the payment of a wage to carers. The aim of this section was to tease out carer perceptions of how money related to their initial and ongoing motivation, their role as a carer, and the job- like aspects of fostering and whether they thought carers should be paid like other care workers. The characteristics of the interviewed carers suggested that most were experienced in terms of time fostering and the overall number of children fostered, and could offer considered opinions based on their personal experiences of being carers.

Motivation: Most carers’ initial and ongoing motivations appeared to have little connection with money (e.g. carer subsidy); vocational and altruistic elements were their prime motivations to foster. The love of children, achievements in ongoing development, and providing fostered children with better opportunities in life, maintained carer motivation and commitment over time. Other studies report carer commitment to be a ‘crucial’ factor in continuing to foster (Gilligan, 1996; McHugh et al., 2004; Rodgers, Cummings and Leschied, 2006; Thorpe, 2004). For those carers who mentioned money, it was the security and stability it provided that were significant factors. These findings on carer motivation strongly resonate with findings from other studies (AFCA, 2001; Delfabbro, Taplin and Bentham, 2002; Isomaki, 2002; Jarmon et al., 2000; QMR, 2002; Rodger, Cummings and Leschied, 2006; Thorpe, 2004; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000).

Role: In relation to their role, many carers were initially surprised at the reality of fostering, finding it more difficult than they had imagined, in relation both to the children fostered and to the foster care system. Over time it appeared that their confidence increased in tackling and solving problems and working to achieve good outcomes for children. Their role in fostered children’s lives was far from simple; it was varied and wide-ranging, requiring good parenting practices, advocacy skills, assertiveness, and knowledge and application of therapeutic practices. In every sense the carers acted in a professional manner in the service they provided. Paradoxically, few carers thought their role was valued and respected by workers. Emerging evidence from other research studies also found carers have become more assertive,

246 knowledgeable, skilled and professional in their role, and are more adept at problem- solving (Andersson, 2001: 245; Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003; Maclay, Bunce and Purves, 2006; McHugh, 2002; Oldfield, 1997).

Parenting or job: Most carers saw fostering as different from parenting their own children. While acknowledging and attending to its job-like aspects they maintained a strong emphasis on the parenting/mothering side, but their feelings, and commitment to and love of fostered children were of a different order to those they felt for their own children. Other research also suggests carers provide ‘different’ parenting for fostered children compared with their own children (Shanti, Van Oudenhoven and Wazir, 2003). In discussing the job-like aspects, carers highlighted its demanding and time-consuming nature – it was hard work. Surveyed Scottish carers also described their role as foster parents as ‘very hard work, very demanding and, by its nature, very stressful’ (Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000: 103). Sometimes carers felt a sense of dissonance and powerlessness as they tried to do what they thought was right, while not always feeling they had the autonomy to act on behalf of the fostered child.

Wage for carer: When asked to consider a wage, carers took very strong positions over the merits of whether they should be paid or not. Once most carers became involved in the discussion around advantages and disadvantages, however, their initial strong position, either for or against, softened and became less certain. Their responses highlight the dilemmas for women fostering in contemporary society. On the one hand, most carers are well aware of the entitlements, benefits and security of being part of a group of paid workers. On the other hand, many are fearful of what might happen to the meaning of fostering as something done by those who have an enormous capacity to love and care. Carers were also apprehensive of what might happen to vulnerable children if the ‘wrong’ people fostered: ‘those who do it for the money!’ However, the fact that they were prepared to consider the merits of a wage for carers indicates that it is a concept that would benefit from further discussion with other groups of carers.

Emotional dimensions: The emotional/psychological aspects of fostering had both positive and negative impacts on carers. In maintaining ongoing relationships both with their fostered children, and with birth families, workers and their own family members, carers were at times overwhelmed by the stressful and time-consuming

247 nature of fostering. Emotional highs and lows were commonplace features of fostering with little recognition or attention being paid to the compounding affects of stress and strain on carers. The few studies on the impact of stress on foster carers highlight the cumulative effect of stressful episodes, and the moral imperative of providing effective support at these times (Beecham and Sinclair, 2007; Pithouse, Lowe and Tout-Hill, 2004; Wilson, Sinclair and Gibbs, 2000). Against all odds and in the face of a noted lack of support from workers, the carers in the thesis study seemed to have grown stronger from their negative experiences, and continued to foster with evident good humor and resolve. Most carers, conscious of having to balance the needs of fostered with their own dependent children, appeared at times to have little choice but to put the greater needs of foster children first. This caused noticeable anxiety for carers’ own children. Other studies report similar findings on the impact of fostering on carers’ children (Clare, Clare and Peaty, 2006: Hojer, 2007; Nutt, 2006; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000). While no monetary value can be placed on this indirect cost of fostering, it is imperative it be recognised and acknowledged.

Time costs: The time it takes to foster was found to be qualitatively different from the time taken with their own children. In areas where the minutes/hours could be measured, the time involved in numerous tasks and activities of daily life with foster children was more than required for their own children. Owing to the variable and multi-faceted nature of fostering, allocations of time were not fixed, they were malleable and ever-changing and difficult to measure. The commonalities between UK and Australian carers allowed the time allocations for UK carers to be used to provide a guide in estimating the time cost of fostering. The extra time required for fostering tasks/activities was similar for children in all age groups, on average around two hours per day. Fostering extra time and ordinary child caring time (on average 5.53 hours per day) were added together (7.5 hours), and the wage of a residential care worker (replacement cost) was used to illustrate a wage-level for carers. This was based on the 7-day working-week of foster carers, and provided estimates ranging from $832.80 (lower bound) to $895.78 (upper bound) per week.

Opportunity costs: Five foster mothers in this current sample were in paid work, all were married and all worked part-time. An opportunity costs model measured the foregone earnings of carers based on the working patterns of Australian women with

248 similar characteristics to the foster carers (e.g. married and in part-time work), and in a number of selected industries where foster mothers and many Australian mothers commonly work (e.g. retail trade, health & community services, property and business services and education). The findings indicated that most foster mothers worked fewer hours than their counterparts and as a consequence received a lower level of earnings, $303 compared to $448 for other Australian married mothers working part-time. Only one carer, a nurse, was earning more ($550) than the average ($448).

Findings from both the replacement cost approach and the opportunity cost model suggest that carers are incurring substantial financial costs and loss of employment entitlements in providing a fostering service. Based on the time it takes to provide a fostering service, estimates from the replacement costs method are almost twice as high as estimates of foregone earnings using an opportunity costs approach. Based on the replacement costs method the indirect costs of fostering were found to be, on average, around four times the value of direct costs. Findings from other studies on the value of indirect costs as being substantially higher than direct costs are similar in this regard. It is suggested that both sets of estimates be kept as discrete payments to ensure that subsidies covering the costs of children maintain their adequacy over time.

249 Chapter 7 Paying a Wage to Foster Carers

The preceding chapter on the indirect costs of fostering indicated that carers as volunteers incur substantial financial costs and loss of employment entitlements in providing a fostering service. In light of the evidence from the findings on indirect costs this chapter addresses the following question: Should Australian foster carers be entitled to receive a payment (e.g. fee/salary/wage) as a reward/compensation for caring?

The chapter has four sections; the first briefly overviews a small number of studies around carer perceptions and opinions of being paid like other care workers. The next section establishes the links between the theoretical concepts of caring labour (section 3.4) and the world of foster care. The third section focuses on empirical studies and literature about countries where foster carer remuneration systems include a wage component and a subsidy, and discusses wage levels and employment entitlements for foster carers. The impact of a carer wage on carer recruitment/retention and carer perceptions of adequacy are also examined. The final section discusses the financial implications of a carer wage in Australia.

7.1 Being paid to foster

The issue of paying foster carers a fee, wage or salary is not a new debate. In the US in the 1940s, the payment of a fee to foster carers to recompense them for the ‘contribution they make over and above the physical care and maintenance of the child’ was raised by the Washington Council of Social Services (Zelizer 1985: 206). An additional objective of introducing a fee for carers was to identify foster care as a service rather than a charity. However, the move was opposed on the grounds that payment would reduce ‘the motherly altruism [involved in fostering] to an ordinary task’ (Zelizer, 1985: 206). In Australia the issue was last debated at a national foster carers’ conference (see below) in South Australia (SAFCARE, 1997).

Australian foster carers have rarely been asked about whether they should be paid like other care workers. In 1986, 10 per cent of surveyed carers in New South Wales (n=257) said they were ‘interested in being paid a living wage to foster extremely damaged children’ (Gain, Ross and Fogg, 1987: 127).

250 A small in-depth study in New South Wales with six foster carers in the late 1980s found carers ambivalent about being paid (Smith, 1988). The carers fostering for a non-government agency were regarded as professional carers and provided with almost double the carer allowance at the time. Carers saw their higher level of ‘pay’ as important as it gave them a sense of achievement to be paid, though they noted that their pay did not cover fostering’s costs. Their strong sense of altruism was evident, with everyone saying that, if they could have afforded to, they would have fostered for nothing. In relation to professionalism, four carers thought fostering was not a job, it was ‘mothering’ and family work and should not be treated like other care work. Two carers strongly supported the professionalism of fostering, and three of the six suggested that carer payments should be increased (Smith, 1988).

In the late 1990s a carer survey on professionalisation found that carers were concerned that, if caring were paid, the fostering role would change. There was also concern that a greater contribution would be required of carers, that they could be pressured or exploited, and that they might lose the balance between their private and work spaces. Unease was also expressed about the impact on the fostered child of the carer being paid, and a fear of community reprisal. Some carers voiced practical issues around having to pay income tax and losing income support payments. The advantages identified by carers were that being paid would help with recruitment, particularly for those requiring an income to foster. In addition, being paid meant carers could access superannuation (SAFCARE, 1997).108

Two recent Queensland studies that explored issues on the professionalisation of foster care (Thorpe 2004; Butcher 2004b) found ambivalence on the part of some carers in relation to receiving payments (i.e. wage/salary). Around one-quarter of carers in one study (Thorpe, 2004) thought fostering should be professional and had no problem with being paid. In the other study, the majority of carers thought that fostering should be regarded as a professional role requiring formal training, qualifications and payment (Butcher, 2004b). A recent study (Availability of Foster Carers Study) in New South Wales found a third (32%) of surveyed carers (n=450)

108 Results were reported on a State-by-State basis and no overall numbers or percentages on findings were included.

251 agreeing that fostering should be professional requiring training and payment (either fee for service or salary) (McHugh et al., 2004a).

Though based on only a small number of studies, the findings suggest that carers were more likely in 2004 to support the notion of being paid a wage in recognition of their professional role than in the mid 1980s.

7.2 Care labour – Linking theoretical concepts with practical aspects

In section 3.4 a number of theoretical concepts around paying for caring labour were discussed, and this section examines how these concepts fit with the world of foster care. Foster care balances uneasily between public/private, formal/informal, paid/unpaid. It can be conceptualised as ‘paid volunteerism’ or ‘remunerated voluntary work’. While carers are seen by themselves and others as service providers for government and NGOs, the work they do is mostly unobserved and largely invisible. Even though they are service providers, volunteer carers have limited contractual arrangements with their agencies, and few rights or entitlements vis-à-vis other paid workers. Many do not feel valued or respected by agency workers.

Concept of caring labour: The conceptual and definitional aspects of caring labour outlined by writers in section 3.4 strikes a particular resonance for foster caring. The physical (tasks and services) and the emotional (respect, affection and responsibility), described by carers in the interviews, are core features of fostering. Foster care is a unique form of caring labour. Caring for a particularly vulnerable group of abused and neglected children requires skills, affection, responsibility and concern for the welfare of a non-related child. It is in the process of caring that a carer ‘fosters’ the development of a relationship between herself (usually the mother) and the foster child. To gain the trust of abused and neglected children is, as carers indicated (see section 6.5.6), a formidable task. The reciprocity often seen as an important part of care relationships is not always present between the child and the carer. Many foster children are unresponsive, difficult to manage, and unlikely to appreciate the efforts of those who foster them (Adnopoz, 2007; Harden, 2004).

The commitment by carers indicated they spent inordinate amounts of time developing children’s physical and mental capabilities and enhancing their well- being. It was obvious that fostering brought enormous rewards for carers (and fostered

252 children). On the other hand it also appeared at times to be highly stressful, time- intensive and to have adverse effects on carers’ psyche and wellbeing (Wilson, Sinclair and Gibbs, 2000).

Money (pay) and motivation: In understanding the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors in relation to the movement of money in providing a care service, the ‘motivation crowding theory’ of Bruno Frey (1998) was used to explain how money can influence motivation. Frey’s theory discussed what happens to motivation when money is part of the exchange for service. It is of interest to examine whether Frey’s (1998) theory can be applied to foster care in Australia. While the movement of money is part of fostering it is not ‘pay’ as such, it has been defined above as ‘remunerated voluntary work’. Of interest is what happens to carer motivation when financial support is increased? Do increased carer payments crowd ‘in’ or ‘out’ intrinsic motivation?

There is little empirical work in Australia on whether increasing the level of carer subsidy impacts on motivation. In this thesis (section 6.1) the increase in the level of subsidy in 2000 did not appear to be a factor in carers’ continuing motivation. Other studies examining the impact of increased payments on motivation also found no significant effect (Kirton, 2001a; Shaw and Lebens, 1977; Smith 1988). An evaluation of a Victorian study supports the premise that intrinsic motivation was enforced when additional financial support was provided. The program’s design features aimed to increase carers’ commitment and encourage motivation by providing increased subsides for carers of sibling groups (3+ children). Enhanced payments plus the standard subsidy were provided for each foster child in addition to other support, for example, a vehicle, child care, home help (Fischer, 2002).

The program’s evaluators found most carers satisfied with the supports and the level of enhanced subsidy. While aware that the extra financial support was not meant to ‘create an income’ (i.e. they were not being ‘paid’) carers were pleased that the ‘burden of work’ was recognised. The program’s evaluators concluded:

[There are] sound arguments for acknowledging the value of the considerable volunteer effort through an enhancement of their payment. In recognition of the value of the carer’s contribution and

253 to enhance placement stability and carer motivation, particularly in longer term placements, OZ Child now provides enhanced payments [to all carers]. (Fischer, 2002: 22)

Further support for Frey’s (1998) theory was evidenced by the comments of three thesis carers who fostered for an NGO and received enhanced subsidy payments for children with complex needs. Their responses in relation to their fostering role, motivation and commitment were not discernibly different from those of the other interviewed carers. One carer, who had fostered a sibling group of five children for eight years, saw the higher payment as financial security and compensation for personal abuse, disrespect and damage to her home. She stated that: ‘we [couple] wouldn’t have done it for nothing because we couldn’t have afforded to, it gave us that stability because of the financial side’. Another carer saw the higher payment as a ‘working wage’. Having given up a paid job to foster, she argued, that agencies had to pay decent wages to carers ‘because the best quality carers are off doing other jobs’. Reflecting work on the changing nature of women’s social norms and values and the adoption by some women of less gender-specific norms (Badgett and Folbre, 1999; Himmelweit, 1995, 1999, 2000), these carers exhibited strong positive values about fostering and its worth (ethic of care), their orientation being more akin to carer/worker than mother/carer.

Several other interviewed carers, provided with higher payments for fostering children with special needs, used the higher payments to buy in household services (e.g. cleaners), go out for a meal, and purchase white goods. They also viewed these higher payments as a form of compensation/reward. These carers, like those above, appreciated the higher payments as they provided some recognition of the challenges they faced, the more professional role expected of them, and the time pressures of caring for children with complex needs. A small research study with 20 carers in the UK around issues of payment, motivation and the fostering task reported similar findings in relation to the compensation/reward aspects of higher payments for carers (Kirton, 2001a)

Interviewed carers’ emphasis on financial security, stability and compensation indicated that the ‘reward’ of higher payments was not perceived as ‘controlling’, but instead acknowledged the reality of their tasks and level of responsibility. Higher

254 payments gave recognition to their value as carers in fostering children with highly challenging behaviours. Of interest was some carers’ interpretation of payments as ‘wages’. Embedded in their language were perceptions of reward/compensation for what they were doing – their ‘job’; the payments were not simply about covering the fostered children’s costs. This finding fits with England and Folbre’s (2003) suggestion that intrinsic motivation is not ‘crowded out’ by money, when payment was already a feature of the exchange and remuneration is simply increased.

Dualisms: The carers mentioned above, and other carers as well, could see many advantages for carers in being paid (increased professionalism, better financial support, leave, superannuation, workers’ compensation, etc.). Some carers however struggled with the concept of a carer wage. They worried that fostered children might not be cared for properly, their needs might not be met and the care might not be ‘genuine’ (e.g. based on altruism). There was also concern around the reaction of fostered children if they knew carers were being paid. However, despite their reservations, many carers tempered their initial negative reactions after discussing the positive aspects in being paid. Reflecting on whether carers should be paid, one carer clearly spelt out the dual and compatible aspects of self-interest and altruism:

I would hate to be a child thinking, “The only reason you have me is because you’re being paid”. But I think at the same time there needs to be recognition that there are times when a carer must stay at home and can’t do some other employment and still needs to have financial areas sorted out, so their bills can still be paid.

While not an issue that is easily resolved, especially for carers who do not believe carers should be paid, the stance by others in the sample supports the notion that carer motivation can contain dual and compatible aspects of self-interest and altruism, while acknowledging care work’s economic and intrinsic value (Folbre and Nelson, 2000; MacDonald and Merill, 2002).

Commodification: Writers have highlighted the concern by those who see personal care services moving into the ‘Market’ as the commodification of care. Some carers were concerned that paying carers would be detrimental to fostering. They were concerned not only would the ‘wrong’ people be attracted to fostering but the quality

255 of care could diminish – fostering could become a commodity to be bought. Other carers however did not share this concern. Few suggested a wage level for foster carers; one carer thought the wage of a child care worker ‘around $300 to $400 a week’ would be appropriate. This amount is around half of what was suggested in the thesis (see section 6.6.1) as an estimate of the weekly monetary value of carer time.

Relative to other kinds of employment, paid care work (e.g. child care) for women has been found to be poorly rewarded, particularly compared to other jobs requiring similar education, skills and experience. Writers suggest that paid care work is not highly valued due to its association to ‘women’s work’. It is perceived as ‘natural’ and unimportant. Institutions and organisations wanting to keep costs down have rhetorically affirmed care work, and those who provide it, as primarily motivated by altruism not money (England, Budig and Folbre, 2001; England and Folbre, 1999; Folbre, 2006; Nelson, 1999). As noted in Chapter 2 this certainly was, and is, the case in the provision of foster care services in Australia. In discussing their role, interviewed carers initially spoke about what they did in relatively simple terms. It was only in response to explaining how they spent time in fostering’s various tasks and activities that their incredible array of skills, initiative and patience was revealed, affirming that what they were doing was truly important and valuable.

Some writers are concerned that moving more unpaid care work (e.g. foster care) into the arena of paid work may only perpetuate and increase the sex-segmented labour market, enshrining care-giving as women’s work. Writers argue that appealing to the intrinsic satisfaction or rewards of caring may pressure/exploit women to perform it for relatively low wages (Carrasco and Rodriguez, 2000; Folbre, 2006; Himmelweit, 1999). This issue of low wages for care workers (foster carers) and the consequences of low levels of pay are discussed in more detail in the following section (7.3).

Public good aspect: The public good aspect of caring was not discussed with carers in the interviews though the significant contribution they make to society by fostering in a voluntary capacity is undeniable. Carers generate significant societal benefits by contributing time, effort and money to developing fostered children’s capabilities and maximising their potential. It was clear from the interviews that at times it was very difficult to obtain the necessary services for fostered children and have them paid for. More, not less, investment in fostering services, with the aim of achieving specific

256 outcomes (e.g. in education, health and well-being), could be regarded as morally desirable and economically feasible. A lack of investment and failure to develop children’s capabilities reduces overall economic efficiency with losses for society as a whole (England and Folbre, 2003). Focusing on the importance of foster care, gender and the public good aspect, writers suggest:

There is a massive disconnection between the importance of child- rearing and the status afforded to it, and it is hardly coincidental that such a huge discrepancy between the importance of the task and the payment provided for performing it occurs, almost solely, in a domain traditionally reserved for women. (Colton and Williams, 2006: 113)

In summary, in contemplating a carer wage, it appears that theoretical concepts of paying for caring labour can be linked with the practical aspects of fostering with little disjunction in the ‘fit’. While a sound argument can be made for paying foster carers it is not a concept that would be easily accepted by Australian governments. Historically, in the provision of foster care services governments have sought to contain and minimise costs. As the thesis has indicated it is also not a proposal that sits easily with some carers. The next section looks more closely at countries where carers have entitlement to a wage component, in order to tease out the perceived advantages/disadvantages of a different policy approach in remunerating foster carers. Issues of carer recruitment/retention and adequacy of the wage component are addressed in the discussion.

7.3 Countries where carer wages are paid

A small number of studies have examined international developments in remuneration policies for foster carers. These studies include an analysis of policies where a carer wage is paid (Colton and Williams, 1997, 2006; Oldfield, 1997). A number of studies focusing specifically on the UK system have also examined the impact of a carer wage (i.e. fee) on carers’ perceptions of financial entitlement, adequacy and carer recruitment/retention. Oldfield’s study (1997) discussed the situation in six countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal and Norway). In these countries the wage level was compared to female average wages. In no country where foster wages were paid did the level of wage approximate average female wages. The

257 figures in Table 7-1 indicate that Luxembourg paid the nearest to a replacement wage: 29 per cent of full-time and 41 per cent of a part-time wage. The lowest wage paid was in Germany, where it was equal to 10 per cent of the full-time female average and 14 per cent of a part-time wage. The wage component of the carers’ payment was taxed in three countries (Denmark, France and Norway) (Oldfield, 1997: 168).

Table 7-1: Foster Wages as a Proportion of Gross Average Female Monthly Wages (Full- and Part-Time) and Tax Liability (1997)

Country Average Female Wage (Gross) Tax Full-Time Part-Time(1) Per Cent Denmark 13 20 yes France 26 35 yes Germany 10 14 no Luxembourg 29 41 no Portugal 13 20 no Norway 20 30 yes Notes: 1. Part-time based on carer wage as a proportion of 0.66 average female wages. Source: Oldfield, 1997, Table 5.5

Oldfield concluded that the relatively low wage level paid to carers in all six countries, as either full- or part-time wages, was inadequate and insufficient to be seen as an alternative to labour market employment. Country informants in the study reported that exacerbating the low wage level was the finding that the wage component was being used by carers to subsidise the day-to-day costs of fostered children.109 The researcher did find, however, that carer households in these six countries were financially better off in relation to total household income than unwaged carers in other countries (Oldfield, 1997: 169). Except for Denmark and France, informants in the study reported a lack of carers to meet demand (Oldfield, 1997: 172-174).

Two studies by Colton and Williams (1997, 2006) provided detailed information on a carer wage component and employment conditions in six countries: Finland, France,

109 Numerous studies have found that historically it is commonplace for carer families to subsidise the costs of fostered children (Gain, Ross and Fogg, 1987; Kirton, 2001a; McHugh, 2002; Pazstor and Barbell, 1997; Pasztor and Wynn, 1995; Pitman, 1997).

258 Hungary, Israel, Sweden and the UK (includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). In three (Finland, Hungary, Israel) the overall levels of remuneration for carers were reported to be inadequate. In all six countries informants reported difficulties in carer recruitment, particularly in larger cities and towns. Of the six countries paying a wage component the researchers found that:

 The carer fee component in Sweden for children aged 13-19 years represented 40 per cent of full-time and 61 per cent of part-time female wages, for younger children (0-12 years) it was slightly less (37% of full-time and 56% of part- time). For carers with high needs children where the carer was expected to stay at home a higher fee was paid to compensate for lost employment; this higher fee represented 80 per cent of full-time female wages. Hungary was also relatively generous, paying their professional carers (10% of all carers in 2006) the equivalent of 60 per cent of average household income. Israel appeared the lowest of the wage paying countries with the wage component representing 11.6 per cent of average earnings.  Carers paid tax on the wage component in Hungary and Sweden. In the UK both components: subsidy and wage were taxed.  Carers were eligible for pension on retirement in four countries: Finland, Hungary, Sweden and the UK.  Only Finland and Hungary provided carers with annual leave entitlements but due to a lack of respite carers leave was difficult to organise.  Both France and Hungary paid carers whilst they undertook training. Only France provided child care for fostered children when carers were undertaking training.  Only France paid carers a retainer (for 3 months) between placements.  Except for Hungary, no waged carers were regarded as agency employees. As a consequence waged carers in most countries were not entitled to unemployment benefits, social or health insurance and leave entitlements.

7.3.1 Impact of a carer fee in the UK

In the UK the introduction of a carer fee was primarily to assist with carer recruitment/retention. One study that examined the impact of the introduction of a fee for UK carers suggests that the introduction of a fee has changed carers’ perceptions

259 of financial entitlement (Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003). Among carers, service managers and workers there was a fairly strong consensus that foster carers should be paid and fostering should be recognised as a career choice. Surveyed carers saw the fee as an alternative income source to paid work, and overwhelmingly supported the contention that ‘in terms of household income foster care represented an opportunity cost for which there should be compensation’ (Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003: 43).

The research found that while a fee rarely brought people into fostering, it featured more prominently in initial decision-making. In investigating the link between the fee and carer altruism, the study found a majority of interviewed participants believed that altruism remained an important motivating factor. Interviewees however, emphasised that, due to wider social changes (e.g. employed mothers contributing to household incomes), the demands of fostering, and the increasing ‘job-like’ aspects of fostering (i.e. meetings, birth-family contact visits, completing reports, etc.), fostering could no longer be seen as a voluntary activity. In one sense the altruistic nature of fostering had been modified. The researchers redefined this as ‘qualified’ altruism (Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003). One implication of the payment of a fee to carers in the UK, which has received little attention to date (Kirton, 2001b), is the challenge carers might face in balancing ‘their money’ (i.e. fee) and the foster children’s maintenance (public money) in their day-to-day spending.

The maintenance of altruism, albeit modified, in the face of the movement of money into fostering is a salient finding, as provides further support for the contention that altruism and remuneration in care labour are compatible and can co-exist (Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003; Lee, 2004; Shanti, Van Oudenhoven and Wazir, 2003).

7.3.2 Development of a two-tiered system in the UK

Researchers note that the level of the carer fee is uneven across UK agencies. It is higher for carers in NGOs (25% of all agencies) and lower for carers in local authority agencies (75%). The development of a two-tiered system of high and low fee-paying agencies has impacted on carer perception of adequacy (Fostering Network, 2005, 2007). One study found two-thirds (63%) of carers thought the level of fee paid was an inadequate reward and 56 per cent found the subsidy component inadequate in

260 meeting children’s needs. In addition carers were concerned over the lack of a retainer between placements (Fostering Network, 2005, 2007). A recent carer survey found 40 per cent of carers received no fee, 75 per cent earned less than the minimum wage, and only 7 per cent were earning an amount similar to that of a residential social worker (Fostering Network, 2007: 3-4).

A survey of independent fostering agencies paying higher fees found that the payment of ‘realistic’ fees and the provision of high quality support services not only attracted carers, it also helped retain them (Community Care, 2001). A carer survey (n=1181) in local authorities and independent agencies in England found carers from independent agencies and those with higher paying agencies were most satisfied with payments (Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003). Similarly, carers in a Scottish study (n=822) who were in receipt of higher payments (fee and subsidy) were more likely to state they had a very good relationship with their social worker, more satisfied with the delivery of services, and more likely to undertake training and attend support groups (Triseliotis, Borland and Hill, 2000: 205). Support for salaries for UK carers has strengthened, with several studies finding a half to three-quarters of surveyed carers endorsing the concept (Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2006; Sinclair, Wilson and Gibbs, 2004; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill 2000)

The introduction of a carer fee in the UK appears to have led to an increasing emphasis being placed on work/reward aspects of fostering in conjunction with a lesser or reduced focus on altruistic parenting. This emphasis on work/reward suggests that, if more people are to be recruited to foster children with increasingly complex needs, what is required is ‘changing the relationship of foster care to work – treating it as work by increasing the remuneration’ (Wilson, et al., 2004: 58; see also Fostering Network, 2006a, 2007). Other scholars argue that increasing professionalisation and recruitment/retention of carers in the UK is becoming more dependent on ‘payment rates being competitive, whether with other (including independent) agencies or with the wider labour market’ (Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2003). There is some support for the concern expressed by writers in the previous section (Carrasco and Rodriguez, 2000) that a relying on altruism may pressure/exploit women to perform care work for relatively low wages. However, with carer recruitment still highly problematic in most countries where a wage

261 component is paid, it can be argued that if women can find a better paid care position (perceived as not so exploitative) they will not be attracted to fostering.

Like Colton and Williams (1997, 2006), UK writers suggest that the role and status of carers remains ambiguous, despite the provision of a carer fee, with carers not regarded as employees and not receiving the benefits and rights usually attached to employment conditions (Ogilvie, Kirton and Beecham, 2006: 15). Given the low level of carer wage/fee in the countries included in these studies it is not surprising to find that the problem of attracting more carers to fostering has not been resolved, with most countries reporting a lack of carers (supply) to meet the demand for children needing to be placed.110

7.4 Implications of a carer wage in Australia

It was suggested in Chapter 2 that difficulties in carer recruitment and retention may be partly resolved if carers were to be given better financial support for providing a fostering service. At a time when people need income from paid work in order to maintain their standard of living and contribute towards retirement income, the introduction of an adequate wage component for the main carer in fostering families could become more critical. A wage component in fostering may attract a different cohort of younger, more qualified people into fostering, able to meet the challenges of more demanding and difficult placements and meet their need for an adequate income. The findings from the comparative studies discussed above on the low level of wages for carers, however, do not bode well for the introduction of a carer wage in Australia.

Ambivalence on the part of carers towards the merits of the concept of pay for caring, and the current income support arrangements for some carers, are complicating factors that may impede support for a carer wage. At the present time many foster carers are reliant on government income support payments and associated benefits (e.g. Health Care Card, concession card, rental assistance). The present cohort of mothers on Parenting Payment and older women on Age Pension may be reluctant to move from this secure form of income support to a payment system that did not provide an equally protected source of household income. A further complicating

110 Recent findings estimates a shortage of 10,000 carers in the UK (Fostering Network, 2007)

262 factor is the likelihood of having to pay tax on earned income. At present, carer subsidies are regarded as ‘allowances’. Current subsidy payments are not regarded as income and are not subject to income tax. Strong support of and advocacy for a carer- wage, from foster care associations and others in the fostering sector around Australia, would be a crucial factor in securing a wage component for carers.

Another complicating factor is the cost minimisation practice of child welfare departments in relation to carer remuneration, a factor which suggests that the concept of a carer wage would not be acceptable to governments. It is however important to provide some context to the implications to government of introducing a carer wage, and to note that data on recurrent expenditure on OOHC services indicate that the use of volunteer carers results in significant cost savings to governments.

In 2006, carer numbers (including foster and kin carers) were estimated to be 14,500 nationally (see 2.1). Non-related foster carers comprised 53 per cent of total carers: 7,685.111 Using wage estimates based on the replacement cost model allows for a calculation of the likely cost to governments of wages for carers. Current annual (2005-06) overall expenditure on child protection and OOHC services reported by the Commonwealth Productivity Commission is $1.4 billion, of which OOHC services accounted for $857.8 million (61.9%) (AGPC, 2007: 15.10). Estimates of annual expenditure, based on paying a wage to non-related foster carers, at the lower bound of the wage estimates (see 6.6.1) would add another $333.7 million annually to overall costs.112 It is not argued that this is what should in fact be paid to carers, as it is highly unlikely that Australian governments would be prepared to increase expenditure on fostered children by this amount. However, it can certainly be argued that this $333.7 million represents the cost savings to government of using volunteer carers to provide OOHC services (i.e. foster care) rather than, for example, residential care.

111 Because kin carers have a different status in relation to the children they care for than other, non- related carers, they are not included in the following exercise on calculating the cost to government of a wage component to carers.

112 Estimates calculated on $832.80 (lower bound wage) x 52.14 (yearly) x 7685 (carers).

263 Further information provided in the Productivity’s Commission’s report supports the argument that the use of fostering compared with residential care brings substantial savings to governments. As noted in Chapter 2, the use of residential care in Australia has declined (5% of all OOHC placement types in 2005-06). Residential care is now mainly used for children with high and complex needs who (it is argued) cannot be successfully supported in foster care placements. Yet, as this thesis study has indicated, it is highly likely that there are children and young people with equally demanding needs being cared for by foster carers. Estimates of annual real expenditure on residential OOHC per child range from $150,000 to $240,000, and are seven to eight times higher than the annual real expenditure on foster care per child ($21,000–$29,000) (AGPC, 2007: 15.36).113

These estimates of government costs by the Productivity Commission highlight the fact that, if volunteer carers were to be paid a salary similar to residential workers, commensurate with the hours they work (based on a seven-day week), it would have a major impact on government budgets for child-welfare spending. In financial terms it is not surprising that governments in Australia in the latter part of the 20th century reduced dramatically the use of residential care in preference to home-based care. In comparison to residential care, foster care is far less expensive to government. Although the option of using residential care has not vanished altogether, it can be argued that the majority of costs (predominantly indirect) of caring for children in OOHC have been shifted onto the shoulders of volunteer foster carers.

Discussion: The work by social and political scientists and feminist economists clarifies the concerns and issues around the theoretical aspects of paying for caring labour. Their contribution to the debate illuminates and explains why the issue of paying for care is controversial and why carers might also be divided over the idea. The literature on care work discussed in the thesis indicates that reconciling economic, social and moral arguments for pay, while acknowledging the socio/emotional aspects of affection and responsibility, had legitimacy. In one sense it is a matter of working through and understanding the complex, contested, multilayered concepts of caring.

113 The Commission recommends the data be interpreted with caution (see Appendix F).

264 The studies on countries paying a carer wage component indicate that in general the wage component is low, carers are not regarded as agency employees, and few entitlements associated with employment are available. It is also significant that in countries where a carer wage, albeit low, is paid, carer recruitment is still difficult and perceptions are that overall levels of carer remuneration are inadequate. Only in UK agencies where realistic fees and high quality support services are provided does carer recruitment/retention appear to be less of an issue.

The historical underpinning of foster care in Australia and elsewhere has relied and depended, to a significant degree, on attracting highly altruistic women, who in times past would have considered it inappropriate to receive payments for care-giving work. The strong emphasis on the altruistic nature of women providing a caring service has provided government with both a justification and a rationale in their carer remuneration policies for keeping both subsidy and wage components at low levels. The finding that low pay is often a feature of gender-specific labour market care work (see section 3.4.3) resonates strongly with the findings from the empirical studies discussed above.

This thesis study suggests that, if all carers (non-related) in Australia were to be paid a carer wage, annual national expenditure would be substantial – $333.7 million. On the other hand, this finding also indicates that if volunteer carers were not available to provide this service alternative, more expensive options such as residential care would need to be found. Thus, this substantial amount can be seen as the significant cost savings accruing to governments when using volunteer carers.

265 Chapter 8 Conclusion and Implications

This thesis study was an empirical investigation into the direct and indirect costs of fostering. It employed a multi-theoretical framework to explain, describe and estimate these costs, and brought together a number of existing models (on budget standards, opportunity costs and time costs) for consideration. In critiquing, evaluating and using specific models to estimate children’s direct and indirect costs, otherwise defined as the costs of caring, it has built on the work of previous scholars who have developed and used these models. It contributed to the body of knowledge in the areas of budget standards, and opportunity and time costs, where estimating the value of home-care services (e.g. for children, elderly and disabled) is seen as important in the theory and development of economic and social theory.

Bringing together both the estimates of the direct and indirect costs of fostered children allowed a comparison to be made between their relative monetary values, thus adding to knowledge of the total cost of children. The thesis study contributed to the literature on fostering by providing a better understanding of where ‘money’ fits with carer motivation, with fostering’s more professional role, and with carers’ perceptions of the nature of fostering and of being paid a wage to foster. The powerful voices, insights and vividly contrasting experiences of foster carers, in 2001 and 2005, were of immeasurable value to the researcher’s understanding of fostering’s costs.

The chapter has four sections beginning with a summary of the findings. The thesis contribution to method and theory is then discussed followed by policy implications, future research and reflections on the research study.

8.1 Summary of findings

This section highlights the key findings from the thesis study. It starts by presenting an historical perspective on carer remuneration policy, responding to the first question asked in the thesis: How have child welfare policies rewarded, supported or ignored the contribution of women in providing fostering services?

An historical perspective on child-welfare policy (2.3) found that, over time, the care of children requiring care has moved between institutional and foster care, with cost- containment in both areas an important priority in government policy. When fostering

266 was the preferred option, the cost-containment underpinning government provision of OOHC services impacted on the level of carer remuneration. This policy, coupled with an apprehension that if carer remuneration was ‘too generous’ it would attract the ‘wrong’ people to provide fostering services, and the belief that altruism must be paramount, has meant that carers have often struggled financially to cover the cost of the children they foster. While historical information on foster carer remuneration across the States is patchy, the research evidence in most historical periods indicated that carer subsidy levels have been inadequate in covering the day-to-day costs of fostered children.

As fostering moved into the 21st century, the carer role changed, with an increasing emphasis on professionalism: an expansion in caring tasks, activities, responsibilities and involvement in training. While the carer role has become more professional the disjunction between what carers are expected to do and the level of support (financial and non-financial) they receive has become more evident. Carers today are seen as multi-skilled specialists dealing with fostered children’s varied and complex needs, far different from the well-meaning, motherly and ‘respectable’ women with little or no training who fostered in the past. Notions of professionalism in the provision of a fostering service imply, not only a recognition of skills, experience and responsibilities, but also an adequate level of wage or salary, like other paid care- workers, to reward carers for the work they do.

Chapter 5 addressed the thesis study’s second aim to investigate the nature and level of direct costs and provide estimates of these costs. The study built on the work of previous budget standard research (Oldfield, 1997; Saunders et al., 1998) to estimate the costs of children, and used this approach in determining the costs of foster children. The voices and experiences of carers from focus groups (The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study) and in-depth interviews from the thesis study were used to understand the nature of these costs and carer perceptions of the adequacy of the carer subsidy.

The Appropriate Foster Care Payment Study found the costs of fostered children were 40 per cent higher than the costs of children not in care. In relation to adequacy, a comparison of the level of the FCEs with the level of carer subsidies (2000-2006) in all States indicated considerable progress had been made in increasing the level of

267 subsidy to better reflect the cost of fostered children. In New South Wales in 2006, a new age-related payment system was introduced, comparable in monetary terms to the FCEs. By 2006 most Australian States were applying the CPI to carer-subsidy levels to reflect changes in the cost of living.

The indirect costs of children were seen to impact on carers in three ways. Carers incurred opportunity cost (foregone earnings), time costs and emotional costs. One of the aims in examining the indirect costs (Chapter 6) was to assign a monetary value to these costs. Models were available to measure two of these indirect costs: opportunity and time. Findings from the opportunity costs model indicated that if carers (all married) had been able to work similar hours (i.e. part-time) in similar industries as other mothers with dependent children they could have earned on average $448 per week.114 In relation to part-time work, the analysis of thesis mothers’ employment patterns showed that most worked fewer hours per week (average 14.5 hours) than other married mothers (average 21 hours). As a consequence most received a lower level of average weekly earnings – $303. Only one carer, a nurse, earned more ($550) than the average for all Australian mothers ($448).

Estimates of the time taken to care were based on ordinary time (primary and secondary) spent in caring for children as estimated by Ironmonger (2004), and extra time required for fostering’s tasks and activities estimated by Oldfield (1997). These estimates were used as a guide for the cost of a carer’s time. A residential care worker’s wage (alternative paid professional) was used to value this time. Estimates were calculated at upper (for a more experienced carer) and lower bounds (for a new carer). The average estimated weekly wage rate based on a carer working 52.5 hours per week was at the upper bound $895.78 (upper bound) and $832.80 at the lower bound. These costs were nearly double the estimates for carers’ foregone earnings discussed above. It was not possible to assign a monetary value to the emotional/psychological costs of caring, though the impact on carers was significant. The aim in examining the nature of these costs was to make visible a hidden but significant aspect of the substantial indirect costs borne by foster carers.

114 Based on ABS data for 2004.

268 In bringing together the direct (based on the FCE) and indirect costs (based on time cost), the thesis study found that the indirect costs of fostered children were considerably higher than the direct costs. At both the lower and upper bound of time- cost estimates, the indirect costs were around four times the value of the direct costs.

The last section of the thesis (Chapter 7) explored the concept of paying a wage to foster carers. A small number of Australian studies with carers around the issue of ‘being paid’ suggest that, between 1986 and 2004, there has been increasing support from carers for a carer wage. The response from thesis carers to the suggestion was mixed: ten carers were ambivalent, 13 did not agree with the concept, and seven supported a carer wage being introduced. In linking theoretical concepts of paying for caring labour with practical aspects of fostering, support was found for the premise that carer motivation can contain both dual and compatible aspects of self-interest and altruism – caring can be paid for and still be loving.

An analysis of countries where a carer wage was paid found few countries paying a wage high enough to be seen as an alternative to labour market employment, though where a wage component was paid, carers were financially better off than unwaged carers in other countries. Of concern was the finding that in most countries waged carers were not regarded as agency employees or entitled to unemployment benefits, social or health insurance, or leave entitlements (Colton and Williams, 1997, 2006; Oldfield, 1997). Findings from other studies indicate that only 60 per cent of all UK carers received a fee, and for only seven per cent was the amount similar to that of a comparable professional worker. In a small number of agencies with higher fees carer recruitment/retention was less problematic than in the agencies paying lower fees, carers had better relationships with workers, they were more satisfied with services, and more likely to undertake training and attend carer support groups (Fostering Network, 2007; Kirton, Beecham and Ogilvie, 2006; Sinclair, Wilson and Gibbs, 2004; Triseliotis, Borland and Hill 2000). Overall in the UK there were high levels of carer dissatisfaction with inadequate levels of fees and of subsidy payments. Noticeable from these comparative and UK studies was that, despite the introduction of a wage component, carer recruitment/retention was in general problematic.

The thesis examined the financial implication to governments of paying all non- related foster carers (7,685) in Australia a weekly wage of $832.80. It was not being

269 argued that this is what should be paid to carers. The amount was calculated to indicate the cost savings to governments ($333.7 million) when using a volunteer workforce to provide highly professional services for a particularly vulnerable group of children, rather than using residential care. A further indication of the magnitude of the costs of residential care compared to foster care was the finding that annual real expenditure on residential OOHC per child ranged from $150,000 to $240,000. The cost of residential care services is estimated to be seven to eight times higher than the annual real expenditure on foster care per child ($21,000–$29,000) (AGPS, 2007).

8.2 Contribution to method and theory

The thesis study sought to provide fresh insights and new ways of understanding how a number of methodological approaches could assist in measuring and valuing the direct and indirect cost of children, alternatively defined as the cost of caring. It applied a number of theoretical concepts on caring labour to fostering, and contributed to the emerging feminist economist theory and discourse on paying for caring labour.

8.2.1 Methodological framework for developing direct costs

In relation to estimating the direct costs of children, two models were considered: the expenditure survey/equivalent standard of living, and a budgetary approach. With no consensus by scholars on the ‘best’ or ‘correct’ method to use for the purpose, a budgetary approach was adopted, i.e. the development of budget standards based on a needs-based approach. Support for this approach was reinforced by my involvement in the SPRC BSU project on developing Australian budget standards and the costs of children (Saunders et al., 1998). Both expenditure-survey and budgetary approaches for estimating child costs are ‘time sensitive’ in that the estimates can become dated quite quickly and their potential value as relevant estimates diminishes over time. Ten years is seen as a reasonable time period for use of the estimates. Sensitivity to time is due to changes in consumption norms, behaviours and prices in the community. It was advantageous that the development of fostered children’s costs occurred in 2001-02 when the BSU estimates were perceived as highly relevant.

The use of a budgetary approach for the thesis built on the existing work in Australia by Lovering (1984) and the BSU (Saunders et al., 1998), though the method adopted to estimate child estimates used a more sophisticated model proposed by a UK

270 researcher (Oldfield, 1997 – see below). The three main strengths of a budgetary approach as they relate to adults and children are: costs are based on a consideration of needs; the costs are transparent in that all included items, based on assumptions and normative judgements, can be easily understood, debated and discussed; and thirdly flexibility, variations or modifications can be made to the range, quantity, quality, price or lifetime. A further strength of a budgetary approach is that estimates can be updated using the CPI (Saunders et al., 1998).

Although the budgetary approach is a robust method, there is concern about the need to make value judgements around what should be included/excluded from budgets. In the absence of behavioural data, making a number of value judgements was, and is, an ongoing tension for all researchers. A heightened awareness of this issue for this researcher led to considerable soul-searching in decision-making. It can only be reiterated that this weakness of budget standards methodology is accepted as inevitable by most who conduct research in the area. It is argued that, while some decisions may be seen to be arbitrary, they are made as visible and transparent as possible in reports; they are open to criticism and can be revised if necessary.

In developing the costs of foster children in Australia, this thesis built on the work of Oldfield (1997) in the UK who adopted a more comprehensive and detailed approach than the budget standards approach, the IVM or normative approach, to estimate the costs of children and fostered children. This was an enormously time-consuming task to revisit the initial BSU child estimates and apply the new approach. The benefit in doing this, however, was that all original costs were checked (minor errors detected and corrected) and an increased knowledge developed in relation to costs in all components of children’s budgets.

An additional strength in relation to children’s estimates is that a budgetary approach can reflect age-related costs, an important factor in foster care where most States provide carers with age-related payments. My knowledge of how to develop age- related children’s budgets allowed for two new budgets to be developed from ‘scratch’; costs for a 12 month-old-child and a 14-year-old girl (McHugh, 2002). The ‘new’ budget estimates were useful in the focus groups with carers in discussing the needs/costs of babies and the differences in costs between teenage boys and girls. The strengths of budget standards were successfully ‘put to the test’ with foster carers in

271 discussing what changes they thought needed to be made to the budgets to reflect the needs of fostered children (McHugh, 2002). It was reassuring in 2005 when the carers’ responses to fostering costs strongly mirrored issues and concerns raised by carers in 2001.

The advantage of being able to use the CPI to update the FCEs was shown when AFCA published annual updates of the FCEs. Prior to 2000, few States were updating carer subsidy levels on a regular basis (Bray, 2001), which meant that their value in meeting carers’ costs diminished over time. It is noteworthy that in 2006 AFCA reported all States were updating the levels of carer subsidies on an annual basis. A further advantage of applying the CPI to the FCEs was that the adequacy of the subsidies in relation to the FCEs could be monitored on a regular basis.

In the Australian context the budgetary approach was refined and redeveloped. The valuable input by carers resulted in information on the costs of fostered children that had not been previously available. It provided the foster care sector and governments with knowledge of the ways foster care’s costs were different from (higher than) the costs of other children. In doing so, it clarified and made more understandable the impact of these costs on carers and families. The work in this thesis has also added to the body of knowledge on the strengths and weaknesses of using this method to measure and value the direct costs of children.

8.2.2 Methodological framework for developing indirect costs

In measuring and valuing the indirect costs of fostered children, the thesis study used three approaches: foregone earnings or opportunity costs, time costs and the psychological and emotional costs. It was suggested that it was the interrelationship of these three aspects that broadened our understanding of how care work attracts significant costs for women: the care penalty.

Opportunity costs: The opportunity costs approach was useful in providing estimates of the amount of money that foster carers might have earned if they did not have responsibility for caring for foster children. There were several factors peculiar to the situation of foster mothers. One was that many foster carers have a lifelong commitment to fostering; for them, caring is a ‘way of life’. Unlike other mothers, they do not leave paid work for the birth of a child and re-enter the labour market

272 some time later. Because many carers care for highly dependent children with special emotional and physical needs, they are still less likely to become involved in paid work, even as the foster children grow older. Their care penalty (loss of earnings and accumulated employment benefits, e.g. superannuation) was, as a consequence, of a higher order for foster mothers.

In applying the opportunity costs model, earnings were calculated by comparing foster carers with a similar group of other mothers caring for dependent children. It was noticeable that no sole parent in the sample was in paid work. In part this was because of age (older single women fostering), or because of the number of fostered and own children being cared for. This finding highlighted the need for closer attention to be given to the financial situation of the sole mothers who foster, to ensure fostering does not add to their financial stress.

With the ages of carers in the sample varying from 32-58 years, the estimated foregone earnings for the older carers not in the labour force and with no intention of entering, resulted in a probable overestimate of current possible earnings. The weakness of point-in-time estimates of foregone earnings is that they provide little understanding of past and future employment disadvantage and loss of earnings for carers over the life cycle. While foregone earnings could be measured and valued, it was evident that fostering affected the wage carers could potentially earn in ways that did not apply to all mothers. The model’s usefulness was the finding that foster mother’s employment prospects and paid work options were different from other mothers. Even when participating in paid work, their hours were likely to be limited. In the case of foster mothers the compounding affects of opportunity costs and the impact of dependent children on carer employment prospects are likely over the longer term to have more serious financial consequences than for other mothers.

Proxy good: The proxy good method (market replacement cost) was used to measure and value the amount of time (fostering and non-fostering time) spent by carers at the market price of a suitable substitute, i.e. a residential care worker. This method used the recent findings by Ironmonger (2004) on the time (primary and secondary) spent by Australian mothers for a first child, combined with Oldfield’s estimates for the extra time required for fostering’s tasks and activities, as the total time spent fostering. These calculations provided a guide to calculate a pay scale which reflected the time

273 required to provide a fostering service. Many issues around calculating time were discussed in Chapters 3 and 6, especially the difficulties in using time-use data, and in deciding which child (first or second) should be regarded as a foster child when calculating time caring. The discussion highlighted the difficulty in representing the complexities of estimating child care-time. The carer interviews revealed the demanding and time-consuming nature of fostering, and the fact that foster children take more time overall to care for than other children do. Due to the problematic nature of estimating the costs of time, it was suggested that caution should be applied in considering their scale. The estimated time-costs of children and the dollar amounts assigned to them are precisely that – estimates.

Psychological and emotional costs: The psychological and emotional costs of fostering have rarely been examined to the degree covered in this thesis study. With the powerful voices of the women’s experiences it was possible to convey the intensity and impact of the stress and strain on the various relationships maintained by carers. There are very few studies on the impact of stress on foster carers and the cumulative effect of stressful episodes when caring (Beecham and Sinclair, 2007; Pithouse, Lowe and Tout-Hill, 2004; Wilson, Sinclair and Gibbs, 2000). In the psychology literature little attention has been paid to the centrality of ‘care’ in all its manifestations (Hall, 1990). The findings from the thesis study will contribute to literature in this area in providing a better understanding of the dimensions of the emotional/psychological side of care work and its costs and the need to provide more effective support to carers and their families when stress occurs.

8.3 Contribution to theory

8.3.1 Standard-of-living measurements

The thesis illustrated the magnitude of the direct to indirect costs of fostering and, like two other studies in the area (Folbre, 2004; Oldfield, 1997), indicated that the indirect costs of caring are higher than the direct costs. This thesis study found that the indirect costs were around four times the value of the direct costs. This finding provides a substantial contribution to economic theory examining the cumulative effect of both direct and indirect expenditure in relation to caring for children and to standard-of-living measurements over the life cycle (Apps and Rees, 2000; Bradbury 2004; Folbre, 2004; Ringen and Halpin, 1995).

274 Although the costs were combined in order to illustrate their magnitude, fostering’s direct and indirect costs need to be kept as discrete payments. If carers are to be rewarded/compensated for the service they provide, it should be in relation to fostering’s indirect costs only. This approach is supported by most countries where a carer wage/fee component is included in a carer remuneration package.

8.3.2 Feminist economist theory and discourse on paying for caring labour

This thesis study applied to the practice of fostering a number of theoretical concepts on paying for caring labour developed by feminist economists. The study found strong support for the contention that the occupational element of fostering – skilled, effort- intensive and productive work – could be paid for (carer wage) and the caring could still be loving (affection combined with responsibility). The finding suggests that the payment of a carer wage is as much a part of a professional service as are the skills, experience and knowledge brought by carers to fostering. The particular value of a feminist approach to economic issues and caring labour is its focus on gender. In relation to women who foster, the theoretical concepts provided an almost ideal fit to the lives of women carers. The thesis study adds to the economic, social and moral arguments that form an essential part of feminist economic theory in support of adequate pay for care work.

8.4 Policy implications

A number of implications arise from the findings on policy changes in the carer payment system in New South Wales. Implementing an age-related payment regime recognises the increasing costs of children from infanthood through to teenage years. Removing ceilings before claims for reimbursement of additional costs can be made will assist all carers, particularly those on low incomes. The availability of additional financial support for a range of expenses associated with contact/access visits, child care, tutoring, dental and optical treatment, professional therapies and additional travel, if provided on an equitable basis to all carers, will similarly lessen the financial stress reported by carers in 2001 and 2005. In addition, regular indexation of carer subsidy payments will reassure concerns around adequacy if the levels reflect changes in the costs of living.

275 The findings from the research have implications for policy development in other States. Ideally, the implementation of comparable levels of carer subsidies, adjusted for State and regional differences, for children in comparable age groups, would ensure better payment adequacy. A standardised payment system, similar to payments received through the Commonwealth income support scheme, would ensure more equitable outcomes in carer-payment levels. At present The National Plan for Foster Children Young People and their Carers 2004-2006 makes no reference to carer payments. The inclusion of agreed standards in carer payments in the National Plan would be a positive policy objective.

8.5 Future research

Fostering’s Costs: The methodology used here has demonstrated the potential of different models to estimate the costs of caring: budget standards for estimating child costs, and opportunity and proxy good methods for estimating indirect costs. The research would benefit from a larger study with carers in New South Wales and other States on the indirect costs of fostering and the concept of a wage for carers. The thesis study is based on a small sample of carers, and their perceptions of indirect costs and a carer wage need to be tested against carer perceptions in other States, including in regional and rural areas.

Kinship care: A similar study on the costs of kinship care, a growing and important form of out-of-home care services for children in Australia, would also be useful. Kinship carers have different characteristics from non-related carers. They are usually older maternal or paternal grandparents, predominantly single grandmothers, with low household income; and some have health problems. They are subject to different assessment processes in becoming a foster carer, are usually not required to participate in initial or ongoing carer-training, and rarely have caseworkers assigned to the children in their care. Their motivation to care may be based on filial or kin relationships and remuneration for caring may be perceived very differently. With the introduction in New South Wales of the same payment system for kin carers as for authorised carers, it is an opportune time to evaluate the benefits to kin carers of the new system.

276 Government and NGO agencies: No research study has examined the differences in relation to financial and non-financial support, for carers fostering through NGOs and those with government agencies. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that carers in New South Wales fostering through NGOs are more likely to be fostering children with special or high needs, or sibling groups, and to be provided with considerably better support, both financial and non-financial. Understanding some of the nuances and subtleties in relation to perceptions of support for these two groups of carers would be of value in relation to quality, stability and outcomes.

Carer motivation: At a philosophical level, teasing out aspects of carer motivation that move beyond altruism and love of children would be beneficial. An intriguing area for the researcher was the difference between women who held completely opposite views on the movement of money and caring, but who shared similar perceptions in relation to mothering/parenting. A deeper exploration of expectations, cultural norms, identity formation and self-interest in ‘being’ a carer could lead to a better understanding of how money ‘fits’ with caring for children.

Intensive fostering services: A further area of research interest is the issue of children with high needs requiring intensive foster care services. Little research had been conducted on the costs incurred by carers and the department in providing services to these children. Little is known about the adequacy of higher levels of payment, or how these levels are determined. Valuable insights could be gained by understanding how decisions are made about which children to include in higher payment programs, and how the higher payments impact on carers.

8.6 Concluding remarks

This thesis study did not attempt to examine or measure the quality of the care provided by carers. Having said that, I must also say that the data analysis revealed how strongly committed the interviewed carers were to the children they fostered, and how they utilised their skills, knowledge and life experience to provide stability and achieve good outcomes for the children; not to mention their extraordinary patience. For most carers a strong ethic of care-giving was embodied in their responses.

Defining fostering’s job aspects were responsibility and accountability to birth parents and the agency, administration tasks, and managing ‘difficult’ placements. Carers

277 made clear distinctions between parenting their own and their foster children; for most, fostering children was different and harder. Equally and strongly expressed by carers were notions of mothering, love and attachment (relationships), and the rewards of fostering. For some carers, though, the love and commitment to fostered children was on ‘another’ level, it was different from the love and commitment to biological children. In order to carry out their role in a professional way and to be able to ‘let go’ and cope with children’s return to birth families, or to a permanent carer, these values appeared desirable for carers.

For most carers, money was never an issue in their decision to foster, though many found it difficult at times to manage on the subsidy provided. Carers were relaxed and forthcoming in discussing money matters in relation to meeting the needs of foster children. But moving into the area of being paid for caring caused a good deal of discomfort for some carers. While responses were mixed, most were prepared to discuss various aspects, providing thoughtful responses to the positives and negatives of the suggestion.

Carers’ greatest concerns in relation to monetary rewards was the impact of a carer wage on the concept of fostering, and the impact on fostered children when they knew carers were being paid to care. There has been no substantial research with fostered children on their perceptions of carers’ more professional role and the concept of carers being paid to care. In the interviews, carers struggled with resolving the fine distinction between being paid a reward for the work they do but not for the love they give, a point emphasised by Macdonald and Merrill (2002) (see 3.4.3). Having said that, it was also evident that carers wanted to be valued and respected; they wanted their contribution in providing a fostering service to be acknowledged and recognised. A few thought that one outcome of being paid would be more respect from workers, being seen as part of the team and on the same level as Departmental workers.

In conclusion, if a carer wage was to be considered, a greater emphasis would be required on the provision of quality, competency-based training for carers. A far stronger emphasis needs to be placed on training that will help carers manage the high levels of emotional/psychological stress generated by fostering. For carers to be fully professional would require not only appropriate remuneration, but also a thorough assessment of the quality of the care provided. Attracting and retaining suitable carers,

278 either with previous qualifications, or prepared to undertake specialised training, may require a different approach to recruiting carers. Fostering for the love of it, based on an altruistic desire to provide children with a home and security, is admirable and desirable, but better remuneration packages for carers and professional standards may be the necessary vehicles for attaining quality care and ensuring good outcomes for fostered children.

279 Appendix A.1: Invitation to Participate and Mini-Diary

Research with Carers on the Costs of Fostering in Australia I am a research student (PhD) at the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) at the University of New South Wales. I am planning to interview a number of active foster carers on their experiences as a foster carer in relation to their role as a foster carer, motivation to foster, the adequacy of the Care Allowance, whether fostering is more like doing a ‘job’ or ‘parenting’; the time it takes to provide fostering tasks and activities; the emotional/psychological aspects of caring and carer’s experience in relation to fostering and paid work.

I would like to invite foster carers (either Departmental or Agency) of any age who fit the following criteria:

o Carer has fostered for a number of years (three or more) o Carer currently has a foster child (or children) in their care o Carer has children of their own either at home or left home o Carer has fostered a number of children (six or more) over their fostering life o Carer has attended initial foster care training sessions, and o Carer provides long, medium or short-term care or respite and/or crisis care

I would like to interview carers who are in paid employment as well as carers who do not have any paid work. The interview will take about one hour and all interviews will be taped. All information provided by carers will be confidential and no carer will be identified in the study. All carers interviewed will be given a $50 Coles-Myer voucher for their time. The research study has been granted Ethics approval by the University of New South Wales Ethics Committee. As part of Ethics approval all carers participating in the research are required to give their informed consent (sign a consent form) at the time of interview. Interviews are to be conducted in September/October 2005.

This research with carers is an extension of my interest in the topic of the financial and non-financial aspects of support for foster carers and follows my previous work on The Costs of Caring in 2002 and The Availability of Foster Carers in 2003-4 for the New South Wales Department of Community Services.

If you would be willing to participate in this research, or if you would like more information, please contact me: Marilyn McHugh at the SPRC on 9385 7829 or FreeCall 1800 065 576. You can also contact me at [email protected]

There are some questions from the interview on the reverse side of this sheet about the time it takes you to provide tasks and activities involved in fostering. In preparation for the interview I would like you to think about the tasks and activities you do and the time (minutes/hours) it takes to do them. I’m interested in whether the time you take with fostered children is different to that of your own children? If it helps use the mini-diary on the back sheet for a couple of days to help you work out the minutes (or hours) involved in different tasks and activities. (please turn over)

280 Appendix A.2: Time Diary

Based on last week, what can you tell me about the time it takes you for the various tasks and activities involved for the fostered child(ren) in your care? In what ways is the time taken for these tasks/activities with fostered children different to that of your own children?

1. Let’s start with personal care and activities/tasks around meal times, bath time and bedtime 2 General household activities/tasks for example, cleaning, clearing up, laundry (clothes/linen), maintenance and repairs 3. Travel and transport - time taken or the transport used 4. Therapeutic activities, for example, school and homework, games, play/sport 5. Administration of the foster care placement, for example, meetings and paper work (Life Stories, carer diary) 6. Emotional support, for example, developing a relationship, counselling or helping the child(ren) adjust to the placement 7. Any less frequent or one-off tasks or activities that have not already been mentioned, for example, court attendance, carer support groups, carer training. Example of a Time Diary Area Task/Activity Time (approximate)minutes

1. Personal care

2. General household

3. Travel/transport

4. Therapeutic activities

5. Administration

6. Emotional support

7. Less frequent/one-off

281 Appendix B.1: Interview Schedule

The Costs of Fostering in Australia: A study of foster carer experiences in relation to the direct and indirect costs of fostering.

Clarify prior to commencing interview

The purpose of the study is to explore your perception the carer’s experience of providing care in relation to the costs of caring

Interviews are being conducted with carers to obtain some information on the costs of foster caring. As someone who has been a carer for some time you are in a good position to describe what these costs are and how they affect carers. And this is what this interview is about your experiences with being a carer and your thoughts about those experiences. I will be interviewing around 30 carers and the answers from all carers will be combined as part of my thesis on the Costs of Fostering in Australia.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Nothing you say will ever be identified with you personally. The information will not be discussed with any person other than between the researcher and my supervisors. The names of participants will not be identified in any report on the findings.

Audio taping of interview

The interview will be audio taped. Tapes will only be accessible to the researcher. Tapes and transcripts will be kept under secure conditions until such time as the thesis has been accepted, a period of about 12 months. After this time the tapes will be erased and the transcripts will also be destroyed.

As we go through the interview if you have any questions about why I’m asking something please feel free to ask. If there is anything you don’t want to answer just say so. Do you have any questions before we begin?

282 Appendix B.1: Carer Interview Schedule (continued)

The first set of questions I am going to ask you are about your personal background as a carer. The purpose of these questions is to help me to understand who the people who foster are. I am going to write down your responses on a form so I can refer to some of the answers as we go through the interview.

Once this is done I will switch on the tape recorder and ask you some questions about your experiences as a carer and your thoughts on those experiences.

(Complete the Carer Form)

Interviewer guide – (From the carer form) “You say you have been fostering for about …. Years” (go to first question)

The Role of Foster Carers

1. What did you think your role, as a foster carer would be when you started fostering? Prompt: describe what a carer does

2. In what way has fostering met your expectations?

3. Can you tell me about any changes that have taken place in your role as a foster carer? Have these changes been positive for you? Have any of these changes been negative?

Prompts: changes/differences, in relation to children cared for; in relation to training/support; agency/worker – relationship with workers, respect/value of carers - better or worse

4. In what way have the changes had an impact on you and your family?

Prompts: fostered children; own children; relationship with spouse/partner/others; relationship with workers or other carers

5. What for you are the positive or rewarding aspects of fostering?

Prompts: self, carer family; fostered child; workers & fostered child’s family

6. What do you feel are the negative or difficult aspects of fostering? Prompts: self, carer family; fostered child; workers & fostered child’s family

283 The motivation of carers

7. What was it about fostering that initially motivated or attracted you to it?

Prompts: factors/motivations important at the time the decision was taken.

8. In most decisions we make there are factors that have some influence on what we do. How did you think you would manage financially when you began fostering? Prompts: influence of the subsidy, encouragement or incentive to foster.

9. What is it that motivates you to continue being a carer? Prompts: factors/motivations that are currently important.

10. What if anything might lead you to give up fostering?

Prompts: carer factors - ill-health, age, work, moving; child factors - behaviour, returned to birth parents agency or worker factors - respect, support, treatment by workers

Perceptions of the Care Allowance (direct costs)

(All carers - From the carer form: “you said you are receiving Care Allowance (CA) (or CA1 or CA2) for the child(ren) in your care …

11. In relation to the subsidy you receive for the child(ren) in your care do you think the amount is too high, too low or about right?

Prompts: if too low or too high – seek elaboration on the areas covered/not covered, expand on sources of satisfaction/dissatisfaction

12. (Question for carers receiving Care Allowance+1 or+2)

Care Allowance+1 (or +2) are paid at a higher level to meet the needs of children with special needs. In what ways does this higher level of subsidy assist you in your fostering role? Prompts: meetings extra needs? Compensation aspects?

13. (Question all carers)

. Do you regard allowance paid to carers as covering expenses, a reward for caring or a mixture of the two? Prompts: elaboration of coverage of expenses, reward for caring?

284 14. Who meets any costs not covered by the carer subsidy for any extra or additional needs of your fostered child(ren)

Prompts: self (foster father), department, others

15. In your day-to-day spending how do you keep track of what is spent on the child(ren) you foster?

16. In the last 12 months have you or your family experienced any financial hardship in relation to meeting the needs of the child(ren) you foster? If ‘yes’ can you tell me what that were?

Perceptions of fostering - ‘job’ or ‘parenting’?

17. Thinking about what you do as a foster carer do you see your fostering role more as a ‘doing a job’ or more as ‘being a parent’ or is it a bit of both?

Prompts: elaborate - in what ways is it ‘work’ and/or ‘parenting’? Which is more dominant?

18. (For carers with children either living at home or left home) There may be some similarities or differences between parenting your own children and parenting foster children? First, tell me what you see as the similarities and then what are the differences?

19. (For carers not in paid labour market) Does being a foster carer affect your ability to be in paid work?

Prompts: nature of fostering – a deterrent, consider fostering ‘their’ job, no desire/necessity, worked in the past but stopped when fostering began

20. (For carers in the paid labour market Q20 & Q21)

As a carer and a paid worker how do you balance the two roles? Prompts: positives/negatives/conflicts, prefer longer/shorter hours/different job, financial need for paid work

21. This next question might be something you have not considered but I’d like to get your thoughts on it. If you ever have to make a decision between either continuing fostering or your paid work what do you think you might do?

285 (All carers) 22. What do you think are the best types of support to assist carers in their caring role? Prompts: Financial assistance (increased subsidy, reward/compensation for carers); non-financial support respite, on-going training practical/emotional support from workers, other carers, family

23. Can you pin point any additional services or resources or help that would be useful to you in caring for your foster children?

Carer Perception of Time Taken to Provide Care (Indirect Costs)

I’m interested in learning more about how carers see a number of other aspects of fostering. Suppose I was a ‘new’ carer and knew very little about fostering. What can you tell me about the amount of extra time it takes you for the various tasks and activities involved for the fostered child(ren) in your care? Fostering tasks and activities are probably wide-ranging so can you help me by working through some of the areas I’m familiar with. Just think back over the last week and the time it took you in these areas.

24. Let’s start with personal care and activities/tasks around meal times, bath time and bed time. In what ways is the time taken with fostered children different/extra to that of your own children?

25. With general household activities/tasks for example, cleaning, clearing up, laundry (clothes/linen), maintenance and repairs in what ways is the time taken with fostered children different/extra to that of your own children?

26. In relation to travel and transport in what ways is the time taken or the transport used with fostered children different/extra to that of your own children? 27. Focussing on therapeutic activities, for example, school and homework, games, play and sport in what ways is the time taken with fostered children different/extra to that of your own children?

28. In the area of administration of the foster care placement, for example, meetings and paper work in what ways is the time taken with fostered children different/extra to that of your own children?

29. The last area is the emotional support of fostered children, for example developing relationships and dealing with any adjustments with the child. In what ways is the time taken with fostered children different/extra to that of your own children?

286 30. Finally in relation to time spent with fostered children are there any less frequent or one-off tasks or activities that have not already been mentioned? Prompts: court attendance, carer support groups, training, computing

Carer perceptions of the emotional/psychological aspects of caring (indirect cost)

31. Remembering I’m a ‘new’ carer and know little about fostering, what can you tell me about your experiences in regard to the emotional and psychological aspects of fostering? Prompts: feelings of responsibility, feelings about child’s health, welfare and

Appendix B.1: Carer Interview Schedule (continued)

development, relationship with natural parents, effect of fostering on carer’s family, working with caseworkers and other agency staff

32. Looking after foster children can be stressful, how do you look after yourself?

33. What kind of support do you receive from others in looking after your fostered child(ren)? Prompts: family, friends, professional support, support group of any kind

Carer perceptions of opportunity costs and forgone earnings (indirect costs)

34. This next question might be particularly difficult to answer with certainty but I’d like to get your thoughts on it. I’m interested in finding out what you feel about job opportunities that you might have had or the money you might have earned if you were not fostering. What might you be doing if you were not fostering? Probe; other voluntary activities, paid work/full-time/ part-time, occupation, thoughts about financial situation when ceasing to foster

35. What is your response to the suggestion that:

“Foster carers should be treated like other workers in caring occupations i.e. paid employees with all the benefits attached to paid work –e.g. leave entitlements, superannuation contribution, long service leave, workers compensation, etc and the payment of income tax”.

36. If fostering was a paid job what do you see as the advantages or disadvantages? Prompt: for carers, for children

37. Are there any improvements you would like to see in the present payment system for carers?

287 38. Finally is there anything you would like add about the costs of fostering to carers that we haven’t covered in the interview?

Many thanks for your time today. You have been really helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me today. Is there anything you’d like to ask me?

288 Appendix B.2: Foster Carer Form (2005)

This form contains questions on personal information about yourself, your family and the children for whom you are fostering. The first set of questions relates to your experience as a foster carer. The second set of questions relate to you and your family.

Q1 How long have you been currently fostering? (if not …… Years/Months continuous, note years/months of the current period)

Q2 All together how long have you been a foster carer? …… Years/Months

Q3 Including the children currently in your care how many foster children in Number total have you cared for? (period noted in Q 2) …………… Number Q4 How many foster children do you currently care for? ……………

Q5 Ages of fostered children Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 Child 4 ………. …………. .…………. …….……

Q6 Type of care provided for each of the children in your care? (Long term. short term, crisis, respite, other – define)

Child 1..………………………… Child 2..…………….…..…..………..

Child 3……….…………………… Child 4..…………….….………….…

Q7 How long have your foster children lived with you?

Child 1..…………….(years/months) Child 2..……………..(years/months))

Child 3……….……..(years/months) Child 4..…………….…(years/months)

Q8 Are any of the foster children related to you? Yes % No %

(if yes specify each child’s relationship (eg. grandchild, nephew, niece, etc) ………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q9 What level of Care Allowance is received for each fostered child? (circle)

Child 1 CA CA1 CA2 Child 3 CA CA1 CA2

Child 2 CA CA1 CA2 Child 4 CA CA1 CA2 Yes % No % Q10 Do you have children of your own living at home? (if yes go Q 11, if no go to Q12) Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 Child 4 Additional Q11 Ages of children (in children years) … years … years … years … years ……………….

Number ……………. Q12 Do you have children of your own not living at home? (0 (zero) for none)

289 Q13 Marital status (tick one Married Single parent (divorced or separated) Single box only) % % %

Q14 Age ………… Q15 Sex (tick box) Male % Female %

Q15 Labour force Full-time Part-time Unemployed (or Not in paid work participation work work looking for work) or retired) (tick one box only) % % % %

Q 16 What work do you do? ……………………………………………………..………………………….

Q17 (If partnered) Age of partner …………

Q18 Labour force Full-time Part-time Unemployed (or Not in paid work participation of partner work work looking for work) or retired) (tick one box only) % % % %

Salary/Wage Income Retirement income Other Q19 What is your main source of family income support (tick one box) % % % %

Q20 Do you receive Family Tax benefit for If yes – for how many Number fostered children (yes - no) (circle)o

Time……………………. Place of interview………………………..

Time taken for the interview…………………….. Date………………………..

Interviewer comment

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

290 Appendix C: Information Statement and Consent Form for Interview Participants

UNSW Sydney 2052 Australia Telephone (02) 9385 7802 Facsimile 902) 9385 7838 Email: [email protected] The Costs of Foster Care in Australia

Subject Information Statement and Consent Form for Interview Participants

This study is being carried out as part of a doctoral thesis on The Costs of Foster Care in Australia by Marilyn McHugh at the Social Policy Research Centre. The aim of the study is to develop a model of fostering that provides adequate and appropriate remuneration to foster carers. Many countries, including Australia are experiencing considerable difficulties in recruiting and retaining carers and this study seeks to examine some of the reasons behind this issue. As part of the study interviews will be conducted with a number (30) of current foster carers on certain aspects of foster care, including the experiences a foster caring, carer motivation, perceptions of the Care Allowance, whether fostering is a ‘job’ or ‘parenting’; the time it takes to provide fostering tasks and activities; the emotional/psychological aspects of caring and opportunity costs and forgone earnings in relation to paid work.

Carers are being asked to participate in an interview for about an hour to discuss these issues. With your permission the session will be recorded on tape so that the information obtained can be accurately written up at a later date. What you tell me will be completely confidential, except as required by law. You will not be identified in the thesis dissertation or any of the papers the researcher writes for publication.

If you agree to be part of this project, please sign the consent form that is attached. You are free at any time to refuse to answer particular questions or to stop being part of the study. A withdrawal form is also attached for you to keep. Complaints or concerns about the study may be directed to the Ethics Secretariat, The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052 (phone 9385 4234, fax 9385 6648, email [email protected]) quoting this reference number: HREC 0425.

Please feel free to contact me on (02) 9385 7829 at any time if you have any questions or comments. Your help with this important research study is much appreciated.

Marilyn McHugh Research Scholar

291 Appendix C (continued)

The Costs of Foster Care in Australia

You are making a decision whether or not to take part in this study. Your signature indicates that you have read the information on the information sheet and that you have decided to participate.

______

Your signature

______

Please print your name

______

Date

______

Signature of researcher Name of researcher

292 Appendix C (continued)

The Costs of Foster Care in Australia

WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT

I wish to WITHDRAW my consent to take part in the Project on The Costs of Foster Care in Australia and understand that such withdrawal WILL NOT jeopardise any relationship with the University of New South Wales.

______

Signature Date

______

Please PRINT your name

The section for Revocation of Consent should be forwarded to Marilyn McHugh, Research Scholar, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Kensington NSW 2052.

293 Appendix D: Financial Support for Foster Carers in NSW

Clothing All clothing, for general wear and school to be purchased from the allowance Medical, For children in long-term placements (over 1 year) carers to pay $1,000 per Dental, annum from the allowance for any combination of medical, dental, Pharmaceutical and Optical. pharmaceutical or optical costs. Any costs over $1,000 to met by the foster care service. For children placed for shorter periods carers are to pay $250 per quarter from the allowance for any combination (noted above) of costs. Any costs over $250 will be met by the foster care agency School All exercise books, pens, pencils, coloured pencils, etc are to be purchased from the allowance. Carers are to pay the first $250 in any quarter for school fees, text books (fees or purchase) and tutoring for each foster child. Any costs over $250 in a quarter on any combination (noted above) of costs will be met by the foster care agency Travel Travel to activities (e.g. medical appointments, tutoring, etc**) up to $250 per quarter to be met from the allowance. Any payment over $250 per quarter of case plan agreed travel will be met by the foster care agency Hobbies & All to be paid from the allowance activities Holidays All to be paid from the allowance Recreation All to be paid from the allowance Childcare The first $80 per week to be met from the allowance. Amounts over $80 per week will be met by the foster care agency** Other expenditures Contact with General costs associated with contact with birth family or significant others family will be met by the foster care agency** Loss or Carers to discuss claims for loss or damage with the local DoCS’ damage Community Service Centre Professional Costs for professional therapy will be met by the foster care agency** therapy Respite Costs met by the foster care service** Establishment For an emergency placement $75 is provided to a carer. For short to costs medium term placements (up to six months) a payment of $350 per child, per first four placements, per year is made. For a long term placement up to $1,400 is available on consultation with a caseworker to purchase items (e.g. furniture, bedding, etc) for a child** Source: DoCS (2006b) Fact Sheet: Foster Carer Allowances Notes: ** All expenditures so marked with are to be discussed with a carer’s caseworker before commitments are made.

294 Appendix E: Essential Clothing/Footwear Items, 14 Year-old Girl (December 2000)

Retail Item Total Main clothing items Descriptions Fibre content outlet Price Quantity Price ($) ($) Pants 3/4 length stretch pants Cotton/poly Target 29.95 1 29.95 Jeans Fitted waist, flare leg Denim Target 29.95 1 29.95 Drawstring waist, side Summer skirt splits, 3/4 length Viscose rayon Target 29.95 1 29.95 Shirt 3/4 sleeves, collar, stretch Cotton Target 29.95 1 29.95 Top Basic ‘Hot Options’, rib Cotton Target 12.00 1 12.00 T-shirt Crew neck short sleeves Cotton Big W 4.93 3 14.79 Tank top Sleeveless, scoop neck Poly/cotton Big W 4.93 1 4.93 Shorts Loose, short leg Micro fibre Target 11.94 2 23.88 UNDERWEAR/NIGHTWEAR Briefs Basics bikini (5 pack) Cotton Target 7.00 1 7.00 Bra ‘Body soft’ bralette Cotton/elastin Kmart 17.95 2 35.90 Nightie Sleeveless, 3/4 length Satin Target 19.95 1 19.95 Pyjamas T-shirt, short leg boxer Poly/satin Big W 29.93 1 29.93 Sport socks ‘Trizone’ sports socks Cotton blend Kmart 6.75 2 13.50 Sandals Slides Synthetic Big W 7.96 1 7.96 SCHOOL CLOTHES Shoes (school) 'Rollers' Leather/upper Target 37.00 1 37.00 Tunic/frock Summer style Cotton/poly School 39.00 1 39.00

Polo shirt (sport) Knit shirt Poly/cotton Target 12.95 2 25.90 Shorts (sport) Knit drawstring waist Poly/cotton Target 18.65 1 18.65 Cotton/elastin e Socks, school Bonds, (2 packs of 3) Big W 15.00 1 15.00 School bag Back pack Polyester Target 21.00 1 21.00 Total 446.19 Source: McHugh, 2002: 82.

295 Appendix F: Out-of-Home Care Proxy Efficiency Indicators

The proxy out-of-home care efficiency measures are output indicators of total expenditure on all children in residential out-of-home care and total expenditure on all children in non- residential out-of-home care, on 30 June, 2007.

Total annual expenditure for both measures is based on total annual expenditure on residential/non-residential divided by the number of children in residential/non-residential care.

The indicators are regarded as imperfect proxy indicators and need to be interpreted with care as they do not represent unit cost measures.

Expenditure per child in care at 30 June overstates the cost per child because significantly more children are in care during a year than at a point in time. In addition, the indicator does not reflect the length of time a child spends in care.

Only four of the eight Australian States and Territories currently provide a breakdown on these costs: Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).

In 2005-06 (at 30 June) annual real expenditure on residential out-of-home care per child in residential out-of-home care ranged from $155,000 in the ACT to $240,000 in Victoria.

Similarly annual real expenditure on non-residential (e.g. foster care) out-of-home care per child in non-residential out-of-home care ranged from $21,000 in South Australia to $29,000 in the ACT(1).

Source: Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2007: 15.35-15.36 Notes: 1. The text is an abridged version of the information provided in the publication.

296 References

Access Economics, (2005), The Economic Value of Informal Care, Report, Carers Australia, Canberra. Adler, P. A. and P. Adler (1998), ‘Observational techniques’ in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln Eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks:377- 392. Adnopoz, J. (2007), ‘Addressing symptoms of depression in foster caregivers may improve the quality of care children receive’, Child Abuse & Neglect Vol. 31 (3):291-293. Ainsworth, F. and P. Hansen (2005), ‘A dream come true – no more residential care. A corrective note’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 14:195-199. Allbeury, B. (2003), Western Australia Foster Care Recruitment Service, (personal communiqué). AMP.NATSEM, (2006), The Costs of Caring in Australia, 2002-2005: Who Cares? AMP.NATSEM, Income and Wealth Report, Issue 13, May, Canberra. Anderson, M. (1992), ‘Good strong girls: colonial women and work’ in K. Saunders and R. Evans Eds. Gender Relations in Australia: Domination and Negotiation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Sydney. Andersson, G. (2001), ‘The motives of foster parents, their family and work circumstances’, British Journal of Social Work, 31:235-248. Anderson, G., F. Carmichael, F. Connell, G. Hulme and S. Sheppard, (2005), ‘Who Cares and at What Costs: Employment Earnings of Informal Carers’, Management and Management Science Research Institute, Working Paper 207/05, Salford University, Manchester Apps, P. and R. Rees (2000), ‘Household Production, Full Consumption and the Costs of Children’, IZA Discussion Paper No. 157:1-33. Asquith, J. (2007), ‘The supervision of foster carers’, presentation at IFCO XV Biennial International Foster Care Conference, Hamilton, NZ. Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies, (ACWA), (2006), Residential Care in NSW, OOHC Development Project, ACWA&CCWT, Sydney. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (various) Consumer Price Index, Australia, Cat No. 6401, ABS, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2000a), Household Expenditure Survey, Australia User Guide 1998-99, ABS, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2000b), Household Expenditure Survey, Australia: Detailed Expenditure Items, Cat. No 6535, ABS, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2005a), Labour Force Australia, Detailed, Cat. No. 6291.0.55.001 (Table 12 FM3), (data cube), Canberra (accessed December 2006). Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2005b), Employee Earnings and Hours, Australia, May, Cat. No. 6306.0, ABS, Canberra.

297 Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2006a), Labour Force Survey, Australia, Detailed – Electronic Delivery, November, Cat. No. 6291.0. Time Series Spreadsheet (Table 01:1.55.001) (accessed December 2006). Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2006b) Australian Social Trends, 2006: Trends in Women’s Employment, Cat. No. 4102.0, ABS, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2006c), Australian Labour Market Statistics, October 2006, Cat. No. 6105.0, ABS, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2006d), Australian Social Trends 2006: Father’s Work and Family Balance, Cat. No. 4102.0, ABS, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2006e), Labour Force Survey, Australia, Detailed – Electronic Delivery, November, Cat. No. 6291.0. Time Series Spreadsheet (Table 01:1.55.001) (accessed December 2006). Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2006f), Education and Work, Cat. No 6227.0, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2006g), Labour Force Survey, (STFAB), Cat. No 6291.0.55.03 (data cube), Canberra (accessed December 2006) Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2006h), Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership, Cat. No. 6310.0, ABS, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS), (2007a), Labour Force, Australia: Labour Force Status and Other Characteristics of Families Cat. No. 6224.0.55.001 (data cube), (accessed June 2006), Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), (2007b), Labour Force, Australia, Cat. No. 6202.0, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), (2007c), ‘Fertility and its effects on Australia’s future population’, Year Book Australia, http://www.abs.gov.au/austats /[email protected]/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/68096 (accessed 8/02/07). Australia, Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA), (2006), Carer Allowance, http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/ facsinternet.nsf/disabilities/carers-carer_allowance.htm (accessed August 2005). Australian Foster Care Association, (AFCA), (2001), Preventing Child Abuse and Providing Support for Parents in the Australian Foster Care Sector, Report prepared for the Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra. Australian Foster Care Association, (AFCA), (2006), Supporting Carers of Other People’s Children: A Handbook on Support for Foster, Relative and Kinship Carers and the Children and Young People in their Care, AFCA, Canberra. Australian Foster Care Association, (AFCA), (2007), personal communiqué, Canberra, ACT. Australian Government Productivity Commission, (AGPC) (2007), Review of Government Service Provision, http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/reports/rogs/ 2007/index.html (accessed May 2007). Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), (1999), A Guide to Calculating the Costs of Children, AIFS, Melbourne.

298 Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), (2005), Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, Annual Report 2004, AIFS, Melbourne. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, (AIHW), (2007), Child Protection Australia, 2005-06, AIHW, Canberra. Badgett, M. V. L. and N. Folbre, (1999), ‘Assigning care: gender norms and economic outcomes’, International Labour Review, Vol 138(3):311-320. Baldock, C. V. (1983), ‘Volunteer work as work: some theoretical considerations’ in C. Baldock and B. Cass (1983), Women, Social Welfare and the State, Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Banks, J. and P. Johnson (1994), ‘Equivalence Scales and Public Policy’, Fiscal Studies, Vol 15:1: 1-23. Barbell, K. and M. Freundlich, (2001), Foster Care Today, Casey Family Programs, Washington, DC. Barber, J. G. (2001), ‘The slow demise of foster care in South Australia’, Journal of Social Policy, 30(1):1-15. Barber, J. G., P. Delfabbro and L. L. Cooper, (2001), ‘The predictors of unsuccessful transitions to foster care’, Journal of Psychology & Psychiatry, Vol. 42(6):785-790. Baxter, J. (2005), ‘Returning to work following childbearing in Australia’, paper presented to Families Matter, 9th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, 9-11 February. Baxter, J. (2006), ‘Patterns of time use over the lifecourse: What we know and what we need to know’, paper presented at the Time and Gender Seminar, University of New South Wales, June. Bebbington, A. and J. Miles, (1989), ‘The background of children who enter local authority care’, British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 19(5):349-68. Bebbington, A. and J. Miles, (1990), ‘The supply of foster families for children in care’, British Journal of Social Work, 20(4):283-307. Becker, M., N. Jordon, and R. Larsen, (2006), ‘Behavioral health services use and costs among children in foster care’, Child Welfare, Vol 85(3):633-647. Beecham, J. and I. Sinclair, (2007), Costs and Outcomes in Children’s Social Care: Messages from Research, Jessica Kinsley, London. Beggs, J. and B. Chapman, (1988a), ‘Forgone earnings from child-rearing’, Family Matters, No 21 35-37. Beggs, J. and B. Chapman, (1988b), ‘The foregone earnings from childrearing in Australia’ Discussion Paper No 190, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra. Bell, D. C. and A. J. Richard, (2000a), ‘Caregiving: The forgotten element in attachment’, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11(2):69-83. Bell, D. C. and A. J. Richard, (2000b), ‘The search for a caregiving motivation’, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11(2):124-128.

299 Bittman, M. (2004), ‘Parenthood without penalty: Time-use and public policy in Australia and Finland’ in N. Folbre and M. Bittman Eds. Family Time: The Social Organisation of Care, Routledge, London:224-237. Bittman, M., L. Craig, and N. Folbre, (2004), ‘Packaging care: what happens when children receive nonparental care? in ‘N. Folbre and M. Bittman, Eds. Family Time: The Social Organisation of Care, Routledge, London:134-151. Bittman, M. and J. Pixley, (1997), The Double Life of the Family, Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Black, J. E., W. L. Haight and J. Doner Eagle, (2003), ‘Understanding and supporting parent-child relationships during foster care visits: Attachment theory and research’, Social Work, No. 48(2):195-208. Boushey, H., C. Brocht, B. Gundersen, and J. Bernstein, (2001), Hardship in America: The Real Story of Working Families, Economic Policy Institute. Bradbury, B. (1989), ‘The appropriateness of the per child increment in the family package- what is the cost of children?’ paper presented at A Fair Share Conference on Child Poverty, April. Bradbury, B. (1994), ‘Measuring the costs of children’, Australian Economic Papers, June: 120-138. Bradbury, B. (1997), ‘Measuring poverty changes with bounded equivalence scales: Australia in the 1980s’, Economica, May 1997, vol. 64(254):245-264. Bradbury, B. (2004), ‘The price, cost, consumption and value of children’, SPRC Discussion Paper No 132, June, SPRC, University of New South Wales. Bradbury, B. and P. Saunders, (2003), ‘Children’s consumption of market and state- provided goods and services in Australia’, paper presented at the seminar Rethinking Expenditures on Children: Towards an International Research Agenda, Australian National University, Canberra, January. Bradshaw, J. (1987), ‘Setting budget standards using expenditure data’, paper for the IRISS Conference on Quality of Life: Perspectives and Policy, 11 November. Bradshaw, J. (1989), ‘Evaluating the adequacy of income support: the potential of research on budgets’, Memorandum to the Social Services Committee, London. Bradshaw, J. (1993), Ed. Budget Standards for the United Kingdom, Avebury, Aldershot. Brandon, P. (2004), ‘Identifying the diversity in Australian children’s living arrangements’, Journal of Sociology, 40(2):179-192. Brannen, J. (1992), Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Avebury, Aldershot. Bray, J. (1997), Comparative Analysis of Careprovider Payments, Department of Families, Queensland. Bray, J. (2001), Comparative Analysis of Careprovider Payments Across Australia and New Zealand, http://www.fostercare.org.au (accessed 02/08/02). Bray, J. and T. Foti, (1999), Comparative Analysis of Foster Payments, Department of Families, Queensland.

300 Breusch, T. and E. Gray, (2003), ‘A re-estimation of mothers’ foregone earnings using negotiating the life course (NLC) data’, Centre for Social Research Discussion Paper DP-017, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University. Breusch, T. and E. Gray (2004), ‘New estimates of mother’s foregone earnings using HILDA data’ Australian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol 79(2):125-150. British Association for Adoption and Fostering, (BAAF), (2006), ‘Are foster carers paid?’ http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/firstq/fostering.html (accessed August 2006). Bromfield, L., D. Higgins, A. Osborn, S. Panozzo and N. Richardson, (2005), Out-of Home Care in Australia; Messages from Research, A report to the Community Services Ministers Advisory Council commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Melbourne. Brown, A. and A. Were, (1992), The Costs of Foster Care: A Pilot Study of 20 Mission Foster Families, Mission to the Streets and Lanes, Melbourne. Budig, M. and P. England, (2001), ‘The wage penalty for motherhood’, American Sociological Review, 66:204-25. Budig, M. and N. Folbre, (2004) ‘Activity, proximity, or responsibility? Measuring parental child care time’ in N. Folbre and M. Bittman, (Eds.) Family Time: The Social Organization of Care, Routledge, New York. Bullock, R., M. E. Courtney, R. Parker, I. Sinclair I. and J. Thoburn, (2006), ‘Can the corporate state parent?’ Children and Youth Services Review, 28:1344-1358. Burbidge, A. and G. Gondor, (1999), ‘On the precision of cost of children estimates: The Engel Law revisited’, paper presented at the National Social Policy Conference, ‘Social Policy for the 21st Century: Justice and Responsibility’, University of New South Wales, Sydney. Burnside Uniting Care, (2004), New Directions: Education in Out-of-Home Care, Research Report No. 5, North Parramatta. Butcher, A. (2004a), ‘Getting Smarter in the Smart State: Strengthening Fostering Families into the Future’, Keynote Address at the CROCCS Conference, Building Stronger Families, Windmill Reception Centre, Mackay, 6-8 August. Butcher. A. (2004b), ‘Foster Care in Australia in the 21st Century’ Developing Practice, No 11:42-54. Butcher, A. (2005), Enhancing Foster Carers’ Training and Professionalism, PhD Thesis, February, School of Social Work and Community Welfare, James Cook University, Queensland. Callan, T. and B. Nolan, (1991), ‘Concepts of poverty and the poverty line’, Journal of Economic Surveys, 5(3):243-261. Campbell, I. and S. Charlesworth, (2005), Submission to Inquiry into Balancing Work and Family Life, Centre for Applied Social Research, RMIT University, Melbourne, March. Carmichael, G. A. (1992), ‘So many children: Colonial and post-colonial demographic patterns’ in K. Saunders K. and R. Evans Eds. Gender Relations

301 in Australia: Domination and Negotiation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Sydney:103-143. Carrasco, C. and A. Rodriguez, (2000), ‘Women, families, and work in Spain: Structural changes and new demands’, Feminist Economics, Vol. 6(1):45-57. Carter, J. (2002), Towards Better Foster Care ... Reducing the Risks, The Children’s Foundation, Melbourne. Cashmore, J., R. Dolby and D. Brennan, (1994), Systems Abuse: Problems and Solutions, Report for the NSW Child Protection Council, February, Sydney. Cass, B. (2002), ‘The intersections of public and private worlds in the distribution of well-being of Australian Children: Research and social policy implications’ in M. Prior Ed. Investing in our Children: Developing a Research Agenda, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Canberra:42-59. Cass, B., C. Keens and D. Wyndham, (1983), ‘Childrearing: Direct and indirect costs’ in A. Graycar, Ed. Retreat from the Welfare State, Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Cassels, R., R. Lloyd and A. Harding, (2005), ‘Perceptions of child care affordability and availability in Australia: What the HILDA Survey tells us’, paper presented at the 9th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, 9 February, www.natsem.canberra.edu.au (accessed 09/10/06). Chalmers, J. and T. Hill, (2005), ‘Part-time work and women’s careers: Advancing or retreating?’ Paper presented at HILDA Survey Research Conference 2005, University of Melbourne, 29-20 September, Melbourne. Chalmers, J. (1989), ‘Using budget standards to estimate the costs of children’ Budget Standards Unit, Newsletter, SPRC, UNSW, No 4, May. Chapman, B., Y. Dunlop, M. Gray, A. Liu, and D. Mitchell, (1999), The Foregone Earnings from Child Rearing Revisited, Discussion Paper No. 407, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra. Chapman, B., Y. Dunlop, M. Gray, A. Liu, and D. Mitchell, (2001), ‘The impact of children on the lifetime earnings of Australian women: Evidence from the 1990s’, The Australian Economic Review, 34:378-89. Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia, (CAFWAA), (2002), A Time to Invest in Australia’s Most Disadvantaged Children, Young People and Their Families, Policy Paper, CAFWAA, Sydney. Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia, (CAFWAA), (2007), Call to Action for Australia’s Children, CAFWAA, Sydney. Children’s Rights Director, (2005), Being Fostered: A National Survey of the Views of Foster Children, Foster Carers, and Birth Parents about Foster Care, Commission for Social Care Inspection, London. Citro, C. and R. T. Michael, (1995), Measuring Poverty: A New Approach, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Clare, M., B. Clare and A. Peaty, (2006), Children who Foster: The Impact on children of Foster Carers when Foster Children Reside in Foster Families, Report of the FCA/UWA Project, Perth.

302 Clyman, R. B., B. J. Harden and C. Little, (2002), ‘Assessment, Intervention and Research with Infants in Out-of-Home Placement’, Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol 23(5):435-453. Collier, F. (1999), ‘Independent Agencies’, in Wheal, A. (Ed) Companion to Foster Care, Russell House, Dorset. Collis, A. and J. Butler, (2003), Fit to Foster? A Profile of Foster Care and Foster Carers in Wales 2003, Fostering Network, Wales. Colton, M. and M. Williams (1997) Eds. The World of Foster Care: An International Sourcebook on Foster Family Care Systems, Arena, Aldershot. Colton, M. and M. Williams, (2006), Eds. Global Perspectives of Foster Family Care, Russell House Publishing, Dorset. Commission for Social Care Inspection, (CSCI), (2006), ‘The Right People for Me: Helping Children do Well in Long-Term Foster Care’, In Focus Issue 3, May, CSCI, London. Community Services Commission, (CSC), (2000), Voices of Children and Young People in Foster Care, Report from a consultation with children and young people in foster care in New South Wales, CSC, July, Sydney. Community Services Commission, (CSC), (2001), A Question of Safeguards: Inquiry into the Care and Circumstances of Aboriginal or Islander Children and Young People in Care, CSC, Sydney. Courtney, M. E. (1999), ‘The Economics’, Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol.23 (10):975- 986. Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, (1907-1908), A Report of Cases Under the Excise Tariff, 1906, Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne. Commonwealth, Community and Disability Services Council, (CCDSC), (2004), The National Plan for Foster Children Young People and their Carers 2004-2006, CCDSC, Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia, (1920), Report of the Royal Commission on the Basic Wage (The Piddington Report), Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne. Commonwealth, Senate Community Affairs Committee, (CSCAC), (2005), Protecting Vulnerable Children: A National Challenge, March, Canberra. Community Care, (2001), ‘Running on Empty’, Newsletter, April, London. Conley, M. (1982), ‘The ‘undeserving’ poor: Welfare and Labour policy’ in R. Kennedy Ed. Australian Welfare History: Critical Essays, Macmillan: Melbourne. Cook, J. A. and M. M. Fonow, (1990), ‘Knowledge and women’s interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research, in J. M. Nielsen Ed. Feminist Research Methods: Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences, Westview Press, Jackson, Tennessee. Corrick, H. (1999), ‘The professionalisation of foster care’ in Wheal, A. Ed., The Companion to Foster Care, Russell House, Dorset:57-63.

303 Crabtree, B. and W. Miller, (1999), Doing Qualitative Research, (2nd edition), Sage, London. Craig, L. (2002a), ‘The time tost of parenthood: An analysis of daily workload’, SPRC Discussion Paper 117, University of New South Wales. Craig, L. (2002b), ‘Caring differently: A time-use analysis of the type and social context of child care performed by mothers and fathers’, SPRC Discussion Paper 116, SPRC, University of New South Wales. Craig, L. (2005a), ‘Cross-national comparison of the impact of children on adult time’, SPRC Discussion Paper 136, SPRC, University of New South Wales. Craig, L., (2005b), ‘How do they do it? A time-diary analysis of how working mothers find time for the kids’, SPRC Discussion Paper 137, SPRC, University of New South Wales. Craig, L. (2006a), ‘Children and parental time: A gender analysis’, presentation, Seminar on Time Use and Gender, 14 June, University of New South Wales. Craig, l. (2006b), ‘Does father care mean fathers share? A comparison of how mothers and fathers in intact families spend time with children’, Gender and Society, 20 (2):259-281. Craig L. and M. Bittman, (2005), The Effect of Children on Adults' Time-Use: An Analysis of the Incremental Time Costs of Children in Australia, SPRC Discussion Paper 143, SPRC, University of New South Wales. Daniels, K. M. Murnane and A. Picot, (1977), Women in Australia: An annotated Guide to the Records, Vols. 1 & 2, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. CREATE, (2006), Australian Children and Young People in Care: Report Card on Health, CREATE, Sydney. Cresswell, J. (1994), Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Thousand Oaks, Sage. Culley, J. D., B. H. Settles and J. B. Van Name, (1977), Understanding and Measuring the Cost of Foster Care, University of Delaware, Newark. Dando, I. and B. Minty, (1987), ‘What makes good foster parents?’ British Journal of Social Work, 17:183-400. Deacon A. and F. Williams, (2004), ‘Introduction: Themed section on care, values and the future of welfare’, Social Policy and Society, 3:385-390. Daly, M. (2002), ‘Care as a good for social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 31(2): 251-270. Daly, M. and J. Lewis, (2000), ‘The concept of social care and the analysis of contemporary welfare states’, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 51(2):281- 298. Daly, M. and K. Rake, (2003), Gender and the Welfare State: Care, Work and Welfare in Europe and the USA, Polity Press, UK. Daly, M. and G. Standing, (2001), Care Work: The Quest for Security, International Labour Office, Geneva.

304 Deaton, S. and J. Muellbauer, (1986), ‘On measuring child costs: with applications to poor countries’, Journal of Political Economy, 94(4):720-44. Delfabbro P. H. and J. G. Barber, (2002), ‘The micro-economics of foster care in South Australia’, Children Australia, 27(2):29-34. Delfabbro P. H. and J. G. Barber, (2004), ‘The economic costs of behavioural disorders in substitute care’, The Journal of Socio-Economics, 33:189-200. Delfabbro, P. H., J. Taplin and Y. Bentham, (2002), ‘Is it worthwhile? Motivational factors and perceived difficulties of foster caring in South Australia’, Adoption and Fostering, Vol. 26(2):28-37. Denzin, N. K. (1994), ‘The art and politics of interpretation’ in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Denzin, N.K. and Y. S. Lincoln, (1998), ‘Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research’, in N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds. The Landscape of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Department for Education and Skills, (DfES), (2006a), Care matters: Transforming the Lives of Children and Young People in Care, Green Paper, DfES, London. Department for Education and Skills, (DfES), (2006b), National Minimum Fostering Allowances, Consultation, DfES, London. Department of Health, (DOH), (2002), Promoting the Health of Looked After Children. Quality Protects, Department of Health, London, http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/fs/en (accessed 12/09/04). De Vaus, D., M. Gray and D. Stanton (2003), ‘Measuring the value of unpaid household, caring and voluntary work of older Australians’, Research Paper No 34, AIFS, Melbourne. Dickey, B. (1980), No Charity There: A Short History of Social Welfare in Australia, Melbourne: Nelson. Dix, T. (2000), ‘Understanding what motivates sensitive parenting’ Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11(2):94-97. Donath, S. (1995), ‘The invisible child: A feminist critique of economic theory’, Social Security Journal, June:98-116. Dougherty, S. (2001), Toolbox No. 2: Expanding the Role of Foster Parents in Achieving Permanency, Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC. Dozier, M. (2000), ‘Motivation for caregiving from an ethological perspective’, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11(2):97-99. Dozier, M. and O. Lindheim, (2006), ‘This is my child: Differences among foster parents in commitment to their young children’, Child Maltreatment, Vol.11:338-345. England, P. (1993), Preface in P. England, Ed. Theory on Gender: Feminism on Theory, Aldine de Gruyter, New York. England, P., M. Budig and N. Folbre, (2001), Wages of Virtue: The Relative Pay of Care Work, unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Northwestern University, Chicago.

305 England P. and N. Folbre, (1999a), ‘Who should pay for the kids?’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Thousand Oaks, Vol.563: 194-207. England, P. and N. Folbre, (1999b), ‘The cost of caring’, Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, Thousand Oaks, Vol 561:39-51. England P. and N. Folbre, (2003), ‘Contracting for care’ in M. Ferber and J. Nelson Ed. Feminist Economics Today: Beyond Economic Man, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Espenshade, T. J. (1984), Investing in Children: New Estimates in Parental Expenditures, The Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC. Evans, C. (2002), ‘Excellent women and troublesome children: State foster care in Tasmania 1896-1918’, Labour History, No 83: 131-148. Evans, S. and L. Tierney, (1995), ‘Making foster care possible: A Study of 307 foster families in Victoria’, Children Australia, 20:4-9. Evers, A., M. Pijl and C. Ungerson, (1994), Payments for Care: A Comparative Overview, Avebury, Aldershot. Ezzy, D. (2002), Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation, Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Falconer, H., (1998), The Financial Implications of Long-Term Foster Care in Victoria, Report prepared for the Foster Care Association of Victoria, November, Melbourne. Fernandez, E. (1993), ‘Factors associated with children’s entry into care’ in J. Mason, Ed. Child Welfare Policy: Critical Australian Perspectives, Hale and Ironmonger, Sydney. Fernandez, E. (1996), Significant Harm: Unravelling Child Protection Decisions and Substitute Care Careers of Children, Avebury, Aldershot. Fernandez, E. (2007), ‘Unravelling emotional, behavioural and educational outcomes in a longitudinal study of children in foster care’, British Journal of Social Work, (advance access April 18, 2007). Finch, J. (1984), ‘Its great to have someone to talk to’ in C. Bell and H. Roberts Eds. Social Researching: Politics, Problems and Practice, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Fine, M. (2007), A Caring Society? Care and the Dilemmas of Human Services in the 21st Century, Palgrave Macmillan, London. Finn, J. L. (1994), ‘Contested Caring: Women’s Roles in Foster Family Care, AFFILIA, Vol 9(4): 382-400. Fischer, F. (2002), ‘Placing sibling groups together in foster care: The Oz Child sibling groups placement program’, Children Australia, Vol 27(2):17-22. Fisher, B. and J. Tronto, (1990), ‘Towards a feminist theory of caring’, in E. Abel and M. Nelson Eds. Circles of Care Work and Identity in Women’s Lives, University of New York Press, Albany. Flick, U. (1998), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Sage, London.

306 Flynn, C., S. Ludowici, E. Scott and N. Spence, (2005), Residential Care in NSW, Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies and Centre for Community Welfare Training, Sydney, November. Folbre, N. (2001), ‘Accounting for care in the United States’, in M. Daly, Ed. Care Work: The Quest for Security, International Labour Office, Geneva. Folbre, N. (2003), ‘Valuing parental time: Total expenditure on children in the United States in 2000’, paper presented at Supporting Children: English-Speaking Countries in International Context Workshop, Princeton University January 7- 9. Folbre, N. (2006), ‘Demanding quality: worker/consumer coalitions and “high road” strategies in the care sector’, Politics and Society, Vol. 34(1): 11-31. Folbre, N. and J. A. Nelson, (2000), ‘For love or money – or both?’ Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 14(4): 123-140. Fontana, A. and J. H. Frey, (1994), ‘Interviewing: The art of science’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln Eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Fostering Network, (2005), Caring for our Children. Part 1: The Foster Carers’ Perspective, Fostering Network, Glasgow. Fostering Network, (2006a), ‘Foster carers ‘let down’ by government consultation’, Fostering Network News, http://www.fostering.net/news/ (accessed November 2006). Fostering Network, (2007), Can’tAafford to foster: A Survey of Fee Payments to Foster Carers in the UK, http://www.fostering.net/campaigns/documents/ payments_survey_UK2007.pdf (accessed 01/05/07). Frey, B. S. (1998), ‘Institutions and morale: The crowding-out effect’, in A. Ben-Ner and L. Putterman Eds. Economics, Values and Organisation, Cambridge University Press, New York. Frey B. S. and R. Jegen, (2001), ‘Motivation crowding theory’ Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 15(5): 589-611. Gain, L., E. Ross and S. Fogg (1987), The Balancing Act: Foster Care in NSW, NCOSS, Sydney. Geary, D. C. (2000), ‘Attachment, caregiving, and parental investment’, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11(2): 84-123. Geen, R., A. Sommers and M. Cohen (2005), Medicaid Spending on Foster Children, Child Welfare Research Program, Urban Institute. Gershunny, J. (1983) Social Innovation and Division of Labour, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Gilbert, S. (1993), ‘The effects of colonisation on Aboriginal families: Issues and strategies for child welfare policies’, in J. Mason Ed. Child Welfare Policy: Critical Australian Perspectives, Hale and Ironmonger, Sydney. Gilligan, R. (1996), ‘The foster care experience in Ireland: Findings from a postal survey,’ Child: Care, Health and Development, Vol. 22(2) 85-98.

307 Goddard C. and R. Carew, Eds. (1993), Responding to Children: Child Welfare Practice, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Goodnew, J. and J. Laverty, (2003), Grandcaring: Insights into Grandparent’s Experiences as Regular Child Care Providers, Early Childhood Australia, Inc. Gordon, R. (1997), Background to the Household Economic Survey, Statistics, New Zealand. Gore, T. and S. Yeandle, (2002), ‘Care workers: Matching supply and demand’, Conference Report, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Sheffield Hallam University, 20-21 June. Grant, L., K. Ward and X. Rong, (1987), ‘Is there an association between gender and methods in sociological research?’ American Sociological Review, Vol 52(6): 856-862. Gray, M. (2005), ‘Costs of children and equivalence scales: A review of the methodological issues and Australian estimates’, paper presented at the Social Policy Research Centre Conference, University of New South Wales, July. Gray, M. and B. Chapman, (2001), ‘Foregone earnings from childrearing: changes between 1986 and 1997’, Family Matters, No 58: 4-9. Gray, M., L. Qu, J. Renda and D. de Vaus, (2003) ‘Changes in the Labour Force of Lone and Couple Australian Mothers, 1983-2002’, Research Paper No 33, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. Grimshaw P. (1980), ‘Women and the family in Australian history’ in E. Windshuttle Ed. Women, Class and History: Feminist Perspectives on Australia 1788-197, Melbourne: Fontana Collins. Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln, (1998), ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln Eds. The Landscape of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Gurdin, P. and G. R. Anderson, (1987), ‘Quality care for ill children: AIDS- specialised foster family homes’, Child Welfare, Vol. 64(1): 291-302. Hall J. N. (1990), ‘Towards a psychology of caring’, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 29(2):129-44. Harden, B. J. (2004), ‘Safety and stability for foster children: A developmental perspective in the future of children’, Children, Families and Foster Care, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 14 (1):31–44. Harding, A. and R. Percival, (1999), ‘The private costs of children in 1993-94’ Family Matters No 54: 82-87. Harrison, M. (1994), ‘News from the Family Court’ Family Matters, No 39: 8. Hayden, C., J. Goddard, S. Gorin and N. Vander Spek, (1999), State Child Care: Looking After Children, Jessica Kingsley, London. Healy, J. (1998), Welfare Options, Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Held, V. (1983), ‘Feminism and moral theory’ in E. Kittay and D. Meyer Eds. Women and Moral Theory, Rowan and Littlefield, UK. Held, V. (2002), ‘Care and the extension of markets’, Hypatia, Vol. 17(2): 19-33.

308 Held, V. (2006), The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political and Global’ Oxford University Press, Oxford. Henman, P. (2001), Updating Australian Budget Standards Costs of Children Estimates, Policy Research Paper No 7, Department of Families and Community Services, Canberra. Hillian, L. (2006), ‘Reclaiming residential care: A positive choice for children and young people in care’, Developing Practice, No 16: 55-62. Himmelweit, S. (1995), ‘The discovery of 'unpaid work': The social consequences of the expansion of 'work'’, Feminist Economics, Vol. 1(2): 1-20. Himmelweit, S. (1998), ‘Accounting for caring’, Radical Statistics, No. 70 (http:www.radstats.org.uk/no070/article1.htm) (accessed 02/05/02). Himmelweit, S. (1999), ‘Caring Labour’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Thousand Oaks, No 561: 27-38. Himmelweit S. (2000), ‘Alternative rationalities, or why do economists become parents’, Open Discussion Paper in Economics, No 28, Open University, Milton Keynes. Himmelweit S. (2002), ‘Making visible the hidden economy: The case for gender impact analysis of economic policy’ Feminist Economics, 8(1): 49-70. Hochschild, A. R. (1995), ‘The culture of politica: Traditional, post-modern, cold- modern and warm-modern ideals of care’, Social Politics, 2(3): 331-45. Hochman, G., A. Hochman and J. Miller, (2003), Foster Care: Voices from the Inside, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Washington, DC. Hojer, I. (2006), ‘Sweden’, in M. Colton and M. Williams Eds. Global Perspectives of Foster Family Care, Russell House Publishing, Dorset. House of Commons, (1998), Health – Second Report, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), London. Howe, B. and R. Howe, (2005), ‘A new social settlement: reshaping Australian social policy in the changing areas of work, family and welfare’, in Transitions in Australian Labour Markets: Initial Perspectives, CEDA Information Paper, 82, Melbourne: 3-13. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, (HREOC), (1997), Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, HREOC, Sydney. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, (HREOC), (2005), Striking the Balance: Women, Men, Work and Family, Discussion Paper, Sex Discrimination Unit, HREOC, Sydney. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, (HREOC), (2007), It’s about Time: Men, Women and Family, Final Paper, Sex Discrimination Unit, HREOC, Sydney. Hutchinson, B. J. Asquith and J. Simmonds, (2003), ‘Skills protect: towards a professional foster care services’, Adoption and Fostering, Vol 27(3):8-13.

309 Ironmonger, D. (2004), ‘Bringing up Bobby and Betty’, in N. Folbre and M. Bittman, Eds. Family Time: The Social Organisation of Care, Routledge, London: 93- 109. Isomaki, V. P. (2002), The fuzzy foster parenting – a theoretical approach, Social Science Journal, 39: 625-638. Jackson, S., J. Williams and A. Maddocks, (2000), The Health Needs and Health Care of School Age Children Looked After by Local Authorities, Wales Office of Research Development, Wales. Janesick, V. J. (1994), ‘The dance of qualitative research design: Method, methodolatry, and meaning’ in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln Eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Jarmon, B., S. Mathieson, L. Clark, E. McCulloch and K. Lazear, (2000), Florida Foster Care Recruitment and Retention:Pperspectives of Stakeholders on the Critical Factors Affecting Recruitment and Retention of Foster Parents, Lawton and Rea Chiles Center for Healthy Mothers and Babies, Florida. Jarviluoma, H., P. Moisala and A. Vilkko, (2003), Gender and Qualitative Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Joesch, M. J. and K. Spiess, (2006), ‘European mothers time spent looking after children – differences and similarities across nine countries’, International Journal of Time Use Research, Vol. 3(1): 1-27. Johnson, D. S., M. Rodgers and L. Tan, (2001), ‘A century of family budgets in the United States’, Monthly Labour Review, May: 28-45. Johnstone, H. (2001), ‘The demise of the institution – national trends in substitute care for children and young people from 1970 to 2000’, Paper presented at the 8th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, 19-22 November, Melbourne Convention Centre, Melbourne. Jones, H. (2006), ‘Healthy care; Improving the health and emotional well-being of looked after children’, paper presentation Positive Futures, ACWA Conference, August, Sydney. Joshi, H. (1987), ‘The cost of caring’, in C. Glendinning and J. Millar Eds. Women and Poverty in Britain, Wheatsheaf Books, Brighton. Joshi, H. P. Paci and J. Waldfogel, (1996), The Wages of Motherhood: Better or Worse? Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC), Discussion Paper, WSP/1222, July. Kind, P. (1992), Caring for Children: Counting the Costs, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York. Kirton, D. (2001a), ‘Love and money: Payment, motivation and the fostering task’, Child and Family Social Work, 6:199-208. Kirton, D. (2001b), Family ‘Budgets and public money: Spending fostering payments’, Child and Family Social Work, 6: 305-313. Kirton, D., J. Beecham and K. Ogilvie, (2003), Remuneration and Performance in Foster Care, University of Kent, Canterbury.

310 Kirton, D., J. Beecham and K. Ogilvie, (2006), ‘Gaining satisfaction? An exploration of foster carer attitudes to payment’, British Journal of Social Work (Advance access July 19, 2006). Kroon, H. (1998), ‘Budget Standards, Living Standards and Income Adequacy’, paper prepared for the Expert Group on Poverty Statistics (Rio Group), Rio de Janeiro, May. Kufeldt, K. (2002), ‘Child and family social work’, Child & Family Social Work, Vol. 7(2): 133-139. Lee, D. (1988), ‘Estimates of Direct Expenditures on Children in Australia: Results from the Household Expenditure Survey 1984’, unpublished paper presented at Conference of the Australian Population Association, Brisbane, August 31- September. Lee, R. (2004), ‘Perspectives on transfers to children’, Conference presentation, Cross-National Comparisons of Expenditures on Children, Princeton, January 7-9. Liddell M. (1993), ‘Child welfare and care in Australia: understanding the past to influence the future’ in C. Goddard and R. Carew Eds. Responding to Children: Child Welfare Practice, Longman and Cheshire, Melbourne. Lino, M. (2004), Expenditures on Children by Families, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Centre for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Miscellaneous Publication, No. 1528-2003, USDA, Washington. Lovering, K. (1984), Costs of Children in Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. Ludlow, C. (1994), For Their Own Good’: A History of Albion Street Children’s Court and Boys Shelter, Network of Community Activities. Maclay, F., M. Bunce and D. Purves, (2006), ‘Surviving the system as a foster carer’ Adoption and Fostering, Vol. 30(1): 29-38. Macdonald, C. M. and D. A. Merill, (2002), ‘It shouldn’t have to be a trade’: Recognition and redistribution in care work advocacy’ Hypatia, Vol 17(2): 67- 86. Maclean, K. (1989), ‘Towards a fee-paid fostering service’, Adoption and Fostering, Vol. 13(3): 25-29. Marcellus, L. (2006), ‘Foster care services for infants with prenatal substance exposure: Developing capacity in the caregiving environment’, in R. J. Flynn, P. M. Dudding Eds. Promoting Resilience in Child Welfare, University of Ottawa Press, Ontario. Maynard, M. (1994), ‘Methods, practice and epistemology: The debate about feminism and research’ in M. Maynard and J. Purvis Eds. Researching Women’s Lives from a Feminist Perspective, Taylor and Francis, UK. Mason, J. Fallon, J. Gibbons, L. Spence, N. and E. Scott, (2002), Understanding Kinship Care, University of Western Sydney and the Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies, Sydney. McDonald, P. (1990), ‘The costs of children: A review of methods and results’, Family Matters, No 27:18-27.

311 McDonald, P. (2001), ‘Family support policy in Australia: the need for a paradigm shift’, People and Place 9(2): 15-20. McHugh, M. (1999), ‘The costs of children: Budget standards estimates and the Child Support Scheme’ Discussion Paper No 103, Social Policy Research Centre, University of NSW, Sydney. McHugh, M. (2002), A Study of Appropriate Foster Care Payments for Stable and Adequate Substitute Care in Australia, a report for Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia, Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies and Australian Foster Carers Association, February, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney. McHugh, M. (2003), ‘A further perspective on kinship care: Indigenous foster care’, Developing Practice, No. 8: 14-24. McHugh, M. (2004), ‘Current Issues and Context of Kinship Care in Australia’, Keynote Address presented at A National Forum on Extended Family and Kinship Care, Melbourne, 28 April. McHugh, M., J. Chalmers and P. Saunders, (2002), The Development of Indicative Budget Standards for the Costs of Children in Tasmania in March 2002, Final Report, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney. McHugh, M., J. McNab, C. Smyth, J. Chalmers, P. Siminski, and P. Saunders, (2004a), The Availability of Foster Carers: Main Report, Department of Community Services, Ashfield. McHugh, M., J. McNab, C. Smyth, J. Chalmers, P. Siminski, and P. Saunders (2004b), The Availability of Foster Carers: Supplementary Report, Department of Community Services, Ashfield. McInnes, E. (2006), ‘When unpaid care work doesn’t count: The commodification of family life in the new Welfare to Work order’, paper presented at the Road to Where: The Politics and Practice of Implementing Welfare to Work, 17-18 July, Carlton Crest Hotel, Brisbane. Meagher, G. (2002), Making Care Visible: Feminism, Social Services and the Challenge of Performance Measurement, Discussion Paper No. 2, UnitingCare Burnside. Meagher, G. (2006), ‘What can we expect from paid carers?’ Politics and Society, Vol. 34(1): 33-53. Meagher, G. and K. Healy, (2006), Who Cares? Volume 1: A Profile of Care Wokers in Australian Community Services Industries, Australian Council of Social Service, Report 140, Sydney. Meagher, G. and K. Healy, (2006), Who Cares? Volume 2: Employment Structure and Incomes in the Australian Care Workforce, Australian Council of Social Service, Report 141, Sydney. Meyer, C. H. (1985), ‘A Feminist perspective on foster family care: A redefinition of the categories’, Child Welfare, Vol. LXIV(3): 249-257. Miles, M. (1999), ‘The health of children who are fostered’ in Wheal, A. Ed. Companion to Foster Care, Russell House, Dorset.

312 Miles, M.B. & A. M. Huberman, (1994), Making Sense of Qualitative Data, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Minnis, H. and C. Devine, (2001), ‘The effect of foster carer training on the emotional and behavioural functioning of looked after children’, Adoption and Fostering, Vol 25(1): 44-54. Mitchell, D. (1986), Constructing a Poverty Line for the UK: An exploration of the budget standards approach, Dissertation submitted for the degree of MA in Social Policy, University of York, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, York. Mitchell, D. and K. Cooke, (1988) ‘The costs of childrearing’, in R. Walker and G. Parker, Eds. (1988), Money Matters: Income, Wealth and Financial Welfare, Sage, London. Moller, D. (2003), Western Australia Foster Carer Recruitment Service: Summary of Results July 2002 to June 2003, unpublished. Morse, J. M. (1998), ‘Designing funded qualitative research’ in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks Moss P. (1989), ‘The indirect costs of parenthood: a neglected issue in social policy’. Critical Social Policy (24): 20-37. Moss, P. and C. Cameron, (2002), Care Work and the Care Workforce: Report on Stage One and State of the Art Review, Care Work, Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, http://144.82.35.228/carework/uk/reports/index.htm (accessed 11/06/04). Mowbray M. and J. Mason, (1993), ‘Substitute care policy: The context for recent developments in New South Wales’ in J. Mason, Ed. Child Welfare Policy: Critical Australian Perspective, Hale & Ironmonger, Sydney. National Children’s Bureau (NCB), (2005), Health Care Programme Handbook, National Children’s Bureau, London, http://www.ncb.org.uk/healthy care/ (accessed December 2006). National Resource Center for Family-Centred Practice and Permanency Planning, (NRCFCPPP), (2007), Liability Insurance/Damage Claims for Foster Parents, http:www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/info_services/state_policies.html (accessed 20/04/07). NATSEM (National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling), (2004), ‘Who’s Going to Care?’ Informal Care and an Ageing Population, Report prepared for Carers Australia, NATSEM, Canberra. Nelson, J. A. (1999), ‘Of markets and martyrs: is it OK to pay well for care?’ Feminist Economics, 5(3): 43-56. Nelson, J. A. (2006a), Economics for Humans, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Nelson, J. A. (2006b), ‘Can we talk? Feminists economists in dialogue with social theorists’ Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 31(4): 1051-1074. Nelson J. A. and P. England, (2002), ‘Feminist philosophies of love and work’, Hypatia 17(2): 1-18.

313 New South Wales, (NSW), Department of Community Services, (DoCS), (2004), Framework for the Future of Out Of Home Care in NSW, DoCS, Ashfield. New South Wales, (NSW), Department of Community Services, (DoCS), (2006a), Out-of-Home Care Service Models: General Foster Care, Out-of-Home Care Policy Directorate, DoCS, Ashfield, January. New South Wales, (NSW), Department of Community Services, (DoCS), (2006b), Statutory Child Protection in NSW: Issues and Options for Reform, Discussion Paper for Review, DoCS, Ashfield. New South Wales, (NSW), Department of Community Services (DoCS), (2006c), ‘Fostering Our Future’ Newsletter, Issue No. 3 Autumn, DoCS, Ashfield. New South Wales, (NSW), Department of Community Services (DoCS) (2006d), Foster Care Resource Guide, www.community.nsw.gov.au (accessed 08/12/06). New South Wales, (NSW), Department of Community Services (DoCS), (2006e), ‘Your Rights and responsibilities’ http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/html /foster-care/current rights.htm (accessed 08/12/06). New South Wales, (NSW), Department of Community Services, (DoCS), (2006f), ‘New allowances for foster carers’, Inside Out, http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/html/news_publications/insideout/insideou t_2006 (accessed 13/12/06). New South Wales, (NSW), Department of Community Services, (DoCS), (2006g), Fact Sheet: Foster Carer Allowances, http://www.community.nsw.gov.au (accessed 10/09/06). New South Wales, (NSW), Department of Community Services, (DoCS), (2007a) Types of Foster Care Placements, http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/html /foster_care/want_type.htm (accessed 12/01/07). New South Wales, (NSW), Department of Community Services, (DoCS), (2007b) Support and Assistance for Foster Carers, http://www.community .nsw.gov.au/html/foster_care/current_support.htm (accessed 12/01/07). New South Wales, (NSW), Office of Industrial Relations, (OIR), (2006), Awards Online, http://www.industrialrelations.nsw.gov.au/awards/pathways/results (accessed 20/11/06). New South Wales, (NSW), Standing Committee on Social Issues (SCSI), Legislative Council, (2002), Care and Support, Final Report on Child Protection Services, Parliament of New South Wales, Sydney. Nissel, M. (1984), ‘The family costs of looking after handicapped elderly relatives’, Ageing and Society, No. 4: 185-204. Nissel, M. and L. Bonnerjea, (1982), Family Care of the Handicapped Elderly: Who Pays? Policy Studies Institute, London. Nutt, L. (2006), The Lives of Foster Carers, Routledge, London. Oakley, A. (1981), ‘Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms’ in H. Roberts Ed. Doing Feminist Research, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

314 Oglivie, K., D. Kirton and J. Beecham, (2006), ‘Foster carer training: resources, payment and support’, Adoption and Fostering, Vol. 30(3): 6-16. Oldfield, N. (1992), ‘Using budget standards to estimate the costs of children’ Working Paper No 15, Family Budget Unit, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York. Oldfield, N. (1993), ‘The costs of a child’ in Bradshaw, J. Ed. Budget Standards for the United Kingdom, Studies in Cash and Care, Avebury. Oldfield, N. (1997), The Adequacy of Foster Care Allowances, Ashgate, Aldershot. Olesen, V. (1994), ‘Feminisms and models of qualitative research’ in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, (OECD), (1999), A Caring World: The New Social Policy Agenda, OECD, Paris. Osborn, A. and P. Delfabbro, (2005), ‘Children with high support needs in Australian out-of-home care: A national comparative study’, Paper presented at Families Matter, 9th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne Exhibition Centre, 9-11 February. Osborn, A. and P. Delfabbro, (2006), ‘An analysis of the social background and placement history of children with multiple and complex needs in Australian out-of-home care’, Communities, Children and Families, Vol. 1(1): 17-23. Overington, C. (2006), ‘Foster parents ‘deserve payment’, The Australian, 27th September: 3. Pacifici, C., R. Delaney, L. White, C. Nelson and K. Cummings, (2006), ‘Web-based training for foster, adoptive and kinship parents’, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 28(11): 1329-1343. Parker, H. Ed. (1998), Low Cost but Acceptable. A minimum income standard for the U.K.: families with young children The Family Budget Unit, The Policy Press, University of Bristol, Bristol. Pascall, G. (1997), Social Policy: A New Feminist Analysis, Routledge, London. Pasztor, E. M. and K. Barbell, (1997), United States of America’ in M. Colton, and M. Williams, Eds. The World of Foster Care: An International Sourcebook of Foster Family Care Systems, Arena, Aldershot. Pasztor, E. M. and S. F. Wynne (1995), Foster Parent Retention and Recruitment: The Sate of the Art in Policy and Practice, Child Welfare League of America, Washington. Pasztor, E., D. Hollinger M. Inkelas and N. Halfon, (2006), ‘Health and Mental Services for Children in Foster Care: The Central Role of Foster Carers’, Child Welfare, Vol. 85(1):33 46. Patton, M. Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, London. PeakCare Queensland, (2002), Towards Sustainable Services for Children, Young People and their Families: The real costs of providing child protection services in Queensland, PeakCare Queensland Inc, November, Brisbane.

315 Percival R. and A. Harding, (1999), ‘The public and private costs of children in Australia, 1993-94’ paper presented at the Conference on Child Well-Being in Rich and Transition Countries, Luxembourg, October. Percival R. and A. Harding, (2003), ‘The Costs of Children in Australia Today’, paper presented at the Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Steps Forward for Families; Research, Practice and Policy, Melbourne, February. Percival R., A. Harding and P. McDonald, (1999), ‘Estimates of the Costs of Children in Australian Families, 1993-94’, Policy Research Paper Number 3, Department of Families and Community Services, Canberra. Piachaud, D. (1979), The Costs of a Child, Poverty Pamphlet, 43, November, London. Picton C. and P. Boss, (1981), Child Welfare in Australia: An Introduction, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Sydney. Pitman, S. (1997), ‘Australia’ in M. Colton and M. Williams, Eds. The World of Foster Care: An International Sourcebook of Foster Family Care Systems, Arena, Aldershot. Pithouse, A., K. Lowe and J. Hill-Tout, (2004), ‘Foster carers who care for children with challenging behaviour: A total population study’ Adoption and Fostering Journal, Vol. 28(3): 20-30. Pocock, B. (2005), ‘Work/care regimes: Institutions, culture and behaviour and the Australian case’, Gender, Work and Organisation, Vol. 12(1):32-49. Pocock, B. (2006), ‘Jobs, care and justice: A fair work regime for Australia’, Clare Burton Memorial Lecture, http://www.barbarapocock.com.au (accessed November 2006). Preston, A. and J. Burgess, (2003), ‘Women’s Work in Australia: Trends, Issues and Prospects’, Australian Journal of Labour Economics, No. 6(4):497-518. Punch, M. (1998), Politics and ethics in qualitative research in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Purdon Associates P/L, (1994), Costing Standards for Alternate Care Services Models, Report prepared for the NSW Department of Community Services, (unpublished). Quantum Market Research, (QMR), (2002), Foster Care Recruitment Qualitative Research Report, Prepared for the Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria. Queensland, Department of Families, (QDOF), (2001), Department of Families Client and Carer Survey, report prepared by Colmar Brunton Social Research, http://www.families.qld.gov.au/department/client_carer_report.html (accessed October 2003). Queensland, Department of Families, (QDOF), 2003, Towards child focussed, safe and stable foster care: Commissioned Audit of Foster Carers, QDOF, Brisbane. Queensland, Crime and Misconduct Commission, (QCMC), (2004), Protecting Children: An Enquiry into Abuse of Children in Foster Care, QCMC, Brisbane.

316 Qureshi, H. (1992), ‘Integrating methods in social policy: a case study of carers’ in J. Brannen (Ed.), Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Avebury, Aldershot. Ramsland, J. (1986), Children of the Back Lanes: Destitute and Neglected Children in Colonial New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales University Press. Reinharz, S. (1992), Feminist Methods in Social Research, Oxford University Press, New York. Renwick, T. (1993), ‘Budget-based poverty measurement: 1992 basic needs budget’, American Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Social Statistical Section, 573-582. Rhodes, K. W., J. G. Orme and C. Buehler, (2001), ‘A comparison of family foster parents who quit, consider quitting, and plan to continue fostering’, Social Service Review, 75: 84-193. Rhodes K., J. G. Orme, M. E. Cox and C. Buehler, (2003), ‘Foster family resources and psychosocial functioning and retention’, Social Work Research, 27(3): 135-151. Rhodes, K. W., J. G. Orme and M. McSurdy, (2003), ‘Foster parents’ role performance responsibilities: perceptions of foster mothers, fathers and workers’ Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 25(12):935-964. Richardson, S. (2000), Society’s Investment in Children, Working Paper No 151, National Institute of Labour Studies Inc. Flinders University, Adelaide. Ringen, S. and B. Halpin, (1997), ‘Children, standards of living and distributions in the family’, Journal of Social Policy, 26(1): 21-41. Roberts, M. (1994), ‘The Costs of Fostering’, Newslink, Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria, Inc, Melbourne: 14-16. Robertson, A. (2005), ‘Including parents, foster parents and parenting caregivers in the assessments and interventions of young children places in the foster care system’, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 28(2):180-192. Rodgers, J. (2004), ‘Hourly wages of full-time and part-time employees in Australia’, Australian Journal of Economics, Vol. 7(2): 231-254. Rodgers, S. A. Cummings and A. W. Leschied, (2004), ‘Who is caring for our most vulnerable children? The motivation to foster in child welfare’, Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 30:1129-1142. Roe, J. (1988), ‘The end is where we start from: Women and welfare since 1901’ in C. Baldock and B. Cass, Eds., Women and Social Welfare and the State in Australia, Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Royal Australian College of Physicians, (RACP), (2006), Health of Children in ‘Out- of-Home’ Care: Paediatric Policy, Royal Australian College of Physicians, Sydney. Rubery J. M. Smith, D. Anxo and L. Flood, (2001), ‘The future European labour supply: The critical role of the family’, Feminist Economics, Vol 7(3): 33-70.

317 Ruegger M. and L. Rayfield, (1999), ‘The nature of the dilemmas of fostering in the nineties’, in A. Wheal Ed., Companion to Foster Care, Russell House Publishing, Dorset. SAFCARE (South Australian Foster Care Association, Inc.) (1997), National Foster Care National Conference Report, 1997: Professionalism in foster care, SAFCARE, Adelaide. Sarantakos, S. (1993), Social Research, Chares Sturt University, Riverina. Sargent, K. and K. O’Brien, (2004), ‘The emotional and behavioural difficulties of looked after children: Foster carers’ perspectives and an indirect model of placement support’, Adoption and Fostering, Vol, 28(2):31-37. Saunders, P. (1998), ‘Budget standards and the poverty line’, Australian Economic Review, vol 32(1): 43-61. Saunders, P. (1999), ‘Budget standards and the costs of children’, Family Matters, No 53: 62:70. Saunders, P. (2004), Updated Budget Standards Estimates for Australian working Families in September 2003, SPRC Report 1/04, University of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Centre. Saunders, P., R. Patulney and A. Lee, (2004), Updated and Extending Indicative Budget Standards for Older Australians, SPRC Report 2/04, University of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Centre. Saunders, P., J. Chalmers, M. McHugh, C. Murray, M. Bittman and B. Bradbury, (1998), Development of Indicative Budget Standards for Australia, Policy Research Paper No. 74, Department of Social Security, Canberra. Sawyer, M. G., J. A. Carbone, A. K. Searle and R. Robinson, (2007), ‘The mental health and well-being of children and adolescents in home-based foster care’, The Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 186(4): 181-184. Schofield, G. M. (1971), An Overview of the History of State Child Care in Queensland 1864-1965, Masters Thesis, University of Queensland, (unpublished). Seale, C. (1999), The Quality of Qualitative Research, Sage, London. Sellick, C. (1999), ‘Can child and family social work research really assist practice?’ Children Australia, 24(4): 93-96. Sellick, C. (2006), United Kingdom’, in M. Colton, and M. Williams, Eds. Global Perspectives of Foster Family Care, Russell House Publishing, Dorset. Sellick, C. and D. Howell, (2004), ‘A description and analysis of multi-sectoral fostering practice in the United Kingdom’, British Journal of Social Work, 34(4): 481-498. Sellick, C. and J. Thoburn, (1997), ‘United Kingdom’ in M. Colton, and M. Williams Eds. The World of Foster Care: An international sourcebook of foster family care systems, Arena, Aldershot. Semple D. & Associates, (2002), Review of Alternative Care in South Australia, DS&A, March, Adelaide.

318 Shanti, G., N. Van Oudenhoven and R. Wazir, (2003), ‘Foster care beyond the crossroads: Lessons from an international comparative analysis’, Childhood Vol. 10(3): 343-361. Shaw, M. and K. Lebens, (1977), ‘Foster parents talking’ Adoption and Fostering, Vol. 88(2): 11-17. Shaver S. and M. Thompson, (2001) ‘Morals and Policy: Public Duty and Private Responsibilities in the Employment to Retirement Transition’, SPRC Discussion Paper 113, May, UNSW. Sigle-Rushton, W. and J. Waldfogel, (2004), ‘Motherhood and women’s earnings in Anglo-American, Continental European, and Nordic Countries’ paper presented at Conference on Cross-National Comparisons of Expenditure on Children, Princeton University, New Jersey. Sinclair, I. (2005), Fostering Now: Messages from Research, Department for Education and Skills, London. Sinclair, I., I. Gibbs, and K. Wilson, (2000), Supporting Foster Placements, Report One, Social Work Research and Development Unit, University of York. Sinclair, I., K. Wilson and I. Gibbs, (2004) Foster Placements: Why They Succeed and Why They Fail, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London. Smith, B. (1988), ‘Something you do for love: The question of money and foster care’, Adoption and Fostering, 12: 34-38. Smith, B. and T. Smith, (1990), ‘Women as foster mothers’, AFFILLIA, Vol. 5(1): 66- 80. Smith, T. and L. Voigt, (1998), Fostering: Recognising important distinctions in types of foster care, definitions, objectives, characteristics and differences, Monograph No 39, Barnardos, Sydney. Smyth, C. and M. McHugh, (2006), ‘Exploring the dimensions of professionalising fostering: Carers’ perception of their fostering role’, Children Australia, Vol 31 (1): 12-20. Soupourmas, F. and D. Ironmonger, (2002), ‘Household National Accounts: Output based estimates of child care in Australia and the United Kingdom’ paper presented to the International Time Use Association for Time Use Research Annual Conference, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, 15-18 October. Sprague, J. and M. K. Zimmerman, (1993), Overcoming Dualisms: A feminist agenda for Sociological Methodology, in P. England, Ed. Theory on Gender/Feminism on Theory, Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Standing Committee of Community Services and Income Security Administrators (SCCSISA), (1995), Baseline Out-of-Home care Standards, Health and Community Service, Ministerial Council Secretariat, Canberra. Stanley, L. Ed. (1990), Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory, Epistemology in Feminist Sociology, Routledge, London. Steinberg, R. J. and D. M. Figart, (1999), ‘Emotional labor since the Managed Heart’, ANNALS, AAPSS, 561: 8-26.

319 Steinhauer, P. D. (1991), The Least Detrimental Alternative: A Systematic Guide to Care Planning and Decision-Making for Children in care, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Stubbs, D., N. Spence and E. Scott, (2003), Unhappy Endings: Placement Disruption in Long-term Foster Care – a Preliminary Qualitative Study, Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies, Sydney. Sultmann, C. and P. Testro, (2001), Directions in OOHC: Challenges and Opportunities, Peak Care Queensland Inc, February, Brisbane. Swain, S. and R. Howe, (1995), Single Mothers and their Children: Disposal, Punishment and Survival in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Swartz, T. T. (2004), ‘Mothering for the state: Foster parenting and the challenges of government-contracted care work’, Gender and Society, Vol. 18(5): 567-587. Tapsfield, R. and F. Collier, (2005), The Costs of Foster Care: Investing in our Children’s Future, British Association of Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), London. Tarren-Sweeney, M. (2006), ‘Patterns of aberrant eating among pre-adolescent children in foster care’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34: 623–634. Tarren-Sweeney, M. and P. Hazell, (2006), ‘The mental health of children in foster and kinship care in new South Wales, Australia, Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 42: 89-97. Taskforce on Care Costs, (TOCC), (2005), Creating Choice: Employment and the Cost of Care, Policy Research Paper, Taskforce on Care Costs, www.tocc.org.au (accessed 05/10/06). Taskforce on Care Costs, (TOCC), (2006), Where are we now? 2006 Interim Review, Taskforce on Care Costs, www.tocc.org.au (accessed 15/11/07). Tasmania, Department of Health and Human Services, (DHSS), (2007), Policy and Guidelines: Expenditure of Children and Young People in Out-of-Home Care, DHSS, Hobart. Testa M. and N. Rolock, (1999) ‘Professional Foster Care: a future worth pursuing’ Child Welfare Vol LXXV111, 31: 108-123. Thompson, M. (1999), ‘Women and Retirement Incomes in Australia: Social Rights, Industrial Rights and Property Rights’, SPRC Discussion Paper 98, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales. Thorpe, R. (2004), ‘You have to be crackers: worker and carer experiences in the foster care system’, presentation at the National Foster Care Conference, Walking Together: People, Policy and Practice, October, Canberra. Thorpe, R. (2006), Personal communiqué, James Cook University – Mackay/Whitsunday Foster Care and Foster Carers Research Study, Mackay. Townsend, P. (1979), Poverty in the United Kingdom, Penguin Books, Hardmonsworth. Tregeagle, S., and L. Voigt, (1997), Payment for Foster Carers, Monograph 21, Barnardos, Sydney.

320 Triseliotis J., M. Borland and M. Hill, (1998), Fostering Good Relations: A study of Foster Care and Foster Careers in Scotland, The Scottish Office Central Unit, Stationery Office, Edinburgh. Triseliotis, J., M. Borland and M. Hill, (2000), Delivering Foster Care, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), London. Twigg, J. and K. Aitkin, (1994), Carers Perceived: Policy and Practice in Informal Care, Open University Press, Buckingham. Tzioumi, D. and D. Nathanson, (2006), ‘Health problems of children in out-of-home care: Results from a health screening clinic’, paper presented at the 10th Australian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, 14-16 February, Wellington, New Zealand. Ungerson, C. (1994), ‘Morals and politics in “Payments for care”: An introductory note’, in Evers, A. Pijl, M. and C. Ungerson, Eds. Payments for Care: A Comparative Overview, Avebury, Aldershot. Ungerson, C. (1995), ‘Gender, cash and informal care: European perspectives and dilemmas’, Journal of Social Policy, 21(4): 31-52. Ungerson, C. (1997), ‘Social politics and the commodification of care’, Social Politics, 4(3): 363-381. Ungerson, C. (2003) ‘Commodified care work in European labour markets’, European Societies, Vol. 5(4): 377-396. Valenzuela, M. R. (1999a), ‘Costs of Children and Living Standards in Australian Households’, Melbourne Institute Working Paper No 8/99, University of Melbourne. Valenzuela, M. R. (1999b), ‘Costs of children in Australian households’, Family Matters, No 53: 71-76. Valenzuela M. R. (1999c), ‘Costs of Children and Living Standards in Australian Households’, Australian Social Monitor, 2(32): 31-36. Van den Berg, B., W. Brouwer, J. van Exel, M. Koopmanschap, G.A.M. van den Bos and F. Rutten, (2005), ‘Economic valuation of informal care: Lessons from the application of the opportunity costs and proxy good methods’ Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 62(4): 835-845. Van Krieken R. (1991), Children and the State: Social Control and the Formation of Australian Child Welfare, Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Verity, P. (1999), ‘Financial Matters’ in A. Wheal Ed. Companion to Foster Care, Russell House Publishing, Dorset: 192-198. Victoria, Department of Human Services, (VDHS), (2003), Public Parenting: A Review of Home-Based Care in Victoria, VDHS, Melbourne. Victoria, Department of Human Services, (VDHS), (2005), Victorian Families, Children and their Carers in 2016, Background Paper No 1, for the Family and Placement Services Sector Development Plan, VDHS, Melbourne. Voigt, L. (1986), ‘Welfare women’ in H. Marchant and B. Wearing, Eds. Gender Reclaimed: Women in Social Work, Hale & Ironmonger, Sydney.

321 Waerness, K. (1984) ‘Caring as women’s work in the welfare state’, in Holter, H., Ed. Patriarchy in a Welfare Society, Unversitsforlaget, Oslo. Waerness, K. (2005), ‘Social research, political theory and the ethics of care in a global perspective’ in H.M. Dahl and T. R. Eriksen, Eds. Dilemmas of Care in the Nordic Welfare State Continuity and Change, Ashgate, Aldershot. Waldock T. (1993), ‘Professionalising foster care: The welfare of children’, The Social Worker, Vol. 64(3), http://www.ica.net/~sharyn.article2.htm (accessed 20/04/03). Walker, M., M. Hill, and J. Triseliotis, (2002), Fostering and Secure Care: An Evaluation of the Community Alternative Placement Scheme (CAPS), Scottish Executive, Glasgow. Watts, H. W. (1993), ‘A review of alternative budget –based expenditure norms’ paper prepared for the Panel on Poverty Measurement on the Committee on National Statistics, NAS/NRC, March. Watson, A. and D. Jones, (2002), ‘The impact of foster carers’ own children’, Adoption and Fostering, Vol 26(1): 49-55. Weston, R., L. Qu, R. Parker, and M. Alexander, (2005), “Its Not for Lack of Wanting Kids”: A Report on the Fertility Decision Making Project, Report prepared for the Australian Government Office for Women, Department of Family and Community Services, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. Whiteford, P. (1985), ‘A Family’s Needs: Equivalence scales, Poverty and Social Security’, Research Paper No 27, Development Division, Department of Social Security, Canberra, April. Williams, A. (1990), ‘Reading feminism in field notes’, in L. Stanley, Ed. Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory, Epistemology in Feminist Sociology, Routledge, London. Wilson, K. and J. Evetts, (2006), ‘The professionalisation of foster care’, Adoption and Fostering, 30(1): 39-47. Wilson, K. and L. Sinclair and I. Gibbs, (2000), ‘The trouble with foster care: The impact of stressful ‘events’ on foster carers’, British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 30:193-209. Wilson, K., C. Taylor, I. Sinclair, A. Pithouse and C. Sellick, (2004), Knowledge Review: Fostering Success, an Exploration of the Research Literature in Foster Care, The Policy Press, Bristol. Wilson, K. (2006), ‘Foster family care in the UK’, in C. McAuley, P. Pecora and W. Rose, Eds. Enhancing the Well-Being of Children and Families through Effective Intervention, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London. Wilson, K. and L. Sinclair and I. Gibbs, (2000), ‘The trouble with foster care: The impact of stressful ‘events’ on foster carers, British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 30:193-209. Windshuttle, E. (1980), ‘Feeding the poor and sapping their strength’ in E. Windshuttle Ed. Women, Class and History: Feminist Perspectives on Australia 1788-197, Fontana Collins: Melbourne.

322 Wise, S. (1999), ‘Children’s coping and thriving, not just in care’ Children Australia, 24(4): 18-28. Wolf D. A. (2004), Valuing informal elder care’ in N. Folbre and M. Bittman, Eds., Family Time: The social organisation of care, Routledge, London. Wynn M. (1972), Family Policy: A Study of the Economic Costs of Rearing Children and their Social and Political Consequences, Michael Joseph, London. Yeandle, S., C. Bennett, L. Buckner, L. Shipton and A. Suokas, (2006), ‘Who Cares Wins: The Social and Business Benefits of Supporting Working Carers’, Report for Carers UK, Hallam University, Sheffield. Zelizer, V.A. (1985) Pricing the Priceless Child, The Changing Social Value of Children, Basic Books Inc., Publishers, New York. Zinn, A., J. DeCoursey, R. Goerge and M. Courtney, (2006), A Study of Placement Stability in Illinois, Chapin Hall Working Paper, University of Chicago, Chicago.

323