From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
... Philadelphia’s Department of Human Services ... took in nearly $5 million in children’s Social Security benefits between fiscal years 2016 and 2020 that belonged to hundreds of youth in foster care, according to records obtained by Resolve Philly and The Inquirer through a Right to Know request. Then DHS swept the money into the city’s $5 billion general fund.
Around the country, the practice of DHS agencies taking Social Security benefits from kids to pay for their own foster care is under increasing scrutiny. In Maryland, a 2013 appeals court decision held that agencies violated foster children’s due-process rights when they took their benefits without informing them or their legal representatives. Maryland later enacted a law that mandates, among other things, that foster youth, or their lawyer, receive notice, allowing them an opportunity to claim the money. The law also calls for increasing amounts of their Social Security money to be set aside for them as they approach 18 years old. ...
In response to more than a dozen written questions about its practices, DHS sent a brief response that didn’t address most of the matters asked:
“When SSA appoints DHS as the representative payee, the funding is spent on youth’s daily care, such as food, clothing, and shelter. Philadelphia collects benefits as allowed by law and is open to improving its practice as it relates to this issue. To confirm, it is lawful for DHS to collect survivor’s benefits.” ...
Philadelphia DHS said it has no process in place to provide notice to youth whose money is being collected. ...
Could Social Security reform this with regulations? I don't know but if they can, they should.
7 comments:
I'm not sure I see the problem here. Parents of children getting SSI can and do use the money for the same things: food, clothing, shelter. And, many use the money for other things they shouldn't. I"ve seen some of these parents whose only income are their children's SSI checks and they are being used to support the entire family. Do we need reform there also? If these children are truly disabled, the state is likely paying for medical care and/or psychological treatment just as a parent would have additional expenses for such a child. It seems to me that this would create a double standard if the money for children in foster care was set aside in a trust or something while the money going to children in their parent's care was going to meeting the child's and/or family's needs.
The SSA auxiliary and survivor benefits for children are to go for their housing, food, clothes, entertainment, etc. Unless the child is getting an unusually high benefit, most children cost more to raise than what SSA is paying them. Perhaps foster care agencies could determine the average cost for all of the above necessities for children and if the benefit is higher, set aside the difference for the child or the next representative payee to receive at a later date.
This was a hot issue many years ago with some litigation and POMS changes. I vaguely remember that SSA would no longer automatically appoint the state agency as the payee for foster care children and there may even be a preference for other potential payees.
I think the problem is that the children aren't even aware they are entitled.
Most of these are probably not receiving SSI before they come into care. Many, many years ago, I worked for CPS and they applied for benefits for the children in care. I recall that I had 2 on my caseload. One was a toddler with severe allergies, asthma, etc. The foster parents had to remove all the carpet from their house (this was in the 90s when it was more popular). The other was an 11 year old that was just a mean kid (oppositional defiant.). The 11 year old get benefits but the toddler was denied. I knew then the system didn't make any sense.
This was an issue at a local office where the county FHS would be applying to be paying for any child that they placed. We were eventually told, not per POMS but from above, that incomplete payee apps would not be approved if they would not disclose who had physical custody of the child in question.
The FHS called wanting to know what was up and when it was explained, their coordinator was upset because "it is our money and you are reimbursing us." That was a hard no from then on. Unclear if this was a change that 12:40pm post mentions. Frankly, it was long overdue because the moment the child left custody, FHS never told where the kid went and we were left with many in payment suspense status.
I have worked to help dependent children in Arizona and California since the 1990s. If this is true, then it is despicable. There is a special place in hell for people around the Holidays who either:
1. Take packages off a home's porch. Which has happened to me recently.
2. Take money from foster youth.
Post a Comment