From WUNC, an NPR station
To Teresa Casados, who runs the department in charge of child welfare in New Mexico, it seemed like an odd question. At a legislative hearing in July, a lawmaker asked her if the state was taking the Social Security checks of kids in foster care — the checks intended for orphans and disabled children.
"My reaction really was: That can't be right," said Casados, who in the spring took over as acting secretary of New Mexico's Children, Youth & Families Department. "That can't be a practice that we're doing." ...
Casados and her chief legal counsel drove back to the office. "When we got back, we looked into it and found out it was a practice that the agency had for using those benefits — and had been going on for quite some time." ...
[L]ast month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration sent a letter to state and local child welfare agencies to encourage these changes.
The NPR/Marshall Project investigation found that in at least 49 states and the District of Columbia, when young people go into foster care child, welfare agencies routinely look for which ones come with Social Security checks. Or, if the children are eligible, agencies sign them up for benefits. Then state agencies cash those checks — usually without telling the child or their family, the investigation found. ...
Just days after that legislative hearing in New Mexico, Casados says her department "sent out a directive to cease using those funds for care and support." It pledged to start putting aside the Social Security benefits checks for foster children to have when they go back to their families or age out of foster care. ...
12 comments:
Piling up the SSI checks should cause it's own problems. What should be done with the funds?
Well, lets see, at the other end of the age scale, nobody has a problem with SSI aged benefits or RIB being taken for long term care facilities.
Foster care pmts cause SSI to cease. So SSI should not be an issue. T2 Auxiliary or Survivor benefits wouldn’t be subject to the stoppage.
Should the states essentially “reimburse” themselves for the care they provide? I don’t see why not. Is it fair? Most likely not but most things in like aren’t fair.
Personally, I think they should save that money in an account for the child so they have something when they get older. Do I trust the states to administer that type of effort and care…nope!
Foster care does not cause SSI to cease. The state and local child welfare people file SSI claims for them all the time. If the state cannot use SSA benefits for children in their care but should save benefits for their future then the same could be said of the child’s parents or other caretakers
Sorry, I meant to say it DOES cause SSI to cease. My apologies.
T2 children's benefits are to be used for room and board, clothing, etc for the child. If money is left over, it should be saved for future use. If foster care is providing the child's necessities, it's no different than a parent using the money the same way. Unlike the parents, it seems possible that children with very high payments may have no money saved for their future.
Hmm, SSI doesn't cease if the payee spends the money. I would expect children in foster care have more developmental issues due to the instability that led them into the foster care program. We all know SSI is modest at best. Don't you think children have certain needs (physical/mental/academic) that agencies don't provide? Even if not, ABLE accounts could be used to save funds without losing SSI, which would help youth transition out of foster care when they age out.
I think there are obvious concerns when the person managing the money is also paying themselves for services rendered, but ultimately that would be addressed through oversight. I do not see why as a concept, state agencies wouldn't be allowed to reimburse themselves. But not giving notice to the child or their family seems wrong. In a guardianship/conservatorship, notice has to be given to any interested parties, accountings are required, etc. Not sure why states shouldn't be obligated to do that bare minimum.
This has been done for decades. I worked in the foster care system in the 1990s. The state would apply for SSI and the money was used by the state to offset the cost of care. The state typically spends much more than the max SSI benefit for a child in foster care. Many, if not most, SSI parents use the money to pay rent, buy groceries and pay other household expenses. What's the difference? Some of these children will be returned to their parents and the benefits will then go to the parent unless there is another rep payee. What do you think the parents are going to do with the money? If the money was saved while the child was in care, should it be given to the parents to spend as they like when the child returns? The taxpayers paid for their child's care for months or years and then they would be handed a big chunk of more taxpayer funds. Does that make sense? During the time the child is in foster care, the state is the child's parent. It's perfectly reasonable for states to use this money for the child's care just as a parent would.
My question is what is the treatment of any non-governmental payments? Say an insurance payout, child support, residuals from work done as a child actor (you get the drift...). If it's state policy that any and all income or payments due to a child in foster care are subsumed to the state to pay for the care, well, OK. But only if it's attaching everything. If the concept is reimbursing the state for doing its job, then it should apply equally and theoretically, anything in excess of what the state pays paid back.
If a child gets welfare (cash) in Ohio, the state keeps the child support. You don’t get both.
If the child gets SSI, they go into foster care system, the SSI is offset by the Title IVE Adoption Assistance. The state does not keep the SSI because it isn’t payable.
In many states, the guardian of a disabled child can open a STABLE account, which is a means to save money for the disabled individual without hurting eligibility for other programs, such as SSID or Medicaid. If a kid is in foster care, their checks should go to a STABLE account and be held until the child is 18.
It has always bothered me that parents can file disability claims for their children and then not use the funds for medical costs, counseling, tutoring, or what ever specific needs the child has. It concerns me more that a parent could potentially continue to draw the checks while the kid is in foster care.
Post a Comment