Last June, when the Associated Press carried a story about the very first effort in this country to unionize foster parents, some of us really scratched our heads.

Among other things, the lead organizers were key officers of the Washington State Association of Foster Parents, where the announced purpose of the organization is to support foster parents in achieving safety, permanence and well-being for the children and youth in their care.

So what's really happening here? Why a union for foster parents? Will the effort to organize the state's estimated 6,000 foster parents be taken seriously? Is this about advocating for children's welfare, or more about compensation, health and pension benefits for putative union members? And what impact would unionization have on the work of the national and state foster parent associations with total membership approaching 100,000?

The National Foster Parent Association, actually headquartered in Washington State, took no position on the subject. Why not? To date, no official response beyond no comment.

The union spokespersons in the AP story, Daniele and Steve Baxter, co-presidents of the state foster parent group, spoke of their desire to be considered as professionals, not just volunteers. Also they want to establish higher training and education standards for foster parents, and secure better compensation, including retirement benefits and medical insurance

When we revisited the subject just a few weeks ago with Mike Canfield, vice president of the State Association and union supporter, he said "the bottom line is to keep kids from bouncing from home to home. The union would also, in his view:

• help the state make more informed decisions on placements of foster children based on input from foster parents
• Cut down on the 50% turnover rate on foster parents
• Lead to better training for foster parents

Is anyone saying it's a crazy idea? Unthinkable? Nope. Not yet. Clearly, this is not the end of the story.