Most states have regulations as to where the vouchers can be used. Fosterhood in NYC found out the hard way:

"“Kidstuff” is a mom-and-pop clothing store with overpriced, poorly constructed, cigarette-smelling, polyester, flammable children’s clothing. It makes Rainbow look like Saks Fifth Avenue. I wouldn’t mind had it not been for my 3 hour commute that went from the G train in Brooklyn, to the F, up and out at Broadway to the 6 (sorry to bore the non-new yorkers), a transfer to the 4/5 at Union Square and then a transfer back to the 6 at 125th only to discover that I’m on an EXPRESS 6. Did you know there was an express 6 train!? Yeah, me neither. Back track down the 6 to Morrison Ave."

http://fosterhood.tumblr.com/search/voucher

The stores are probably owned by some caseworker's family member.

Dunno. People on such assistance may not have gotten there by way of bad descisions, but few would end up in the situation by making good descisions. The big problem it seems is that the regulation would require funds for enforcement. Such attempts at control can be expensive and still provide mixed results.

"'Government should not be big brother in telling somebody how to spend their (79) dollars,' [Gilda Jacobs, president and CEO of the Michigan League for Human Services] said."

Absolutely.

But if government wasn't Big Brother in forcing me to provide the money for that clothing allowance, therefore arrogating to itself the authority to force the spending, I could donate that money directly and let the receiver decide how to spend it. Or I could donate it elsewere. Or (*gasp*) keep it and spend it as I choose, supporting a JOB so someone could stop begginging for charity.

Let's end Big Brother *everywhere*, not oppose it where the politically connected don't like it and keep it where they do.

Okay, you're a 5-year-old orphan. Should you start combing the classifieds so you can land a job and pay for your own clothes?

Obviously I wasn't referring to underage orphans at that point. My point about deciding for myself how to use my own money stands. No Big Brother.

I met a girl who sang the blues,
and I asked her for some happy news,
but she just smiled and turned away.

Amy, my guess would be that Salvation Army would start selling new undies and socks.

If I was a down and out orphan, I would just be glad for any limited clothing voucher from any thrift stores. There is no need for any big government to provide any big cash handouts. It should be up to various private enterprise to give out limited clothing voucher if they so wish.

while I can barely stand reading Steuf... the light on the subject is needed. But, let's talk about proportions... this is supposed to save $200k out of a 1+billion dollar DHS budget? And how d'ya know you are saving the money? If you give a foster parent $79 for a clothing allowance, how do you SAVE money by forcing them to buy clothing one place over another? $79bucks is $79bucks

Besides what makes them think the Foster parents don't already shop at goodwill?

I think this is something where there is a lot more to it, but unless you lived there, you can't tell what it is...

AM I the only one who thinks places like goodwill are expensive for clothes? I rarely pay for than $3 or $4 an item new in stores (clearance racks are my friend).

Not to mention the obvious difference between these kids and any other kids the family may have, if they have to get their clothes separate places. Why do they not think someone intelligent enough to foster and be in charge of these kids is not intelligent enough to ship well?

Dh and I kick around fostering sometimes, my SIL works for a foster agency. But it's precisely this type of shit that keeps us from it. Stupid rules.

That would be shop well....

Let me play Devil's Advocate a little, here, and postulate a scenario which I don't doubt would happen:

Foster Parents, receiving largess from the Government, use the money at designer retail outlets, "to improve the children's self-image". Then, after spending all $79 on one outfit, begin to rant that they can't properly clothe the children who have been entrusted to their care on the measly stipend they have been receiving, so start clamoring for an increase. And the Government gives it to them. Why? "It's for the Chilllldrrrrennnn".

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Specify that the money has to be spent at a thrift store, and at least they can expect that it will be spent on more than one pair of Blue Jeans (and also that it won't go to Beer and Cigs for the Foster Parents). And I don't doubt that, in the area where this is to be in effect, the stores mentioned will start adding pleas for donations of NEW, unopened, socks and underwear to their Advertisements.

momof4, if you think Goodwill is expensive now, wait until all foster families are obligated to shop there exclusively.

If the gov't mandates that you buy all of something from some select group of suppliers, I think it's a reasonable assumption that stuff from those suppliers is going to get scarcer, costlier, or both.

Whenever I go to thrift stores I find them to be rather expensive. Either they have total garbage - like Amy's sizziling lamp for a few bucks (which I don't want to buy at all) or stuff is just about as expansive as the department store - and sometimes with a sale the department store is cheaper and clearance items are almost always cheaper.

WayneB, you may be right, but there is one big problem here. Have you seen jeans at goodwill for boys? Not often, and I have shopped goodwill for clothes, since I was a kid. My mom had a good 're-use' streak since a very long time before it became fashionable. Boys clothes tend to be worn out, before they outgrow them. The odds of finding anything at G-sales, is also quite slim.

What momof4 mentions is also quite true, especially at wally world...

Ultimately they would have the best bang for the buck by having the best foster's... but that is uncertain.

If you think thrift stores only carry rags you haven't visited one lately. We often donate clothes that look brand new but the kids have outgrown them.

As for the comment by Gilda Jacobs about government not being big brother telling someone how to spend "their" $79, how about government not giving them $79 in the first place? I have NO problem with government money coming with strings attached. Thinking of all those Katrina victims using their government issued debit cards in strip clubs...

When I was a foster kid we got about 300$ at the beginning of each season to buy new clothes. My foster mother used the vouchers for herself and her own children while us kids were dressed in good will jogging pants. I was not an orphan and many of the teens I was in foster care with were there not for abuse but for being "unruly". Most of the time that meant for skipping school. Any kid who was an actual orphan would have been adopted or taken by a family member without having more to do with the foster care system than a worker helping the new caregiver fill out social security forms. Provided the natural parents were eligible.

Funny thing though. They get 30k a year over what it cost them for each foster kid. Atleast here in Tn. If the kid needs clothes the foster parent get almost 20k a year to keep them. That money is meant to take care of expenses.. And yes, whoever said the foster parents would howl was right. They bitched endlessly about how they were heroes and how the money wasn't enough for what they do..I can't tell you how happy I was to be out of that shit..

I concur with momof4 and Theformerbanker that the thrift stores (where I live) aren't that good a deal. You can do better at Wal-Mart or Target. My kid's playclothes consist of $4-$6 tops and bottoms from Target (and that's not even on clearance.) This weekend they had cute little girl's easter dresses for $12, and I found purple and silver tennis shoes for $10. I've tried shopping at Goodwill and most of the stuff LOOKS old and gross. I'm sure there are thrift stores where things are "barely worn" or gently used, but not around here.

"Funny thing though. They get 30k a year over what it cost them for each foster kid. Atleast here in Tn. "

You get $32 a day per kid here in TX. For everything, so far as I know. You might break even, you aren't going to make money. Now, special needs families get more, but are also paying for more things out of it. My family is from TN. If they made $30k a year or more, every family there would foster.

I used to be a volunteer "shopping counselor" for recent immigrants. Seriously. I taught them about coupons and Thursday grocery specials and Target vs. Bloomingdales and that 7-11 is not the corner bodega. So I know a deal when I see one.

The thrift stores are rarely it for kids clothes, even on the ritzy West side of L.A. Too hit or miss, too worn out, and relatively expensive. You want an amazing bargain, shop the sales at Sears (a $60 girl's dress recently on sale for $6!) or Children's Place (summer Ts for $2 each! sneakers for $5!) or any rummage sale. Even the Gap, done right, bests the Salvation Army, etc., for price and certainly quality.

My parents and I shopped at Goodwill when I was a child. I didnt know I was poor I just thought everyone shopped there. Those were the days before it was just cheaper to buy clearance stuff. And we all wore uniforms to school. My mom always saved up money to buy me a good pair of shoes

It would be nice if the government could stop treating folks like big brother. That can happen just as soon as the folks stop acting like the government is their daddy.

If you want to save money be like Nebraska and have only a one house legislature - no conference committees, one vote on every bill, and less time wasted.

Momof4,

The foster parents here get nearly 20k a year for keeping foster children. The state itself gets 30k a year over what it spends for the buildings and foster care workers. Then the kids are supposed to get almost 300 per season for new clothes.

The only thing I can think of here that would be nearly 80$ is a program they have for school kids who are dressed poorly. They take them to the store and get them a few outfits. You have to be on the free lunch program to qualify.

And no everyone wouldn't be foster parents if it were 30k a year. For reasons already stated here by someone else.

I was annoyed by the notion that thrift stores sell rags. In order to compete, at least here in the west, most thrift shops have pretty good clothes, just a lousy selection. (Occasionally, one local shop takes remainders from other stores so there is a momentary selection.)

It's not just clothes. I bought three excellent wood dressers and some really nice dinnerware from the same store. About to head there again next week after I move. Hope to get some nice plates and a nightstand.

One more thing:

"Government should not be big brother in telling somebody how to spend their (79) dollars," she said.

Fuck you. It isn't "their" dollars. It's the taxpayer dollars that we're GIVING to you, you ungrateful bitch. If I give you money, I have every right to stipulate how you spend it; if you don't like that, don't take my money.

"It's the taxpayer dollars that we're GIVING to you, you ungrateful bitch. If I give you money, I have every right to stipulate how you spend it; if you don't like that, don't take my money."

Seriously? Foster kids are ungrateful bitches? That's pretty harsh, given they didn't ask to be born to deadbeats and certainly didn't ask or want to be dependent on people who don't have the bond of love with them that blood or adoptive parents (usually) do.

Even libertarians tend to agree that society has an obligation to provide for children who obviously can't earn or care for themselves.

I'm going to assume you simply didn't bother to read the actual post-at least enough to get the details-before going off on your self-righteous angryman rant.

Everone has missed on thing, remember a few months back when congress passed the "everything sold to kids has to be tested for containiants" law?

Can goodwill even sell kids clothing anymore? Also if teh 3 dollar short has to be tested a a few hunndered dollars a pop rot the cloth, and the threa, and the buttons, wel wont that $3 shirt jump in price to $303? Goodwills gonna get real expensive

"It would be nice if the government could stop treating folks like big brother. That can happen just as soon as the folks stop acting like the government is their daddy."

"It isn't "their" dollars. It's the taxpayer dollars that we're GIVING to you, you ungrateful bitch. If I give you money, I have every right to stipulate how you spend it; if you don't like that, don't take my money."

What the fucking hell, people? Is there anyone in desperate enough circumstances who you deem worthy of your precious tax dollars? You probably believe that foster parents should pay for all expenses out of their own pockets. That would be just great - then only a handful of true good samaritans would ever take in foster children. I swear to God if being a fiscal conservative means being that big of a heartless penny-pinching asshole then I'd almost rather join the left.

It would be also good it there are more
self help generous community that may be able to
help its own community orphans via other ways, such as recruitng fashion designers who may be able to volunteer their time to sew clothes or design clothes for orphans instead of depending on problematic cash handouts.

Someone just got annoyed with the notion that "thrift stores sell rags". But, well, they do sell rags...not *just* rags, of course, but many thrift stores put enough raggedy and inappropriate clothes on their wildly disorganized shelves that looking for a good pair of pants that will fit your kid can take all day and sometimes cost as much as a twenty-minute trip to Wal-Mart or Target.

That's not to say that thrift store shopping isn't great or doesn't save money. I'm in my local Thrift Town (which benefits worthy causes like ARC of Texas and the Medina Children's Home) pretty regularly. And I find decent business-casual clothes for myself there, and nice, like-new dresses for my girls to wear on special occasions (a little girl's dress that would've been $16-30 new is generally $4-8 and has often been worn only once or twice and not played in), costumes, and coats (around here, you need a coat maybe two weeks out of the year, so kids' coats are outgrown before they can get much wear) books and DVDs and toys. But, I almost never find (1) jeans for my sons who live in denim (2)shoes in decent enough shape for my kids to wear to school (3) socks and underwear (though occasionally you do find packages that are either unopened or open with one pair taken out and the remaining ones fairly obviously untouched) and the play-clothes I do find are not worth the hunt because, again, Wal-Mart's brand new Garanimals are the exact same price. I go to Thrift Town or Goodwill with a goal---to find dresses or coats or whatever it is I happen to need right then---and plan to spend a few hours sifting. If I stumble across some cute school or play clothes while I'm looking for my "goal" I might get them, and I usually have a pretty good time, but there is no way I would deliberately spend all day looking for just the basics. I don't think that the "working poor" moms or foster parents are likely to do much of that, either...the vouchers will often flat out go to waste and thus not help employ people or help foster/poor kids much at all.

momof4 * KarenW,

Yes. If they take my money. I can tell them what to do. That's all I said. I didn't say don't give it; I said we can stipulate how it's used. What is wrong with holding people accountable for how they use tax dollars?

To turn it around on you; are you advocating that we should just throw as much money as possible at every needy person who asks? Don't bother counting. Don't bother limiting what it's spent on. Just give it away. If you get food stamps, you can spend it on booze, cigarettes, whatever you want. Should foster families get cash and just spend it on anything they choose?

Oh wait, that's not a hypothetical, that's what our federal government is doing right now. So, what happens when that money runs out? Who gets helped now?

Are you so generous with your money in your own personal lives? Do you just hand out all your spare money and then borrow 30% and hand that out as well? When you end up in the bread line, exactly how many people are you helping then?

Joe, you're missing the point. It's one thing to say "no handouts"---it's kind of dickish when we're talking about children, but, whatever, you can make a point about it enabling the parents, I guess*. It's something else entirely to insist that the money that is handed out comes with ridiculous restrictions and is therefore less efficient. If money is handed out, it needs to be done so in a way that is actually productive. Requiring that the vouchers be spent at thrift stores really doesn't serve any purpose except to make life even more difficult. Do you really want fostering a child to be even more difficult?

*except, a good portion of these kids don't even have parents; they have foster parents, who are getting paid one way or another, anyway...

It is better for the voucher to go to waste than donated money to fall on the jihadis or unscrupulous criminals.

Joe, why are you lumping foster parents together with welfare people? What they are getting is not a handout - it is compensation for a job, which happens to be full time childcare. It might seem like foster parenting is done out of the kindness of one's heart, but there would be very few foster parents if that was the case. Personally, I do not think that $20,000 a year, not including actual expenses, is unreasonable for a full time job. When I get paid, my boss does not get to tell me how to spend the money - she only gets to insist that I do my job properly. That's why foster parents are closely monitored to make sure they are really taking care of the kids, not just blowing the money. By the way, I'm sure plenty of foster parents do put their own money into the kid's expenses. If they want to exceed the $80 per month clothing budget, then fine, they can use their own money to do so. But to tell them that they have to shop at Goodwill or whatever is unreasonable. Even people on food stamps get to pick thier own grocery store.

Even people on food stamps get to pick thier own grocery store.

Posted by: KarenW

Yep, in Az gas stations are now excepting food stamps - now welfare recipeints can buy potato chips, twinkies and hot dogs at 3 times the price of the local grocery store,

of course soon enough they'll be needing a monthly check 3 times larger,

but I'm sure you wont mind that with your increases taxes your kids wont ever see a moive in a theater again or be able to save enough for a good school, after all, isnt the unhindered shoping choices of people too stupid to make sound finacial decision more important then the happiness and future of your kids?

Foster parents and foster kids don't get cash, they get voucher which are only good at certain stores. They can't spend the $$ just any old place.
So why not 2nd hand stores? They can buy socks and underwear at CVS.

Joe, why are you lumping foster parents together with welfare people?

Because both are government programs prone to fraud, waste and abuse. I'll add in unemployment and disability as two more. They have restrictions and probably should heave even more (and I've been on unemployment.) Again, these programs are valuable, but with the budget overruns, choices have to be made and costs reduced.

When raising my children, we've had to seriously scrimp. We've shopped at thrift stores, took hand-me-downs from neighbors and made do with what we had. Where is the shame in that? Apparently, quite a bit. (We spent less than $80 a month per child on clothes, which leaves me wondering where these amounts came from. No doubt from the same minds who came up with the child support schedules.)

An above comment hit the nail on the head. Where are you going to shop when the government takes all your money to make up for their largess? Are you going to be so sympathetic when you have $30 to spend on clothes while the foster kid down the street has $80?

It's really easy to be generous with other people's money.

This one really burned me up when I caught the news. It's meddlesome. Maybe I buy things at Goodwill, but I don't need the government telling me I have to.

Of course foster parents should be required to adhere to a budget. They are now, unless they choose to spend their own money, like my mother did. But it's absolutely fucking retarded to stipulate that parents need to shop at thrift stores, since thrift stores are not necessarily the best places to find cheap clothes. These kinds of rules cost more money, because they have to be enforced somehow, they aren't saving anyone any money. Thrift stores in NYC are stupid expensive. When I want cheap, I go to Kmart and Wal-Mart.

Then you have to consider that foster parents might have to spend more in gas to get to a thrift store when they might have just bought all the family's clothes at the same place. I wonder if they're going to insist on being reimbursed for gas costs.

Goodwill or Salvation Army take some serious searchage.

That's another good point. If I go to Wal-Mart, I know they'll have jeans for a taller-than-average 10-year-old. At the Goodwill, maybe not. And it'll take a while to find them.

As someone who has worked in a foster care agency, I can tell you that the children I see in it are some of the absolute most miserable people I have ever seen. First... they are taken away from their birth parents, for whatever reason. In most cases of parents, a bond is formed between the parent and child, and breaking that bond severely traumatizes the child. The children fall into listlessness and either give up, or spend every waking moment trying to get back with their birth parents. Mental retardation, falling back in grades, acting out, and violence are very common. It's also common for foster children to end up in jail.

Even if a birth parent is lazy, neglectful, or even physically abusive, the child is still going to remember that one time they went to the park to play on the swings, and their dad laughed and laughed as they sailed higher and higher. It's even worse if they have siblings and are split up from them, which happens a lot in the system.

Some of the horror stories I could tell would make your hair curl. There was a 9-year-old kid that had a bad habit of stealing cars. On his record he had stolen twelve cars, and was finally taken from the foster house when he stole the foster parent's car and drove it to a park and ran it into a pond. He got put in a shelter.

The system is open to a lot of abuse, but not by the foster parents. The foster parents have to file a phone book's worth of paperwork and go through extensive background checks, including being fingerprinted and going through a ten-week course.

Where's the abuse, then? In the administration. For every 8 or so foster children, there's one person with a "full-time" salaried $30,000-$40,000 job that they actually only spend an average of maybe 10-15 hours a week doing, sometimes less. Those visits they're supposed to get? Happen maybe once a month, or if the worker is really lazy, once a quarter. There's very little actual supervision. I had one of the foster care agents flat out tell me that she had a second full-time job and "couldn't be bothered with this paperwork". Another worker actually had the balls to run a small mortgage company from his office at the foster care agency. And this was a foster care agency with a multi-million dollar yearly budget, all courtesy of the tax payers.

Being a foster child is utterly wretched, and we don't need to make their lives any more miserable than they already are. If we want to make the system better, we'd cut out some of the waste at the top of it.

Foster parents should spend their own money or have their own resources and not be paid if they wish to be a foster parent.

WLIL-part of living in a society-of ANY kind throughout history-is that orphans and the like are cared for at the expense of the rest of us. Not always well cared for, but cared for. So I'm guessing you are an anarchist. Good for you and all for having an opinion, but it's not a common viewpoint and you all shan't be getting your way. In fact most of us would say tis better for society to get rid of you all, than stop funding care for foster children. At least they have the potential to accomplish something with their life.

You're kidding, right, WLIL? What exactly do we, as a society, do with the kids who are not safe with the bio-parents (and typically, all of the bio-parents' dysfunctional family) in your world of unpaid foster parents?

momof4, it is nothing to do with anarchist as you misleadingly try to imply. Of course, people can voluntarily share the espenses of caring for any orphans if they so wish but they should not impose on any unwilling taxpayers or poor taxpayers or unemployed struggling without in a dysfunctional society.
Of course, everyone should have the opportuniy to accomplish something with their life.
Society should have a volunteer spirit and have a free will to do what is best for their society or individuals or their orphans and should avoid pandering to any totalitarian idoelogy or totalitarin culture even if it appear to be kind.

Sometimes, I do feel like an orphan too in a dysfunctional unhelpful selfish asian society, where many rich people are abusive and unwilling to help in any meaningful ways.

momof4, another thing is no one is stopping you or any society from funding any orphans. Fostering a kid is a big responsibilty and money should not be the main issue.

"Fostering a kid is a big responsibility and money should not be the main issue." Also, unicorns should give everyone free rides to work and school, thus solving the problem of high fuel prices. Really, while we're at it, foster kids shouldn't even exist, because people who are going to neglect and abuse their kids oughtn't have any...but, foster kids do exist, and in quite a larger number than foster parents. The fact is that money is, whether we like or not, one of the main issues. Kids cost money, as well and time and love and patience. If you think that an army of unpaid foster parents is the way to go, I suggest you join those ranks and try to pay your bills with volunteer spirit.

Just FYI, unless the foster parent is blatantly abusing the system by taking in 14 kids and not adequately taking care of them, the compensation offered by the state isn't going to cover what taking care of the foster child costs. The exception is intensive needs children, because taking care of them is a full time job in and of itself.

No, money is not the main issue. Having the right attitude towards parenting is more important towards a child positive development, whether the child is an orphan or not. Most of the time money is just a crutch for poor parenting. Good parenting means being able to economise and to make do with what little one have and still able to provide for a child wellbeing without being abusive. Either way, most child should have the initiative, given the right direction, to grow up to be a well adjusted adults even if they have to grow up with little or with almost no financial assistance.
Blame the high fuel process on those bloated middle east and not on those disadvantaged people who canot afford a car or petrol..

And, by the way, voluntering is only for those who wish to or who can afford to.
Bearing in mind that many people need to fend for themselves with limited resources, it is up to individuals to prioritise who they have in common with or who they may be able to assist out of their own free will and not because some imposing groups or authoritarian government tell them to.

"Also, unicorns should give everyone free rides to work and school.."

Oh yeah? Well, what if they're "dysfunctional unhelpful selfish asian" unicorns?

I rest my case.