From an op ed by Daniel Hatcher in the Baltimore Sun:
Our state foster care agencies [in Maryland] are apparently so underfunded that they are taking resources from abused and neglected children. The agencies are taking control over foster children's Social Security benefits (when the children are disabled or have deceased parents) and using the children's funds to repay foster care costs. In other words, Maryland is requiring the children to pay for their own care. ...
It's almost out of a Charles Dickens novel — forcing orphaned and disabled foster children to pay for their own care. Other states have engaged in this practice regarding Social Security benefits, but the fact that other states may be engaged in bad policies does not make it OK for Maryland. ...
There's more: Maryland hired a private company last year — Maximus, Inc. — to provide an assessment for how the state can obtain more resources from foster children and, according to Maximus' report, "maximize revenue gain"; the report describes foster children as a "revenue generating mechanism." The Maryland Department of Human Resources contracted with Maximums despite litigation regarding the practice and a finding by the Maryland Court of Appeals that the agency violated foster children's due process rights by providing no notice to the children or their lawyers. Maryland foster care agencies are significantly underfunded. But taking resources from the very children the agencies exist to serve is not the answer. ...
Maximus is a major contractor for the Social Security Administration. They also represent claimants before Social Security. They've just gotten a contract to do disability determinations for the social security system in the United Kingdom! Did I miss anything?
States are doing this with UI; public housing makes one kick in more money for rent if one receives disability benefits, and STD/LTD carriers (I know those are private) require repayment of benefits if SS benefits are received for periods during which STD/LTD benefits were paid.
ReplyDeleteNot that I agree with it, but it seems to fit neatly within the framework of how things work.
@12:50 - The problem is that it's all kinds of wrong to view foster children as a "revenue-generating mechanism."
ReplyDeleteI am very confused about the intent of this op ed. When did it become wrong to expect people to first use their own income and resources to provide for their needs? When did it become wrong to repay the help you get from others when you need that help to get over rough times?
ReplyDeleteSince Social Security children's benefits are the property of the children, I wonder how the States are accounting to SSA for the use of that money. In effect, the children are being required to pay for their own care. This may be good policy in the short run but then when the children turn age 18, many states pass them out of the foster care system and the children have no resources and no family.
ReplyDeleteThere's an important difference between offsetting a benefit and taking control of Social Security benefits. There's a HUGE conflict of interest once the State or Maximus takes control of a child's SSI or SSD benefits, since their goal is to maximize their own revenue. What happens, then, to the best interests of the child when it conflicts with the state revenue goals? Would you want a money hungry agency or private contractor handling your kids' benefits?
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty more concerns. What if Maximus or the state screws up and creates overpayments? Do you expect the underfunded and understaffed state agency and Maximus to correctly do all the SSI reporting? Not going to happen. The beneficiary is in no position to detect any mistakes or malpractice in handling their benefits as the state or their hirelings would control everything. The state may make itself immune to lawsuits for mishandling the benefits, removing that incentive for them to do a good job.
Given the direct financial conflict of interest, its awful that the state or its contractor (Maximus) can take over like that without notice. It needs to stop.
If a parent or private guardian receives these funds for a child they are responsible for and uses the money to buy food, clothing, shelter and pay for other debts/expenses for the child, that is OK. However if a government or other type of agency receives these funds for a child they are responsible for and tries to do the same, that is "stealing" from the child? When did the USA transition to the concept that the government (i.e. taxpayer) is the first payer for the basic (and increasingly non-basic) needs of a certain segment of the population?
ReplyDelete@2:46
ReplyDeleteConsider a practical example. What if the kid needs something for his/her disability that is not covered by Medicaid, and needs to use his SSI or SSD benefits to purchase it. This happens often.
Enter the state agency or its private contractor (e.g. Maximus) which has complete control over the child's SSI/SSD. They have a strong financial incentive to pay themselves for "services rendered," first, instead of using the funds for what the child needs. What oversight is there over this conflict of interest? SSA does not have the staff to monitor more than a small percentage of such cases. That makes it open season on this population, which is vulnerable and easy to exploit.
@ 9:24...I agree, that would be a bad situation. HOwever, is there any evidence that it is happening? Until then, using SSI funds to pay for food, clothing and shelter (which is what the parents would use it for) seems about right.
ReplyDeleteThis "octopus," meaning the connections between SSD/SSI and a host of other programs and interests, gives me hope that drastic and overly damaging cuts to the program may be averted.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe scenario in the good old days was the State held the SSA funds for years. Then upon turning 18 the child received a significant lump sum payment. The money then usually went to buy a sports car.
I find it reasonable for the State and the taxpayer to recoup funds it spent to provide the child with food and shelter.
"are there no workhouses?" (sorry, I just had to).
ReplyDeleteThere should be!
Delete