3 ms·
Which do you think is cheaper: Involving social services because someone isn't paying for school lunch, which would involve the state either paying foster paren
by vidarh 2y ago
Which do you think is cheaper: Involving social services because someone isn't paying for school lunch, which would involve the state either paying foster parents or providing other costly monitoring, possible court cases, and/or support, or simply covering the cost of school lunches?
- lukan 2y agoSimply covering school lunches, if this would be the decusion here. But that wouldn't solve the problem of negligent parents, only ease things a little bit for children.
- vidarh 2y agoBut "negligent" isn't a binary, and it's not just parents who don't want to, but parents who can't afford to. For a lot of children, easing things a little bit might be all that is needed. For others it might ease things enough that it can be part of a set of relatively light interventions. For those who genuinely need more heavy handed interventions, it's not a solution, but it's also not in any way detrimental.
- lukan 2y agoYeah, but in this concrete case we are talking about someone whose parents could have afford it, but didn't to teach the state a lesson or something, but all they(or he) did was made life hell for their son. That is a serious parent fault and someone acting like this here, would likely also act weird with other things. But like I stated, I am not a fan of child protection service, they can make things worse. And if school is free, so should be lunch for the students. Apparently people assumed I opposed that here?