From National Public Radio:
... Roughly 10% of foster youth in the U.S. are entitled to Social Security benefits, either because their parents have died or because they have a physical or mental disability that would leave them in poverty without financial help. This money — typically more than $700 per month, though survivor benefits vary — is considered their property under federal law.
The Marshall Project and NPR have found that in at least 36 states and Washington, D.C., state foster care agencies comb through their case files to find kids entitled to these benefits, then apply to Social Security to become each child's financial representative, a process permitted by federal regulations. Once approved, the agencies take the money, almost always without notifying the children, their loved ones or lawyers.
At least 10 state foster care agencies hire for-profit companies to obtain millions of dollars in Social Security benefits intended for the most vulnerable children in state care each year, according to a review of hundreds of pages of contract documents. A private firm that Alaska used while Hunter was in state care referred to acquiring benefits from people with disabilities as "a major line of business" in company records. ...
In a Marshall Project/NPR survey of all 50 state child services agencies, most pointed out that it is legal for them to apply to the Social Security Administration to become the financial representative for foster children's benefits — though federal regulations state that a parent, foster parent, relative or family friend is preferred. Almost all said they take kids' money as reimbursement for the cost of foster care, putting the funds in individual accounts to recoup what the state has paid for each child's room and board. ...
The state of Alaska is currently facing a landmark class action lawsuit over this practice that may reach the state Supreme Court later this year. ...
In the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case Washington State v. Keffeler, 39 state attorneys general argued that losing foster children's survivor and disability benefits could potentially cost state governments billions of dollars for years.
Daniel L. Hatcher, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and a leading expert on this practice, said it invites a larger question about the role of government. "I think sometimes these officials are so in the weeds of getting funding however they can, they don't even realize that this is not just another funding stream — this is literally children's own money," Hatcher said. "This is about whether we're going to use abused and neglected children's own money to pay for what we're supposed to be providing them as a society." ,,,
2 comments:
I can see both sides of this issue. I worked for these agencies in 2 different states - the first as a caseworker and the other as an attorney. I don't know about the first, but I believe the 2nd would put the money in an account and pay the foster parents $500 a month for foster care (yes, that is ridiculously low and that state should be ashamed) and then pay for any other direct expenses for the child and the rest remained in the account for the child. If the child was with the parent, the parent would be able to use that money to pay for the child's expenses so, why can't the state use it to offset some of what the taxpayers are spending? The states also apply for SSI for most of the children in care and get a significant amount on that.
On another note, about the only government agencies that are as bad or worse than SSA are the state child welfare agencies.
It would be interesting for SSA to audit a sample of such accounts to determine whether the funds were spent appropriately in the children's best interests, as opposed to the best interests of the agencies. Being a representative payee should impose a fiduciary duty where the child's best interest is put ahead of that of the representative payee.
Post a Comment