I recently completed a paper on foster families and the issues they go through when they are adjusting. Everything from relationships between foster parents and children to sibling rivalries that vie for attention in blended families and funding for these types of families. It is often said how parents that take on the responsibility to foster children don't receive enough funding to do it. Therefore, there has been a shortage of fostering families because money is tight. One of the lowest states is Nevada, providing only $200.00 a month for a two year old. I don't have children, but that seems a bit low to take care of a two year old with.
The government is shouting that they need help but they don't provide the funds to do so. I pose this question to you. Do you believe that the amount of money matters? Should parents put the amount behind them and do the best they can with what they have or do you think that money does matter and people should not foster until there is a better system of funding set up. Basically, what really matters in this situation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You know I want to say No the money shouldn't matter because you are helping a child. But at the same time we are told not to have children until you can provide for them. And if the families can't provide for kids then are the children really any better off! The money is probably why their aren't enough foster families. I couldn't imagine trying to take care of a two year old on 200 dollars a month and it would probably discourage me from wanted to take on the responsibility. I think the government should provide families with enough to at least meet the basic needs of a child. Especially if a family wants to help but may not have the financial means to fully provide!
Post a Comment