Plan would require foster children to shop for clothing in thrift stores

[VandalSquirrel]

http://news.michiganradio.org/post/p...stores?nopop=1

Foster children in Michigan would use their state-funded clothing allowance only in thrift stores under a plan suggested by State Senator Bruce Caswell.

SNIP

"I never had anything new," Caswell says. "I got all the hand-me-downs. And my dad, he did a lot of shopping at the Salvation Army, and his comment was -- and quite frankly it's true -- once you're out of the store and you walk down the street, nobody knows where you bought your clothes."

Gilda Jacobs is CEO of the Michigan League for Human Services. She’s not a fan of the thrift shop gift card idea.

SNIP

Caswell says the gift card idea wouldn’t save the state any money.

__________________________________________________ _______________

So what happens when there is nothing that fits a kid? What if there aren't enough winter items in stock or some other seasonal issue? Where can they buy undergarments and socks? There's also the issue of not having a store nearby or the ability to get to one. I'm not against second hand, thrift, and hand me downs, I'm just not in agreement of it being the only option and mandated.

The statement that it isn't even cost saving is telling. I worked for a company that routinely highly discounted or gave away items for kids and adults, as well as employees and customers making donations and it wasn't always more expensive than second hand.

[Drolefille]

I saw this, I didn't post it because I didn't want to have to smack someone. Encouraged, yes, mandated, no.

And if the only way you can justify a policy is by a "back in my day" story, well STFU politician (who I assume wears himself shiny new shoes now.) Nothing like telling a foster kid he can only wear hand me downs to really emphasize that he's got zero self worth.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Encouraged, yes, mandated, no.

That's what I'm sayin'.

[PiKA2001]

How could they enforce this? Hand out vouchers instead of cash? The only benefit I see from this is that kids could get more clothes for the money.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And if the only way you can justify a policy is by a "back in my day" story, well STFU politician (who I assume wears himself shiny new shoes now.) Nothing like telling a foster kid he can only wear hand me downs to really emphasize that he's got zero self worth.

Oh, I missed where clothes defined self-worth.

You got a link on that?

Alot of poor kids in the Delta with both parents. Should we give them vouchers for them to buy hollister or whatever it is the kids are buying these days?

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

How could they enforce this? Hand out vouchers instead of cash? The only benefit I see from this is that kids could get more clothes for the money.

I have no idea how enforcement would work, that's your home state

When I had a retail job there were vouchers and we would get a kid set up with basics, including a bag to keep their stuff in. We always had sales as well as coupons and open late (11 pm seven days a week) so if an item in the right size was at one of the other four stores they could go get it or someone could bring it over. If someone had ripped open a package of socks or underwear we could repackage it and sell it at a lower price or just a few pairs if that's what the situation merited. A list and voucher/purchase order was set up kind of like WIC, only certain items at a certain price were allowed and it was all documented with that state.

Looks like a he's changed his tune a bit http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/s...83&District=16 Maybe I should email him my suggestion?

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Oh, I missed where clothes defined worth.

You got a link on that?

Alot of poor kids in the Delta with both parents. Should we give them vouchers for them to buy hollister or whatever it is the kids are buying these days?

I've seen brand new Garanimals separates at Walmart for $3 that a kid could get in their size and all the pieces coordinate with each other. Some stores often have basic items at a low price all the time, like Target, Old Navy always has some t-shirt for less than a gallon of gas, and Payless Shoe Source probably has a BOGO on shoes.

Unless you or anyone else can guarantee that kids can get everything at a thrift store it is a ridiculous limiting option. Should all resources be utilized, including thrift stores, second hand stores, and charities? Yes. Should a store with variable inventory be the only option? No. Your Delta kids don't need snow boots, mittens, long johns, parkas, hats, or such anyway so they could just cut off their pants and sleeves to make shorts and tanks, amirite?

Maybe where you live is behind the times but it is child endangerment here to put kids in Hollister or Abercrombie & Fitch.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I have no idea how enforcement would work, that's your home state

True but I wasn't a foster child nor did my parents receive a clothing allowance for me.

Looks like a he's changed his tune a bit http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/s...83&District=16 Maybe I should email him my suggestion?

I actually think this is a good proposal.

Maybe where you live is behind the times but it is child endangerment here to put kids in Hollister or Abercrombie & Fitch.

I confused.

[AGDee]

I must add that the current clothing allowance is $60.00. Trust me, these foster parents are already either buying second hand, using hand me downs from other children of theirs or putting their own money into these children's wardrobes. Additionally, this is not just for kids of the age that wear garanimals. This is also for teenagers who have to meet school dress codes of khaki's and polos in many districts.

*cursing the ex-husband for making me stay in this flippin state... can't wait to escape*

[ASUADPi]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Oh, I missed where clothes defined self-worth.

You got a link on that?

Alot of poor kids in the Delta with both parents. Should we give them vouchers for them to buy hollister or whatever it is the kids are buying these days?

I'm guessing it has been a long time since you were a child or you have chosen to repress your childhood memories.

What I wore to school as a child completely affected my schooling. While I loved the academics, I HATED the social aspects. I didn't wear hand me downs (as the only girl in the family) but I got the cheapest clothes known to man. With that my clothes were usually too big for me. I also had a lot of sewn clothes (via my mom) while I loved what she made for me I was teased MERCILESSLY by my fellow classmates. It wasn't until I was in high school that it got slightly better, but only my junior and senior years because I was working and could get clothes with my own money.

Kids are cruel. I still see it now as a teacher.

So yes, clothes do define a child's self worth.

These children already feel crappy because they are in foster care and the older they get the less chance they have for adoption, then add to it the teasing they could be getting from their clothing. Their opinions of themselves are probably in the toilet.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I must add that the current clothing allowance is $60.00. Trust me, these foster parents are already either buying second hand, using hand me downs from other children of theirs or putting their own money into these children's wardrobes.

Amen!

I'm going to a foster parents' meeting tonight and I can't wait to hear what's said about this.

[ggforever]

Should we be pushing for school uniforms?! Very successful in the private schools as well as some large urban districts, such as Long Beach Unified in California.

I do think that children who dress "differently" can be singled out and it is awful. Whether we like to admit it or not, the kids establish their own "uniforms" and if you cannot afford the latest trend, your life can be miserable.

I grew up with lots of hand-me-downs and clothing from the "nearly new" shop. Go to one of the California Charity League shops and you can see some amazing items, some of which have not been worn. That being said, I think it should be up to the foster parents. $60 would not go very far in most places - even a thrift shop. New socks and underwear can eat up 1/3 of the allowance.

I am sure the person who proposed this walked 10 miles to school in the snow as well.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

How could they enforce this? Hand out vouchers instead of cash? The only benefit I see from this is that kids could get more clothes for the money.

Probably in a similar fashion that states enforce the type of food (and overall purchases) that AFDC is used for.

I'm not a huge proponent of such mandates but I completely understand the purpose behind such mandates. As far as I'm concerned, this serves two purposes: (1) these kids can get more clothes for less and lets the money stretch; and (2) people (where's this money coming from?) don't feel as though they are funding these kids buying clothes that their own kids can't even afford. For instance, I wouldn't be a fan of kids getting vouchers to buy name brand clothes from department stores when non-foster families are struggling and many of them have a choice of where to buy clothes, but can't afford exactly what they want from a more expensive store.

On that note, if there is going to be a mandate, it should include all thrift stores including Salvation Army and Goodwill; consignment shops; Plato's Closet; products under $20 from such places as Cititrends; and products under $20 from TJMaxx and Marshalls. All of these stores exist in a few cities in Michigan. I like all of those stores myself except for stores like Cititrends (cringe). I don't like department stores because I'm not a huge fan of malls. I love boutiques but some of them are really overpriced. But, that's how good shopping that stretches the dollar works and these kids won't feel so horrible about their appearance.

It isn't about name brand and being trendy but about having nice clothes that kids actually want to wear. Thrift stores only have what has been given to them so some thrift stores have much older clothes that have been sitting there for a very long time. Even the most confident kid who is excelling at school can be sad that she or he can't find a good "teenager" outfit at the local thrift store. That's not a necessary thing to do to a kid because it's a social-psychological impact that parents can't always buffer.

[DrPhil]

Oh yeah, I forgot about stores like Target, KMart, Burlington Coat Factory, and Walmart (cringe).

Basically, any place where kids can get "bang for their buck." And if they want to use a $60 clothing allowance on more expensive items and not get as many outfits for the money, oh well. If you want to come home with a $60 pair of shoes and let that sustain you for the school year or however it works, yikes but congratulations. That is ultimately something for the foster parents and foster kids to work out.

I guess some things don't work too well as a mandate, afterall.

[33girl]

How old of children is this?

Does Plato's Closet count as a thrift store?

Re uniforms, from what I see nowadays, it's less the "issued" uniforms (i.e. all from the same company) than "wear a white polo shirt and khaki pants." In the case of the latter, you damn sure can tell who has the more expensive items. I'm guessing this started because parents thought old-fashioned uniforms were too expensive but it kind of backfired.

DrPhil - I just got a Cititrends very near me. Might I ask why it's cringeworthy?

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by ggforever

I do think that children who dress "differently" can be singled out and it is awful. Whether we like to admit it or not, the kids establish their own "uniforms" and if you cannot afford the latest trend, your life can be miserable.

Absolutely, and kids (especially pre-teen and teenage girls) can be extremely cruel towards their peers who don't have the same "stuff." I remember years after HS graduation, talking to one of my elementary school classmates who wished that we had uniforms because the girls would pick on her for being poor. It was something I didn't experience (I wasn't into trendy clothing), but I never realized how difficult it might have been for someone in her situation--and she just had two working parents and wasn't in a foster care situation (granted, they were kind of PWT). I imagine this is where the phenomenon of working-class and low-income parents will sacrifice other things to get their kids designer clothes originates.

I can see having partnerships with low-cost clothing places to encourage foster parents to shop there--maybe BOGO offers or special sales for winter coats? But, these people are probably already being extremely prudent and going to Wal-Mart, using hand-me-downs, that Caswell's suggestion is downright condescending.

Also, you can't buy underwear at thrift stores. What was this dude thinking?