Basically none, and that is the point. There is a error in thought among many of those who support the Democratic Party. They think that the federal government can solve or even make a serious dent in many of our social problems. As I pointed out in one of my responses to
@7437, Philadelphia spends about $30,000 per pupil per year on "education". How much more should the city spend on "education" before we can expect that kind of nonsense to stop?
Mr. 7437 also mentioned the idea of funding more after-school programs. The kids raided the Walgreens at 10 PM. Unless we want schools to lock kids in at night, that wouldn't work. Sure, incarcerating the student population in "after school programs" that run through the night would prevent the crime. The irony is that the logic here mirrors the "get the criminals off the streets" legislation (e.g. 1994 crime bill) that Mr. 7437 would tend to oppose.
You mentioned mentor programs. Ok, but a "mentor" in this context is just an ersatz father. How many of these hired "mentors" can really substitute for a loving father? How much should we pay them, and from where should we source them (i.e., who is qualified to be a "mentor")?
The solution to the group of 60 inner city Philadelphia kids raiding Walgreens is loving fathers in the home. What kind of parents let their kids run freely at 10 PM? Not parents who love them. I'd risk a large supper that less than 30% of the kids in the raid come from two-parent homes.
How do we get fathers back into the homes? Fight the MSM's glorification of social decay. Most single mothers are not heroines but are just dummies. Go back to the era of shaming males for engaging in evil by fleeing their obligations to their children. Talking about your "baby mama" should be grounds for ridicule and shaming. Along with the stick comes the carrot. Praise and elevate real men who stick by their childrens' mothers and fight for their kids. It's a social issue, not a policy issue.
