The creation of state run "orphanages" to house children of at risk families. Read opening argument

Greylance, First let me say how much I appreciate the creativity in your argument. I think it is a very goal-oriented idea that may have some credibility in part. However, I think the proposal is flawed for several reasons. You primary comparison is your experience at Boys State in Virginia. From my understanding, most Boys State programs are alike, in that they allow the participants to form their own "Government." You do point out very clearly the first problem with this comparison. Boys State was comprised of a group of selectively chosen individuals that have high aptitudes for leadership. At-Risk kids, in general, do not show those same aptitudes. Not of their own fault, of course, but because the system they grew up in often did not nurture a responsibility-oriented lifestyle. Second, remember that your experience of Boys State in Virginia may be very different from the experience of other participants. Many may not have enjoyed the idea of running for office or voting for their peers. Several may have even seen it as a simple joke. It's difficult to compare based on experience. Also, think of the difficulties in controlling a 'society' of only children that come from broken homes. As you signified, in this debate we are talking not about children that come from broken homes but whose families still have the monetary and social resources to give the kids good lives, but those that come from largely impoverished and under served areas of society. Many of these children will have seen gang organizations run their neighborhoods. Many know stories of friends or loved ones who are involved in drugs, crime, prostitution, etc. Therefore, putting all these influences together and then allowing the kids themselves to form a government, albeit supervised, is inherently dangerous. Finally, remember that perhaps the most influential people in a child's life are his or her parents. By taking kids away from parents, you guarantee that children will lack even the opportunity of having a significant parental figure in their lives. This alone can have drastic consequences on the social skills of these kids. (Of course, if the parents give up the kid anyway, we end up with that situation anyway... but I will address that in a moment. Of course, all these arguments must ultimately be contrasted with our current system, and other possible solutions. If a parent, or set of parents, is deemed unfit to care for a child, the status quo does what it can to place the child in a foster home, where loving and caring parents can look after the children in a home-based environment. The legal ramifications of placing these kids in a self-governed orphanage present a whole new layer to the difficulties we already have in this area. Perhaps the better choice would be to expand access single parents to education and resources to care for their children in better ways. Perhaps new networks of childcare and workforce resources need to be sought out. I think ultimately we just realize that setting up a Boys State-esque children's camp is not feasible, nor would it be truly efficient. Again Greylance, thanks for this topic. I look forward to the later rounds and I hope that no matter who wins, the people reading this will be challenged to think of new, innovative ideas to save our at-risk youth from the vicious cycle many find themselves in.