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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Does Plato's Closet count as a thrift store?

Here's my rationale:

There are some Salvation Armies, Goodwills, and local thrift stores that have gently used and unworn clothes with the tag still on them.

I count Plato's Closet (the same company that owns Once Upon a Child) as a more contemporary thrift store geared toward particularly clothing styles (and some of the clothes are geared toward a particular age group). They are gently used and unworn name brand clothes that people sell to the store. The difference is that people are selling the clothes to Plato's Closet (or the owners are buying from somewhere) versus people donating the clothes to other thrift stores.

There is another store like Plato's Closet but its clothes are even more trendy and much more expensive. Still gently used and new name brand clothes that were sold to the store. As with a lot of the Plato's Closet clothes, you wouldn't notice they were used clothes.

Originally Posted by 33girl

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

Just the opinion of my friends and me. There are a lot of stores like Cititrends. It is generally directed toward a particular demographic. That's also why the commercials in many cities are the way they are. LOL. Mostly cheaply made trendy clothes.

I compare it to Wet Seal and stores like that. There are like a dozen stores like Cititrends and Wet Seal in many cities.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Just the opinion of my friends and me. There are a lot of stores like Cititrends. It is generally directed toward a particular demographic. That's also why the commercials in many cities are the way they are. LOL. Mostly cheaply made trendy clothes.

I compare it to Wet Seal and stores like that.

I've never even heard of Cititrends. Are they catering to an "urban" clientele? The closest one to me is in Philly.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I've never even heard of Cititrends. Are they catering to an "urban" clientele? The closest one to me is in Philly.

LOL. Exactly.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Here's my rationale:

Oh yes. I'm agreeing it should be. I was asking the Senator, not you.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Oh yes. I'm agreeing it should be. I was asking the Senator, not you.

LOL. Ok.

I've noticed there are people who don't consider Plato's Closet a thrift store and there are thrift store fans who have never heard of Plato's Closet.

[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.

[MysticCat]

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?

Well, only if you want people to call them "shanes," which certainly wouldn't be good for their self-worth.

[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.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

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.

At the Salvation Army in my hometown, you could get the newest well-known brands for two, three dollars for t-shirts, and two or three dollars for jeans.

60$ is plenty and you can be what they call "fashionable".

[33girl]

Well the thing is, you have to shop at a Salvation Army/Goodwill etc in a nice neighborhood.

Trust me, in my BFE hometown, there are not fashionable things at either place. There are lots of pleated stonewashed jeans, though.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

At the Salvation Army in my hometown, you could get the newest well-known brands for two, three dollars for t-shirts, and two or three dollars for jeans.

60$ is plenty and you can be what they call "fashionable".

That's YOUR hometown. Where I grew up and where I live now, most people who are trying to get rid of barely-worn or new designer clothes aren't going to take them to Goodwill or Salvation Army--they're going to one of the smaller charity thrift shops (which are expensive and not at all like Goodwill) or resale/consignment shops. The things that actually make it to Goodwill or Salvation Army tend to be costumes or things for extremely large people.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Trust me, in my BFE hometown, there are not fashionable things at either place. There are lots of pleated stonewashed jeans, though.

Totally making a comeback:



This is Rihanna, btw.

[IrishLake]

^^^^ The St Vincent DePaul Thrift Store nearest to my town is more expensive than the nearest SA or Goodwill. Both carry the same quality of stuff (not great). The nearest SA/Goodwill pale in comparison to the Brand Spanking New Goodwill in Montgomery, a fairly well off suburb of Cinci. That place has NICE stuff. Geography and area income play an important part in what is available at each store.

I shop Craigslist, and local garage sales.