The perspectives of family foster care in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia

Abstract

Background: Reform of the child protection systems, provision of family- and community-based alternative care for children has been developed to a certain level in all post-socialist countries and has increased the role of care provided by foster families replacing institutions.

Limited research has investigated the preparedness, and support provided to foster parents, and their satisfaction despite of their crucial roles and responsibilities. The motivation, attitudes, preparedness, and satisfaction of foster families determine in many ways the well-being of children and their opportunities to exercise their rights

Objectives: The study investigated the legal framework, recruitment, preparation, and support to foster families based on their opinion, their subjective well-being, and needs in four countries: in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia.

Participants: At least 50 foster parents in each participating country

Methods: Interviews were conducted by local experts and description provided on how the foster care system has been developed during the last decades, in line with the child protection reforms and de-institutionalisation efforts.

Results: The outcomes show the differences in approach to foster care, the perception on the roles, responsibilities and needs partly based on the different traditions, earlier and current policies and practices.

Conclusions: The attitude changes related to rights of children, Roma children, children with special needs, in other marginalized situations, and to their families of origin would be essential to further develop and improve the child welfare and protection systems, including asking children themselves about their perceptions.

Key words: family foster parenting, motivation, satisfaction, support, challenges

Introduction and background

The UN General Assembly Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children in December 2019 in line with the several earlier UN treaties, guidelines and recommendations recognizes that a children should grow up in a family environment to have a full and harmonious development their personality and potential; urges member states to take actions to progressively replace institutionalisation with quality alternative care and redirect resources to family and community-based services; and calls for “every effort, where the immediate family is unable to care for a child with disabilities, to provide quality alternative care within the wider family, and, failing that, within the community in a family setting, bearing in mind the best interests of the child and taking into account the child’s views and preferences”. ^{(Goldman et al, 2020)}

These recommendations suggest to prioritise the support to families in the lives of children, to prevent child separation, to protect children who do not have parental care by providing high-quality family-based alternatives within the community, to recognise the harm of institutionalisation, and to strengthen systems for the care and protection of all children. Concerted global efforts to reform systems for the care of children by keeping families together by strengthening families and building up family support services in communities, putting in place alternative family-based care, and progressively replacing institutional care with quality alternatives in a safe and structured manner are under way and should be promoted. (UN Resolution, 2019)

The research presented describes the foster care system in the four countries and the results based on the interviews conducted on subjective well-being of foster parents, their perceptions about their own roles and place in their respected countries and service provider and their needs in the so-called Visegrad countries, in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. The research cannot be considered as representative in any way but could serve as a good starting point for a larger evaluation utilizing the outcomes and shortcomings of the current project.

Several studies have been revealing the commonalities and diversities in the last decades in Europe, however still not covering many areas, and all the countries effected. Overviews of the developments in Europe and with special focus on the transition countries were published among others by Tobis (2000), Vecchiato, Canali ( 2002), Browne et al, (2005) UNICEF (2013), Anghel, Herczog, Dima (2013), Eurochild (2019).

The needs of foster parents including training, motivation, attitude and satisfaction in different countries has also been explored from different perspectives and in different countries, regions, among others, by Whenan et al, 2009, Kaasball et al, 2019, Neagoe et al, 2019.

Despite of the efforts made, still hundreds of thousands of children are living in institutions, although a growing number of children in kinship and foster care across Europe. (Eurochild, 2019) Many countries in the region increased their efforts to promote family-based care for children and have sharply reduced their reliance on institutions. The Common European Framework on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care produced by a large group of experts to support the reforms (Common European Framework, 2016, Toolkit, 2017) followed by the funds made available for the countries to implement the needed reforms and changes has also generated substantial activities.

The reforms of the child welfare and protection system, known as de-institutionalisation in many countries have been focusing on the increased role of family support, local, community-based services, prevention, gatekeeping, and reintegration of children into their families of origin if possible and closing the institutions, children’s homes Based on the experiences of the western countries and the many foreign NGOs and experts helping to develop new child welfare and protection policies, foster care has become one of the main channels to place children into families and avoiding institutional placements in many countries following the political-economic changes in 1989 .

Historical background and the development of the child protection systems in the Visegrad countries

There are many similarities, but also important differences based on the history, traditions, culture and diverse impacts explaining why the child welfare and protection systems have evolved differently in the countries included in this project. Although all the four countries have become members of the European Union, social policy, health and education has remained the competency of the individual countries, while there are several instruments to support the required changes in policies and practices.

Czech Republic

In the first decade of the 20^th century a separated educational system and local child protection services supported families with children under 3 and were provided, just like medical counseling and daycare. Efforts were underway already at this time to integrate different services into a common system, however it was not completed. The current child protection system can be originated from these early developments just like, the establishment of institutionalization, segregation. While kinship and foster care was the dominant form of care for children in this early period, children with disability and Roma children had been excluded and placed into institutions already from 1921, based on the new legislation and it remained unchanged until the forties. During the German occupation (1939-1945) institutionalisation was preferred just like in the Nazi Germany, the number of children increased substantially partly due to the death of the parents and abandonment, residential homes supervised by German authorities and some NGOs.

After the WWII a medicalized concept ha been becoming dominant, especially in the cases of children with disabilities, supervision of the residential homes has belonged to the Ministry of Health. Until the political-economic changes in 1989 the Soviet institutional approach was exclusively used, to ensure “the public interest to prevent such situations as breaches of up- bringing and lack of parental control of children which leads to the incomplete internalization of socialist morality” (Schmidt, 2014) The family-based alternatives were not used in any form (Truhlárová & Levická, 2012)

Alternative care today still includes different types of institutions ( infant’s homes, diagnostic institutes, children’s homes, residential schools and secure children’s homes) , various family-type placements, including four forms of foster care. Official estimates indicate that approximately 23,000 children are accommodated in over 200 residential homes for children, including high number of young children under the of 3, until a court decision that can last several months. Between 1990 to 2010 the number of children placed in residential facilities has increased from 704 to 1268 per 100,000 of the child population (UNICEF, 2012)

Despite of the numerous legislative changes, recommendations, and international efforts the number of children in alternative care has increased in the last twenty years, with a preference given to institutional placements, while early support and prevention centers and local services have also been established.

The new legislation in 1999 on social and legal protection of children has aimed to identify families at risk, collect information among various actors, providing support to parents, and options for the right to be heard, and initiate legal action if needed. Local authorities under the special department in the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs were designated to implement the law. Instead of focusing on prevention and early support, the new activities have been conducted crisis intervention and after-crisis placement of children as the main activity and on families in vulnerable situations.

As a result of the external pressure to start de-institutionalisation of children, the National Action Plan for Transformation and Unification of the System of Care for Children at Risk was introduced in 2009 without implementation. The large institutions have been re-modelled and smaller units established but the dominant form of care remained. The system of institutional care encompasses children’s homes for infants, diagnostic institutes, children’s homes, residential schools, and secure children’s homes.

Despite of the National Strategy to Protect Children’s Rights and the National Action Plan for 2012–2015, de-institutionalisation has not shown much progress. The reasons identified include the lack of political commitment and acceptance of the need of children, lack of adequate community-based services despite of the growing need, and a lack of cooperation between different ministry departments and communities providing services. Insufficient prevention and gate-keeping efforts and a very strong lobby of professionals, primarily pediatricians favoring residential placements instead of family-based care prevents the changes. The number of applications for foster care has decreased due to the higher demands as far as preparation and contact with the biological families is concerned. (Lumos, 2018)

The debate on closing all infant homes and replacing them with temporary foster families, besides supporting families at risk and preventing the out of home placements has been going on in the Czech Republic for almost 20 years. The Czech Republic is one of the last European countries where it is still possible to place a child younger than three years of age in an institution. The infant homes are health service facilities, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health and provide pediatric services. The majority of funding during the last years still was spent on institutions (52 %), less than a third to foster care, and only 19 % on prevention and working with families in 2017. The main stakeholders, ministries responsible for the different areas of child welfare and protection have not agreed on the required solutions. (Liberties, 2017)

Hungary:

The first child protection legislation approved by Parliament in 1901 was a very comprehensive law, acknowledging the responsibility of the State for the care of children in need. Almost all children under 15, apart from the severely disabled and children in conflict with the law were placed in foster care (95%) and this remained the case until the end of the WWII. The post-war era emphasized more professional, controlled provisions leading to a gradual decrease in foster care, based on the belief that institutional facilities serve better the developmental needs of children. Trained staff working in teams was considered more aligned with the new politics than the mostly uneducated families who were fostering without monitoring and seen to transfer undesirable values to children.

Besides large residential homes often placed in castles confiscated from the old bourgeoise in the late 50’s , Children’s towns were established accommodating hundreds of children separated according to their age and gender, even siblings within the closed compounds. Foster care placements accommodated less than 20% of all children in alternative care.

By mid 1980’s it became clear for many professionals and decision makers that the institutions could not provide the care and personal relationships children needed. In 1986 social work education was re-established, and a new program of social pedagogy was also introduced. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour initiated a national pilot programs providing experimental training for foster parents with external experts. The aim was to employ professional foster parents, as relying on voluntary provision was not an option in an economic system based on two income and the lack of voluntary work in general.

Three SOS Children’s Villages were also opened t in the late 80’s providing an in-between model with much higher standards, based on the international support and management. The reform efforts were not welcome by all and the closure of the first three infant homes in 1988 in Pest county had generated a strong resistance from the residential care lobby, particularly among the infant home representatives. (Herczog, 1997)

The political and economic transitions after 1989 have further slowed down the process of reform, as other major changes were given priority. The legislation on child protection and custodian management in 1997 has followed the principles of the UNCRC ratified by Hungary in 1991, and the most advanced good practices. The establishment of local, community-based child welfare services aiming at preventing the need for out of home care and working in cooperation with other sectors and professionals, including NGOs could have ensured the proper early support and gate-keeping mechanisms in place. The closure of several large residential homes for children, recruiting and training foster families and establishing smaller group homes, accommodating not more than 12 children seemed to modernize the child welfare and protection. An initiative in 1996 was aiming at an experimental pre-service training for prospective Roma foster parents so that Roma children highly overrepresented in the care system, could be placed with families ensuring their identity and culture. The successful program resulted in recruiting the first fourteen professional Roma foster families. Since than an estimated 5% of all foster parents are of Roma origin, that is still a unique opportunity in the CEE region. (Diósi, 1993)

However, the inadequate resources allocated, lacking the time for a smooth transition, preparation of those working in the old regime and raising public awareness on the changes occurring and the different conflicts of interests at many levels has resulted in very mixed outcomes. After the first years of significant changes of the decreasing referrals of children and the development of local service provision, since 2008 the trend has somewhat changed. The number of children has not decreased further, the local services have not got sufficient resources, church run services have increased, quality of care for children in the child protection system has been worsened. Foster parents are contracted and paid by the service providers, county child protection agencies and church run NGOs, but fostering has increasingly becoming an option for those in need of income, lacking employment opportunities. The number of foster parents has remained roughly the same, around 5400 accommodating 65% of the children. In the end of 2020, there were 14312 children under the age of 18 in foster care and 6166 in residential care, while 2214 in after-care both in foster families and in residential facilities. (KSH, 2020)

The new regulations introduced in 2014 allows the placement of a child under the age of 12 in residential homes only in exceptional circumstances, however still many children even under the age of 3 are in children’s homes. The regulations are permitting larger sibling groups and severely disabled children to be placed in residential homes, regardless of their age. Reunification of children into their families is very rare due to the lack of capacities of local services and the political commitment not to support poor and deprived families. According to the recent investigation of the Ombudsman, at least 35% of children are placed in alternative care because of poverty and lack of support. despite of the clear prohibition in the law to deprive children from their families because of material deprivation only. (AJBH, 2017). Roma children are highly overrepresented in alternative care and in large numbers placed in residential homes, just like children with disabilities. (Budapest Beacon, 2018, Eurochild, 2019)

Poland:

Before the WWII substantial developments ensured the care of children deprived of their family and the progressive work of Janusz Korczak and Babicki among others characterised the child rights based approach already from the early years of the 20th century. Children’s homes introdusing self-governance and focusing on the individual, developmental needs of children were expetional examples of good practice.

In 1921 the right to social assistance was acknowledged by the Polish Constitution „children without necessary care from their parents have the right to receive care and help from the government”(Art. 103) (Stelmaszuk, 2002, Kolankiewicz, 2006, Knuiman et al, 2015,).

Similarly to the other countries of he region, following the German occupation during the WWII and after the war, from the early fifties the child welfare and protection system was nationalised and the institutionalisation of children has become the main form of placement, services provided to families and placing children in foster care was not a priority. Since the 70’s modernatiozation of the care system, family support and foster care has become more accepted as the best place for children to be raised outside of their families of origin. Large residantial homes were not seen as adequate placement for children any more, especially as the staff working there were not well trained and contact with the families or the efforts to reunite children with their families very inadequate. The first regulation of foster care was introduced in 1979. (Luczynski, 2007).

The Polish Act on Social Policy in 2004 regulated that children can only be placed into a residnetial homes in case the family is not able or willing to take care of them and there is no foster family available meeting the child’s individual needs. The Family Assitance and Alternative Care Act was intorduced in 2011 replacing the former regulations. The newly established group homes can accommodate less than 14 children, however, this was achieved frequently by dividing former large institutions or building group homes, usually next to each other in large complexes, with EU structural funds used to create these settings. This is against the recommendations and professional standards of the European recommendations and the prohibition to spend the funds on residential facilities. (Common European Framework, 2016, Toolkit, 2017) Children under the age of 10 can only be placed into residential homes in exceptional circumstances. In 2017 there were still 3200 children younger than 10 living in institutions.

Poland is one of the 12 countries in the European Union identified to enhance de-institutionalisation reforms. Foster care has become an essential care option for children in alternative care, however quality and support of children are not satisfactory. In 2017, there were about 55,760 children in alternative care, including 15,000 children with disabilities, 37,200 (66%) of them in foster families. This number shows a steady decrease compared to the previous decade. It is important to note that in Poland the term foster care encompasses both foster family-based up to three children and institution-based care or a residential home where up to eight children are taken care by professional staff.

The number of foster families has dropped slightly by 0.7% in compared to the previous year, partly due to the lack of public awareness, inadequate professional support, and low remuneration of foster families. In the countryside and far from the cities the professional supervision of foster families is of low quality, lacking support of psychologists and other specialists. Foster care supervisors are overloaded. Reunification of children with their biological families is challenging as in most cases children stay in foster care for several years and contact with biological family is very limited. Foster parents in many cases do not support and encourage the relationship between the children in their care and the family of origin. The NGOs, and professionals working in the field has called for an update of the National Strategy on Family Foster Care as well as legislative changes to improve the situation. The number of children with disabilities in residential care had also decreased from 24,211 to 20,864 in 2016. (Eurochild, 2018, Unicef TransMONEE, 2017)

Slovakia:

The history of the child protection system had been almost the same as in the Czech Republic between 1918 and 1993 as Slovakia was part of Czechoslovakia. After becoming an independent State and joining the European Union in 2004, Slovakia has made substantial efforts to implement a number of areas of child rights, however, minorities in the country have been facing severe deprivation, especially Roma, living in over 600 communities in the country.

The Act No. 305/2005 Coll. on social and legal protection of children and social care defined the provision of care for children who have been removed from their biological families and placed in alternative care. From 1 January 2009 the Act determines that every child under the age of six years should be placed in professional family care within restructured institutions. This form is a mixture of residential home and foster care, as within the institutions smaller group homes have been set up, where family like life is imitated by the employed professional caretakers, a couple or a single person, quasi foster parents. It is similar to the SOS Children’s Villages model. (Moravkova, 2017)

Despite of the decreasing number of children placed into institutions, there are still an estimated 5137 children living in residential homes, Roma children highly overrepresented among them, just like among the more than 700 children with disabilities also placed in children’s homes, three-fourth of all children without parental care. (Unicef TransmonEE, 2018).

Methodology

The project aimed at learning about the situation and views of foster parents in the four Visegrad countries, providing an overview on the legal and professional framework, actors, recruitment, qualification, preparation and training, matching, placement, and a set of questions on the characteristics and experiences of the foster carers interviewed. In this article we are focusing on the questions related to the opinion of the foster parents on the motivations, preparation, support, reception locally, need for improvement. In all the four countries participating in the project, local adaptation of the PRIDE Model of Practice pre-service (PRIDE, 2020) training is used as the most common preparation, providing a common approach and understanding of the roles and responsibilities of foster parents.

The research is the result of collaboration between the four organisations conducting the surveys and summarizing the outcomes:

Center for Psychological Support, Czech Republic
Family, Child and Youth Association, Hungary,
Child and Family Foundation, Poland
Smile as a Gift, Slovakia

The individual interviews were based on a questionnaire developed by the partners with some differences reflecting on the national specificities and interests of the organisations participating. In some cases, where in person interviews were not possible, the questionnaires were filled in by the foster parents themselves online or telephone interviews conducted. In Hungary besides the interviews a couple of focus-group meetings were also held by researchers not working directly with service providing foster parents. In the other three countries the NGO representatives of services for children in foster care were conducting themselves the interviews at their own organisations between April-June in 2017. In the Czech Republic and in Poland a larger group of families were included, like kinship carers, professional foster parents living in institutional group home like facilities. In this article we only took into consideration the foster parents for comparison.

Findings:

Czech Republic

Fifty-eight long-term, non-kinship foster carers participated in the research. Half of them is taking care of one child, 27,5% for two children, and 24,1% for three or more. 25 children are siblings, placed together in the foster families. 5 families are fostering 4-5 children, 26 families are taking care of children with special needs.

22 parents have been fostering for more than 10 years, 18 for 4-6 years, 6 for 1-3 years.

Many foster families live in small settlements, 20 of them in villages with less than 2000 inhabitants, 20 with less than 20 000, and 18 in larger cities, over 100 000 inhabitants. Almost 75% of the respondents are fostering couples, the others are individuals. Over 60% are employed somewhere fulltime else while fostering.

The motivation for half of the respondents was to help children in need, 29% because of infertility, while some wanted to have a larger family. Half of them heard some negative comments on their decision but in most of the instances the family and the broader network was also reacting in a positive or passive way.

They would have needed more information during the preparation on the background of children’s families and the developmental delays, and more practical information. The group work was very helpful, just like the knowledge and competency of the trainers for all the participants. Almost all of but 3 parents attended the PRIDE program, besides them the others regularly attend meetings, lectures, or have frequent supervision. Besides professional support one third of them can rely on regular family help, their partner and more than 10 persons also get help from friends if needed. Two-third of the carers would require more support from psychologists, therapy for children and helping them better understand the needs of the children in their care and responding in an adequate way. Seventeen foster parent would need more financial support, eight of them more supervision and vocational training.

Less than half of the foster carers participating in the project (44%) feels that their role does not differ from their everyday experience of parenting, while others perceive it as a mission, to provide good care and preparation for adulthood for children in need, providing secure attachment, some mentioning the cooperation with professionals to fulfill their tasks.

They are suggesting other foster parents to connect and form networks, learning as much as possible about the child before the placement, and the different issues that might emerge, like the consequences of abandonment, behavioral problems, and delayed development.

The greatest satisfaction for two-third of the foster parents responding is to do something useful, the others are happy taking care of children who need care and watching the children bonding (12%), their own self growth (9,8%), development or for filling the gap “at the table of their own family” (8,5%).

Fifty respondents have sufficient support from the health care services, some do not need them at all, and in cases of schools they have similarly positive experiences. Six parents were facing difficulties because of the children’s behavior or their “bad genetics”, but do not want to share this problem with others.

For over two-third of the foster parents feel that their family cohesion and love help feeling satisfied with their role, and the development of a close relationship with the child and meeting their individual needs. At the same time one fifth of the parents are struggling with the behavioral problems of the children, more than third of them experience difficulties communicating properly with the children in relation to the special needs and developmental delays, former trauma. Some families are facing problems to keep contact with the biological families, and with the low prestige of foster care. Almost all the foster parents would like to improve their skills and knowledge, helping secure attachment and long-lasting relationships for the children, supporting the development of those with special needs and some to help children with Roma origin to be better integrated.

Hungary

Fifty foster parents were interviewed, selected by an expert sampling, representing all types of settlements (periphery – district centre – county centre cities – capital), Foster parents were contacted partly through foster care networks, or through county child protection agencies; they informed foster parents about the project, recruited them, and provided necessary venue for the interviews.

In Hungary there is no differentiation between foster parents based on the length of care, most children spend long years in foster families, before being adopted, returning home, changing placement, or leaving care as adults, often including years of after-care periods as well.

Most respondents were foster mothers, only 3 foster fathers participated in the research. 32 respondents identified themselves as traditional foster families, the other 18 as formerly employed professional foster parents. 30 foster parents are living in marriage, 4 with a partner and 16 women are singles. More than half of them have primary education and some vocational training, one fifth has secondary and one fifth tertiary education.

Foster parents identified a few motivational factors which played a role in their commitment. One fifth of them have met foster care in their early childhood, either because their parents fostered children in their own family, or because they had to foster a child from their own family at a young age. A lot of respondents claimed that fostering replaced parenting of their own children leaving home as adults, others reported about a personal linkage to a child left without family, or to other foster parents, leaving an impression and motivated them to take on fostering. A small proportion of respondents reported about existential reasons, the lack of local employment opportunities as one but not the only reason of becoming a foster parent.

The first personal experience with foster parenting was mostly influenced by personal acquaintances: two-fifth of the respondents claimed that they first heard about fostering opportunity from a friend or from other foster parents. For 15 respondents the media (primarily local newspapers) raised awareness about fostering, while 10 persons met foster parenting already in their childhood.

Although – according to the interviews – foster parents participated in highly valued pre-service trainings, among others, all in PRIDE (called FIKSZ in Hungary), depending on what time they have engaged in foster care (and which training was compulsory in the given period), they agreed, that the information provided during preparation was useful, a number of essential issues were however never raised, or not sufficiently prepare them to practice and to everyday challenges, “… trainers presented an ideal system and not reality”, “…if trainers had presented real life, all participants would have stood up and gone home”.

Often time, when a child is placed in the family due to a crisis, foster parents receive only very limited information often even lacking the background and the special needs of the child, including abuse history.

Although professional protocols require a two-week familiarization period before placement, prospective foster parents and children not always can go through this process due to urgency of placement for different reasons. Respondents agreed that with older children, especially with teenagers, the familiarization phase has a greater significance. Following the placement, integration of the child in the foster family is usually smooth, especially if biological children of foster parents are well prepared and provide essential support for the foster child. According to respondents, patience and acceptance are the keys to successful integration. The acceptance of foster children in the local community depends on a wide range of issues, on the place and position of foster parents in the local community, neighbourhood, the attitudes of the professionals in health care and social services, kindergartens, schools often not welcoming. This of course depends on the child’s personality as well.

In case it is not against the best interests of the children, they have the right to keep contact with their biological parents. Children in 30 families meet their parents in the office of the local child welfare service. A little more than one fifth of respondents said that the children regularly communicate with their biological parents via IT devices, while 11-11 respondents reported that biological parents visit their children in the foster family’s home or take them for the weekend or for holiday.

Thirty respondents have been fostering children for at least 5 years, only 7 respondents work as a foster parent for less than 3 years. Two-third of the respondents have one or no biological child living in their household, while in eight cases two children, in six cases three children, and in 4 cases 4 children live within the foster family. Half of the respondents foster two or three children, in most of the cases foster children are siblings, while the others take care of four or five foster children. Only two responding families fostered seven children at the time of the research.

Judging their own role, some of the respondents emphasized a supporting, assisting role, focusing on the facilitation of the child’s integration into the society. Others emphasized an educative-caring role, aiming to preserve the child’s health and to support their development. Some of them think that their most important task is to take over the role of parents of origin (particularly if the child has no relatives who could take care of him/her), while some carers believe that all the above aspects are important part of their fostering identity. “I do fostering as a profession, but of course we cannot substitute biological parents. It’s about to make our best to take care of them, educate them, to prepare them for adulthood.”

For some of the foster parents the overall objective of fostering is the reunification with biological parents, if possible, for others to compensate the child’s disadvantages and to provide secure attachment. Facilitating independent living and anticipating appreciation from the community have also been raised as an important goal of their fostering. Almost all highlighted the representation of the child’s rights as a major strength, even if it is not easy in a highly adversary environment. Another positive point is their capability to provide the child with a stable, loving atmosphere. Flexibility, consistency, representing a quality family model, ensuring a safe environment, the capability to set up a good relationship with families of origin and the ability to prepare the child for independent life were also mentioned.

Foster parents declared that they must be capable of solving all the problems occurring. However, some cases might be unmanageable, when one of the foster children endangers the others’ psychological or physical health. Almost all of them had a related story.

The limited legal guardianship provided to the foster parents is causing a lot of problems, when urgent decisions should be made. In case of hospitalisation of the child or any incident occurring during out of working hours requiring legal obligations, signatures, permissions the legal guardian would be needed, often not accessible for different reasons. Many of the foster parents interviewed feel that their limited role is a sign of lack of trust and appreciation, while the difficulties caused are very time and energy consuming. Although in principle guardians should visit at list in every three week the children in their homes, it hardly ever happens, on the other hand all children have different guardians, not making it easy to meet them all regularly.

The lack of opportunities to go for a holiday and having some time off for themselves was mentioned by the foster parents as a serious problem, since there is no respite care or substitute parent available, despite of the opportunity in principle based on their contract. The same applies in case the foster parents is getting ill.

Half of the foster parents interviewed feel left alone and lacking more guidance, vocational training, and meeting opportunities, only twenty percent of them are participating in voluntarily organised self-help groups. The yearly compulsory twelve hours vocational course is not enough to further develop their skills and learn more about specific questions.

All respondents agreed that the allowance provided covering the costs of children’s needs is much less than needed and they must contribute from their own recourses. The administration on the money spent is very burocratic, while according to many foster parents ”The whole system is hypocritical, a large proportion of foster children live below the subsistence level, and everybody knows it. In case we cannot substitute the children are suffering”

There is also agreement that foster parents’ own homes needs regular maintenance not covered by the allowance, a substantial expenditure as well. Some of the respondents reported that due to many years of foster parenting, they used up all their savings, resulting in a very serious financial situation.

The foster care benefit is also valued as very low given that foster families have enormous responsibilities and a 24/7 work schedule. A lot of respondents said this benefit is “ridiculously”, “humiliatingly” low. They see this as an important sign of the lack of appreciation and despite of the public opinion about foster parents taking care of children to earn money, their opinion is, that fostering is for those who feel the value of this activity “for the love and affection of the children in their care, in case the children are thriving, developing well, otherwise it is not their success worth it.”

Poland

Sixty-six non-related foster parents were included in the sample leaving the large number of kinship carers and professional foster parents out of the analyses here. Almost a quarter of the carers have been foster parents for more than ten years, the other slightly less than a quarter between five-ten years, one fifth three-four years, one third between one-two years. One third of the families live in small settlements with under 2000 inhabitants, 16% in towns accommodating between 5-20 thousand people, 13% between 20-100 thousand, nearly one quarter between 100-500 thousand, and 19% in larger than that, with only 1,3% living in the capitol city.

70% of the respondents are forming a couple, almost all of them married, as unmarried partners have not got good chances to become foster parents and the others are single women. Almost half of the foster parents have primary education, among them two-third having some vocation training, one third has got secondary education and the rest college or university degree. Two-third of of them are working, mostly full-time, 17% are retired.

Half of the foster parents did feel getting enough information on the child placed into their care. 46% of the children placed into the foster families are living together with their siblings, and half of all the children have got special needs in the sample.

The motivation to foster for 60% of the respondent was the desire to help children in need of care, one fifth because of their own family situation. The community response was negative only in 8% of the cases, others were either positive, mixed or passive.

60% of the foster parents feel like a parent of the children, considering long term care until the adulthood of the child, despite of the clear aim of temporary care provided in foster families and enable the reunification of the child with their own family or adoption as a permanent solution. 53% see their role to work together with specialists to serve the needs of the children, and only 17% to strengthen the opportunities to reunite the children with their families. Only one third of the families were mentioning the importance of the family of origin at all. 16% of the families wanted to have children in their families, not having their won, 17% needed the financial support provided, 19% having personal experiences, 25% knowing children in foster care and 13% liked the experiences of acquainted foster families.

The foster families most important aim is to ensure safe development of the children (76%), and help them to become responsible adults (46%), providing positive and secure attachment (47%), meeting the special needs (22%), their own developments as foster parents (7%), return the children to their families (15%)

As far as the satisfaction of the foster parents is concerned, helping the children in need is the most important for over two-third of them, followed by providing secure attachment and development. Half of them feel that they are doing something good, 41% detecting that children overcome their delayed development, and 13% of their own development, while some to fill the empty place in their families, after their grown-up children left.

The preparation for becoming foster parents has got many challenges, one third of them found it hard, and another third also not easy. They would have liked more realistic picture of fostering, more practical information on communication, building relationship with the children suffering from trauma and separation, about the contact and relationship with the families of origin. 36% participated in the PRIDE training, one third could not name it, while the rest in other pre-service programs. Almost half of the respondents meet sometimes the former group members, participating in the training, 13% often, 30% never, and 10 % was not trained at all. Half of those receiving support, mention vocational training, 7% self-help groups, 15% case conferences, or interdisciplinary teams and 7% supervision. More than two-third of those seeking support can rely on specialists in the family help centers, getting help from other foster families and their own relatives, one-third from friends, 16% from local services.

The desired help would include self-help groups, more financial and material resources, psychologists and therapy for the children, regular supervision. The most useful support is the individual consultation with other foster parents and professionals for over 80% of those responding, although 18% of them have issues they would not discuss with anybody.

As far as the local services are concerned, almost three-fourth of the respondents are satisfied with the cooperation with health professionals, and local schools.

They see their foster family providing love (81%) and bonding (51%) to the children in their care, while meeting the individual needs (37%), access to specialist care (29%) their competences and expertise (29%), working as a team in the family (27%) and keeping the contact with the family of origin (23%).

Concerning difficulties and challenges a third of the foster parents are struggling with the negative image of fostering, the need to keep contact with the biological families (27%), the behavior of the child (18%), lack of rest, being overwhelmed (33%), financial difficulties (12%), specific needs of children (18%), lack of or limited access to specialist support (12%)

One fourth of the foster parents do not get any type of support or supervision, and half of the did not answer the questions related to the help and follow up provided.

They would provide more information to foster families on how to support children experiencing trauma (36%), effective communication (33%), special needs (27%), positive discipline (26%), coping with the family of origin (21%) teamwork on planning (11%)

In almost half of the families (48%) children have regular contact with their families at least monthly, many of them more frequently, and 21% has no contact at all. The families of origin meet the children in the foster care home (59%), have regular telephone, Internet contact (48%), meet in a family help center (29%) at public places (21%), and one third of the children visit their families in their homes. A good indicator is, that 70% of the foster parents find the regular visits and bonding with the families of origin very important, and only 8% find it harmful for the child.

Less than half of the foster parents 45%) think they will be still foster parents in 5 years, 21% are planning to finish, others could not or did not want to answer.

Slovakia

The fifty respondents to the questionnaire were substitute and professional families from all over Slovakia, nine families from settlements smaller than 2000 inhabitants, and eleven from the capitol city. Thirty foster families, five professional families, two mixed functioned families, six kinship carers and seven foster families in family relation with the family of origin participated, making this sample different from those in the other three countries. More than half of the families take care of one child, 36% has got 2 and 12% 3 or more. 61% are married, 35% single women, 2-2% single men, and non-married couple. 90% of them have got at least secondary education.

The factors affecting their decision to become foster parent include the desire to help a child, prevention of placement in children’s home, and earlier positive personal experiences. The lack of an own child or the “empty nest” was also a contributing element of the decision made. 35 respondents had the primary reason to help a child and 15 because of their personal life situation.

The applicants found the preparation for the role quite difficult, many found it too long and would have required more practical information, knowledge on how to handle special needs, developmental delays, insecure attachment, and information on the families of origin. 7% did not participate in pre-service training, while others took part either in accredited programs (39%) or a training provided by the office of social work and labour.

One third of the foster parents got information on the special needs of children placed in their families, 45% had been acquainted with the child placed there, the rest did not get sufficient information of any kind on the child planned to be accommodated with them.

The vast majority of the families (85%) experienced mostly positive or mixed reactions from the wider environment, while 6% was suspicious and 9% got negative reflections. Two-third of them have been welcome by the health care professionals, 13% have not needed specific help, while 22% could not get access to good quality services locally. Regarding schools and kindergartens, 70% had positive experiences, 12% were rejected and 18% had mixed responds. Many teachers were not knowledgeable and skilled in the field of developmental delay and special needs.

Relatives, friends and partners have been helping most of the carers, one third of them participating in self-help groups, some getting help from supervisors, NGO experts, local authorities or from the church. More than a third of children need regular psychological support or other specialist visits.

In the sample 62% of the children has not got contact with their mothers, 22% have regular, 16% rare contacts only. 90% of them have not had any contact with their fathers, and very few had (8%) with grandparents. Despite of these outcomes, the foster parents are aware of the importance of the contact with the family of origin.

The foster parents have different approaches to their own role, 65% of them consider themselves as parents of the child responsible for their upbringing until adulthood, while over one third of them see themselves as members of an expert team to take care of the child. Most of them (78%) see their role in providing permanency and secure attachment for the children, at the same time one quarter of them feels that their personal growth has a significant role and 16% aim to reunite the child with their family of origin.

One third of the foster parents focus on their own needs, while also doing good and be there for the children, helping a child in need, see the child developing and catching up. Over 70% are mentioning love as a strength in the family, their ability to meet the needs of the children, and 15% the cooperation with the family of origin.

Lack of opportunities to rest, the challenging behavior of the children and their special needs, the insufficient support provided to the families and children, the low social status of the substitute families, and the difficulties confronted in the contact with the biological families are among the problems listed.

Much higher financial support, more specialist help, and supervision, more training and skill building would be needed according to the carers interviewed. Many of them are mentioning the need for more help in working with trauma, effective communication at all levels and situations. They would like to learn more about ensuring the safety of children.

Conclusion

The results are providing a number of important information on the substantial differences of the history and current system of child welfare and protection in four transition countries. Often the countries of the Central-Eastern European region are seen as homogeneous or at least very similar to each other, while in fact both their history and their recent development in all areas including social policy, child protection policies and practices differ widely.

Despite of the many differences it can be seen that there are substantial important similarities both at the characteristics of the care provisions and the needs of those taking care of the children. Several issues are mentioned causing challenges, making the task of foster parents even more difficult, sometimes impossible to handle. While many of them are satisfied with their roles and activities in the life of children, the risk of burn out, handling unresolvable situations is clearly requires substantial improvements in all of the countries.

The needs are clearly articulated providing sufficient information of those running the services and more broadly to policy and decision makers. It also has to be recognised that the participants volunteered in taking part in the research and a larger sample of a representative survey would provide a more detailed and probably less positive picture. It has to be also acknowledged that some issues have not been raised or just mentioned, like break down of placements, the strong resistance and rejection of Roma and other children belonging to minorities, children with disabilities and there was no mention of LGBTQ related questions, among others.

The project should be considered as a first attempt to encourage further exploration of the foster care services in the countries covered and others, learning more about its functioning and opportunities to develop, just like the other elements of the child welfare and protection systems, involving children and parents, professionals working with families and children to understand their perspectives and needs.

Despite of the limitations and shortcomings, the main trends can be drawn. In case there is a strong commitment to implement the de-institutionalisation of children based on the recommendations, guidelines, professional and legal requirements, family support, prevention, gatekeeping efforts have to be strengthened together with favorable conditions and help provided to kinship and foster parents accompanied by high quality local services to meet the needs of all children and families.

Acknowledgement: The project on “The perspectives of foster families in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia” was funded by the Visegrad Fund in 2016-2017. Thanks to all the families, foster parents participating, those working in the project, and contributed to its completion and success.

References:

Anghel, R., Herczog, M., & Dima, G. (2013). The challenge of reforming child protection in Eastern Europe: The cases of Hungary and Romania. Psychosocial Intervention, 22(3), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2013a27

Bedard, T. (2007). Disinterest of the child: Romani children in the Hungarian child protection system. ERRC.

Better Care Network. (2019). UNGA resolution on the rights of the child. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from https://bettercarenetwork.org/library/social-welfare-systems/child-care-and-protection-policies/2019-unga-resolution-on-the-rights-of-the-child

Cameron, C., Reimer, D., & Smith, M. (2016a). Towards a theory of upbringing in foster care in Europe. European Journal of Social Work, 19(2), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2015.1030360

Cameron, C., Reimer, D., & Smith, M. (2016b). Towards a theory of upbringing in foster care in Europe. European Journal of Social Work, 19(2), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2015.1030360

Canali, C. & International Foster Care Research Network Meeting (Eds.). (2013). Foster care in Europe: What do we know about outcomes and evidence? Fondazione Emanuela Zancan onlus.

Child Welfare League of America. (2020). PRIDE model of practice. https://www.cwla.org/pride-training

Daphne Programme, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, University of Birmingham, & Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology. (2005a). Mapping the number and characteristics of children under three in institutions across Europe at risk of harm. University of Birmingham, Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology.

Daphne Programme, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, University of Birmingham, & Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology. (2005b). Mapping the number and characteristics of children under three in institutions across Europe at risk of harm. University of Birmingham, Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology.

del Valle, J. F. (2013). Out of home care in child protection: An international overview. Psychosocial Intervention, 22(3), 161–162. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2013a19

Eurochild (2019). New opportunities for investing in children 2019: Eurochild report on the European semester. https://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/public/05_Library/Thematic_priorities/02_Child_Poverty/Eurochild/2019_Eurochild_report_on_European_Seme ster.pdf

Eurochild. (2018). Opening Doors for European Children: Hungary. https://www.openingdoors.eu/category/resources/publications/

Eurochild. (2018). Opening doors for European children: Poland. https://www.openingdoors.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/country-fiche-Poland-2018.pdf

European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-Based Care. (2014, June). Toolkit on the use of European Union funds for the transition from institutional to community based care. https://deinstitutionalisationdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/toolkit-10-22-2014-update-web.pdf

European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-Based Care. (2012, November). Common European guidelines on the transition from institutional to community-based care. http://enil.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Guidelines-01-16-2013-printer.pdf

Everycare. (2011). Fostering better care: Improving foster care provision around the world. www.everychild.org.uk

Fundamental Rights Agency. (2017). Country background reports. https://fra.europa.eu/en/country-data/2017/country-studies-project-right- independent-living-persons-disabilities-summary

Goldman, P. S., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Bradford, B., Christopoulos, A., Ken, P. L. A., Cuthbert, C., Duchinsky, R., Fox, N. A., Grigoras, S., Gunnar, M. R., Ibrahim, R. W., Johnson, D., Kusumaningrum, S., Agastya, N. L. P. M., Mwangangi, F. M., Nelson, C. A., Ott, E. M., Reijman, S., van IJzendoorn, M. H., … Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (2020). Institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation of children 2: Policy and practice recommendations for global, national, and local actors. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4(8), 606–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30060-2

Herczog, M. (1997). Hungary. In M. Colton & W. Margaret (Eds.), The world of foster care: An international sourcebook on foster family care systems (pp. 107-121). Aldershot: Arena.

Kaasbøll, J., Lassemo, E., Paulsen, V., Melby, L., & Osborg, S. O. (2019). Foster parents’ needs, perceptions and satisfaction with foster parent training: A systematic literature review. Children and Youth Services Review, 101, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.03.041

Knuiman, S., Rijk, C. H., Hoksbergen, R. A., & van Baar, A. L. (2015). Children without parental care in Poland: Foster care, institutionalization and adoption. International Social Work, 58(1), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872812473138

Lumos (2018). Investing in Children: The case for diverting Czech government finances away from institutions towards families and communities. https://lumos.contentfiles.net/media/documents/document/2018/09/Czech_exec_summary_FINAL.PDF

Moravkova, S. (2018). Identification of the benefits of care about children in professional families in the slovak republic. NORDSCI Conference on Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.32008/NORDSCI2018/B1/V1/52

Neagoe, A., Neag, D. L. M., & Lucheș, D. (2019). Reasons to care: Personal motivation as a key factor in the practice of the professional foster carer in Romania. PLOS ONE, 14(9), e0222716. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222716

Ondrušová, Darina,; Repková; Kešelová, Daniela (2019). Living independently and being included in the community. https://www.disability-europe.net

Opening Doors for Europe’s Children. (2020). Lessons learned and recommendations to strengthen families and end institutionalization for children in Europe. https://www.openingdoors.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/OD-lessons-learned.pdf

Platform, E. L. (n.d.). Czech ministers at loggerheads over infant homes & foster care. Liberties.Eu. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from https://www.liberties.eu/en/news/infant-homes-in-czech-republic-does-not-end-ministers-of-health-care-and-education-are-against-it/11652

Schmidt, V., & Bailey, J. (2014). Institutionalization of children in the czech republic: A case of path dependency. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 41(1). https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol41/iss1/4

Shmidt, V. (2012). How does history predestine contemporary issues of child protection in the Czech Republic: Beyound the socialist legacy [Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta sociálních studií]. https://is.muni.cz/th/a3wuu/

Šiška, J., & Beadle-Brown, J. (2020). Report on the transition from institutional care to community-based services in 27 eu member states. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33643.77607

Staff, -. (2018, March 28). EMMI sued for taking away too many Roma children from their families due to poverty. The Budapest Beacon. https://budapestbeacon.com/emmi-sued-for-taking-too-many-roma-children-taken-away-from-their-families-due-to-poverty/

Tobis, D. (2000). Moving from residential insitutions to community-based social services in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. World Bank.

Truhlárová, Z. & Levická, T. (2012). Facilities for children needing immediate assistance—controversial institutions intended for substitute childcare in the Czech Republic. Social Work in Ukraine: Theory and Practice of, 2, 132-147.

Tyebjee T. (2003). Attitude, interest, and motivation for adoption and foster care. Child Welfare, 82(6), 685–706.

Whenan, R., Oxlad, M., & Lushington, K. (2009). Factors associated with foster carer well-being, satisfaction and intention to continue providing out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(7), 752–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.02.001

UNICEF. (2013). Fifteen years of de-institutionalization reforms in Europe and Central Asia: Key results achieved for children and remaining challenges, https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/2018-11/Key%20Results%20in%20Deinstitutionalization%20in%20Eeurope%20and%20Central%20Asia_0.pdf

UNICEF. (2012). Moving forward: Implementing the guidelines for the alternative care of children. https://www.unicef.org/protection/files/Moving_Forward_Implementing_the_Guidelines_English.pdf

UNICEF. (n.d.). TransMONEE database. Retrieved February 02, 2021, from http://transmonee.org/

United Nations. (2010, February 24). Guidelines on the alternative care of children. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/673583?ln=en

The perspectives of family foster care in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia

Download file