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

[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*

[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.

[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?

[Honeykiss1974]

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. 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*

Wow - they are trying to regulate $60 clothing allowance per child? Outside of a thrift store, that won't buy much at all.

Like others have said, I'd encourage thrift store shopping (maybe even give them coupons for an additional 20% off) but mandating?? Goodness...

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Honeykiss1974

Wow - they are trying to regulate $60 clothing allowance per child?

Not really. The current program combines the $60 with all of the other benefits/allowances on a single EBT card so technically a foster parent could spend that $60 on food or other expenses. This proposed change would set aside $80 a year that would only be allowed to be spent on cheap clothing.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Not really. The current program combines the $60 with all of the other benefits/allowances on a single EBT card so technically a foster parent could spend that $60 on food or other expenses. This proposed change would set aside $80 a year that would only be allowed to be spent on cheap clothing.

In the form of a gift card to Salvation Army. Really that's not a good idea.

If they're concerned about how the money is being spent, then do more checks or audits. If they're "concerned" with big old scare quotes instead (which is my guess) then they should STFU. There's no actual justification here other than a general, yeah it's good to try and save money if we can. But it's the foster parents who are paying any extra costs, not the state and if they're abusing or neglecting the needs of their foster child, they shouldn't be foster parents.

Call me crazy.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

In the form of a gift card to Salvation Army. Really that's not a good idea.

If they're concerned about how the money is being spent, then do more checks or audits. If they're "concerned" with big old scare quotes instead (which is my guess) then they should STFU. There's no actual justification here other than a general, yeah it's good to try and save money if we can. But it's the foster parents who are paying any extra costs, not the state and if they're abusing or neglecting the needs of their foster child, they shouldn't be foster parents.

Call me crazy.

Ok crazy I was just explaining to HoneyKiss how the allowance works as I know it. My cousin is a foster parent in MI and she gets around $450 a month from the state to spend as she pleases. If she wanted to spend all the money on clothes she probably could but she chooses to buy diapers and groceries. She also spends quite a bit of her own money as well.

This is nothing new, these politricks, a "look at us saving the taxpayers money" move to appease people worried about state deficits.

I do like the idea of the state negotiating clothing discounts for them and if that ends up being the outcome of this, then I hope they don't STFU.