logo
Foster care agencies in Pennsylvania took millions owed to kids in their care, often keeping them in the dark

Foster care agencies in Pennsylvania took millions owed to kids in their care, often keeping them in the dark

Yahoo03-04-2025

Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters.
Counties across Pennsylvania are taking millions of dollars in Social Security benefits owed to kids in foster care, a practice some child advocates equate to stealing.
These local agencies contend the practice is allowed under law and needed to offset the cost of care. But it's often done without a child's knowledge and how some counties use the money is unclear.
'This money belongs to these kids,' said state Rep. Rick Krajewski (D., Philadelphia,) who last year introduced a bipartisan bill with Rep. Sheryl Delozier (R., Cumberland) that would tighten regulations on how counties can use the money.
When a child is owed Social Security benefits, federal rules mandate the money goes to their designated guardian to help support the kid's care, or into a savings account they receive when they turn 18. But if the child is in foster care, child welfare agencies often take the money without telling them or their advocate.
Since 2020, at least 1,300 children in Pennsylvania have had money taken from them this way, to the tune of at least $15.7 million, according to a Resolve Philly and Spotlight PA analysis of four years of data obtained from 47 counties.
The statewide total could be considerably higher, as varying recordkeeping and public disclosure practices make it difficult for data obtained from the other 20 counties to be analyzed. The benefits can add up to thousands of dollars per child — money that, once they age out of foster care, could ease that transition by paying for groceries, rent, tuition, or medical treatment.
'No other group is being forced to pay their own way like this,' said U.S. Rep. Danny Davis, (D., Ill.), who has proposed a bill that would end the practice nationwide. 'And this is a vulnerable population that would find a little nest egg like this life-changing.'
The Resolve Philly and Spotlight PA investigation also found:
Nearly every county in the state took Social Security money intended for children in their care.
More than a quarter of the agencies did not prove the money they received for specific children was actually spent on those kids.
Only five counties in the state proved they directly notified foster care youth or their families that the county was taking the money.
Across the country, efforts to stop foster care agencies from spending all the money before kids can use it themselves are gaining momentum. Arizona, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington, D.C., all have made changes in recent years to limit or end the practice.
Local government agencies, however, argue they need the money to compensate themselves for the cost of room, board, and other services they are required to provide as foster care agencies. At least one Pennsylvania lawmaker has expressed concern about creating a 'windfall' for kids when they age out of the system.
In Philadelphia, the city's Department of Human Services says it now sends letters to notify children's advocates that the county plans to take their Social Security benefits, following a Resolve Philly and Philadelphia Inquirer report that prompted a new law from the city council in 2022.
In response to questions and findings from Spotlight PA and Resolve Philly, a spokesperson for the federal Social Security Administration (SSA) said that the agency follows a process to 'ensure a payee is suitable.' The SSA did not have readily available data on how many Pennsylvania counties send in the required reports about how they use the money.
Under federal law, states must pay for foster care services, which are typically funded by a mix of state, local, and federal dollars. Children are not required to reimburse these agencies for their time in foster care.
But state and county child welfare systems nationwide and throughout Pennsylvania routinely take children's Social Security money to offset costs.
Kids can be eligible for Social Security benefits for two reasons: their own disability or financial need, or if a parent or guardian has paid enough money into Social Security before retiring, becoming disabled, or dying.
This 'survivors' money, as it's usually called, legally belongs to the child and is intended to help them when a parent or guardian can no longer provide for them, according to the SSA. However, until they turn 18 and can manage their own finances, the federal agency sends the money to what it calls a legal 'representative payee.'
The SSA allows foster care agencies to use that money to pay for monthly 'maintenance' and any unmet needs, then requires whatever remains to be set aside.
Child advocates argue federal law places the cost of this care on states, and also point to a 2003 federal court decision that ruled children in foster care owe no debt for the services they receive.
According to an expert familiar with the process, Pennsylvania, foster care agencies typically screen children's records to find those who are eligible for Social Security benefits and then apply to become that payee.
Such financial representatives are legally required to act in the best interests of the children, and to pay for any unmet needs of food, shelter, medical care, and comfort.
The SSA's guidelines list family and even close friends as preferred payees for these benefits, with government agencies as a last resort. However, if the agency is listed as a legal guardian in a court order, which is often the case, the agency becomes the first choice to receive a child's benefits.
Even in those cases, the SSA told the newsrooms it tries to find a willing relative or friend if one is available. But the SSA said it often cannot find them. The relatives and guardians that the SSA misses are often unaware the money is available.
The end result?
Nearly 75% of children in foster care who are eligible for these benefits have a child welfare agency chosen to receive the money, according to a November 2024 SSA document.
Advocates have long decried this practice of harvesting money from children, calling it at best a clear conflict of interest.
'How can a representative payee act in a child's best interests by taking money from them for services the government pays for?' said Daniel Hatcher, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law.
From 2020 through 2023, 44 of 47 Pennsylvania agencies reviewed by Resolve Philly and Spotlight PA collected Social Security benefits (and some other benefits) for foster youth. The amount of money received by counties varied widely: in one year, Forest County received $970 — while in a different year — Philadelphia received nearly $1 million.
While local foster care agencies go through the SSA's process to receive these benefits, many had trouble providing details to reporters about how the funds were used.
Almost a quarter of the state's agencies did not provide proof to Resolve Philly and Spotlight PA that they conduct individual accounting of the benefits.
Just four counties — Butler, Clarion, Huntingdon, and Wayne — produced the spending reports they must send to the SSA. These reports outline the total amount of money received and how much was spent on different categories like food and housing.
Other counties, such as Adams and Allegheny, provided other detailed records showing line-item expenses for foster youth like counseling, independent living expenses, and birthday gifts. In response to Resolve Philly and Spotlight PA's findings, an Allegheny County Department of Human Services spokesperson said that 'the vast majority of the funds are used to pay a foster family to care for the child.'
In contrast, Philadelphia's Department of Human Services provided only records of bulk deposits of SSA benefits into the city's $6 billion general fund. The data could not show how many children it collects money for or how it spends those funds.
Via an email sent to reporters in 2023 as part of the initial investigation, a Philadelphia spokesperson said the city's collection of this money is 'lawful' and that it goes toward the cost of care.
If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump hails $1K-per-child ‘Trump Accounts' during White House roundtable
Trump hails $1K-per-child ‘Trump Accounts' during White House roundtable

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Trump hails $1K-per-child ‘Trump Accounts' during White House roundtable

(NEXSTAR) – On Monday, President Trump promoted the so-called 'Trump Accounts' during a roundtable meeting with lawmakers and business leaders, including the CEOs of Dell, Uber and Goldman Sachs, among others. Related video above: Trump and Musk feud continues over 'big, beautiful bill' 'This is a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation,' Trump said at the meeting. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy.' The proposal, part of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' would create tax-deferred investment accounts for infants that start with $1,000 per child. Once the child reaches age 18, they would be able to take out money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. Dell CEO Michael Dell called the proposed accounts a 'simple yet powerful way to transform lives' Monday. Dell and the other assembled CEOs were expected to earmark billions of dollars to be invested in the Trump Accounts for their employees' children. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success,' Dell said, according to the White House. 'With these accounts, children will be much more likely to graduate from college, to start a business, to buy a home, and achieve lifelong financial stability.' In order to qualify for one of the accounts, the child must have at least one parent with a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning that some babies born in the U.S. to immigrant parents might not qualify. The money will be invested in an index fund where it will grow until the child reaches 18 and can withdraw funds to buy a home, pay for education or start a small business. Money spent on other things would be taxed at a higher rate. Families, guardians and private entities will be able to deposit up to $5,000 more per year. While the investment would be symbolically meaningful, it's a relatively small financial commitment to addressing child poverty in the wider $7 trillion federal budget. Assuming a 7% return, the $1,000 would grow to roughly $3,570 over 18 years. It builds on the concept of 'baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. When he dreamed up baby bonds, he envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out

time2 hours ago

Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out

WASHINGTON -- When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create tax-deferred investment accounts — coined 'Trump Accounts' — for babies born in the U.S. over the next four years, starting them each with $1,000. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. 'This is a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation,' Trump said at a White House event Monday for the proposal. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy.' While the investment would be symbolically meaningful, it's a relatively small financial commitment to addressing child poverty in the wider $7 trillion federal budget. Assuming a 7% return, the $1,000 would grow to roughly $3,570 over 18 years. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. At at time when wealth inequality has soured some young people on capitalism, giving them a stake in Wall Street could be the antidote, said Utah Republican Rep. Blake Moore, who led the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them,' Moore wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. When he dreamed up baby bonds, he envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Valdez, a former foster youth, said she was homeless when she turned 18. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at

Why There Is So Much Worry In Public Media That Donald Trump Will Win Fight To Defund NPR, PBS And Local Stations
Why There Is So Much Worry In Public Media That Donald Trump Will Win Fight To Defund NPR, PBS And Local Stations

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Why There Is So Much Worry In Public Media That Donald Trump Will Win Fight To Defund NPR, PBS And Local Stations

The House Rules Committee on Tuesday will take up a so-called 'rescissions' package that includes clawing back nearly $1.1 billion in funding for NPR, PBS and local public broadcasting stations, a move that has raised alarm bells among public media leaders. There's ample reason for worry, especially that sentiment has shifted even among those who once were staunch advocates. More from Deadline Trump Administration Sends Congress Its Proposal To Rescind NPR, PBS And Public Media Station Funding Judge Denies Corporation For Public Broadcasting's Motion In Trump Case, But Ruling Still Allows For Three Board Members To Remain — Update Trump Sending In The Marines As Newsom Sues Over "Illegal Order" To Deploy National Guard In LA Over ICE Protests A case in point is Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Once a solid defender of continued federal funding, Cole last week was far less committal. Asked whether his past support for public media had changed, Cole told Deadline, 'No, but I have an up-and-down vote. So, I mean, there's always going to be things in here that you prefer not be, but they are. And so, again, we are going to look at the package and vote accordingly.' The package also calls for revoking funding for foreign aid programs. Seven years ago, Cole was vocal in his desire to preserve funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes federal funds to public media entities, as the Trump administration sought to zero it out in their budget request. At the time, Cole led the House subcommittee that oversees funding for the CPB. Noting that he was from 'probably the reddest state in the union,' Cole told Variety back then, 'If you look at the range of services it provides, the quality of programming and the points of view it expresses, I just think for the amount of money we are talking about here, and the multiplier effect, it is able to sustain itself. I don't see Congress having the desire [to cut funding] because they reflect the desire of the American people.' At the time, Cole also noted that targeting public broadcasting funding is 'nickel and dime-ing things' in deficit reduction, when the real issue is in reforming entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Public media has survived past efforts to zero out funding. In 2011, House Republicans passed a bill to cut federal funds to NPR, but it died in the Senate. In each of the four years of Trump's first term, his administration sent budgets to the hill that cut all funding to the CPB, but the recommendation went nowhere. But times are different now, as fewer GOP lawmakers are willing to face the potential wrath of going against the president's wishes, in this case a rescissions package initiated by the White House. Trump's proposal to Congress calls for rescinding CPB's entire $535 million allocation in fiscal 2026 and the same amount in fiscal 2027. Congress already approved those amounts with bipartisan support in previous budget cycles. Leaders of the CPB, PBS and NPR warn of 'devastating impact' on member stations in particular, including those in rural areas that rely on a larger share of federal funding for their budgets. While private contributions and corporate support have helped support programming, particularly high-profile series, the worry is that services like emergency communications, early learning programs and local content will be particularly hard hit, with some communities left with news deserts. Friends of OETA, which raises funds and support for the Oklahoma Education Television Authority, is urging Cole and other members of the state's congressional delegation to oppose the rescissions package, calling it 'absolutely the wrong policy tool at the wrong time.' They warned that it would 'throw the PBS system into chaos by reneging on commitments already made and undermining plans already executed,' including workforce development and civics education programming. 'Without CPB funding to local PBS stations, OETA would not be able to operate,' the group said. Advocates also point to public sentiment. A Pew Research Center poll earlier this year showed that 43% of Americans said NPR and PBS should continue to receive federal funding, compared with 24% said that it should be ended, while 33% were not sure. Still, there was a partisan split on the question, with 44% of Republicans saying that funding should be ended, just 19% say it should be continued, and 37% are not sure.. By contrast, 69% of Democrats say it should retained, 5% say it should end and 26% are not sure. A recent YouGov survey gave PBS and NPR high trust scores, above the average for outlets, and that the trust has grown in the past year. That said, the Trump administration's stated reason for rolling back public media funding is that it is 'politically biased and an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer.' Trump earlier signed an executive order directing federal agencies to slash funding to PBS and NPR, something that both outlets are challenging in court. The White House has attacked the two networks as ones that 'spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.'' More recently, some Republicans calling to defund public media have pointed to a Sesame Street X post celebrating Pride month. Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) responded, 'PBS is shamelessly grooming our children while collecting taxpayer dollars. This is evil and should infuriate every parent in America. DEFUND!!' Sesame Street, produced by a separate entity from PBS, recently signed a deal with Netflix to debut new episodes at the same time that they air on PBS. Public media advocates also have invoked Sesame Street characters in the push to retain federal funding. That includes a viral Elmo 'open to work' campaign from a group not affiliated with PBS or Sesame Street. A mock LinkedIn post has Elmo looking for a job, and the message, 'If you hear of any opportunities, or want a hug, let's connect. And if you want to help Elmo and his friends, please urge your local congress person to save Public Media.' There's also a link to the campaign led by advocacy group America's Public Television Stations. The funding battle also has been the source of AI-generated memes that see Muppets looking for work. With Republicans holding a slim 220-212 majority in the House, a handful of holdouts can sink the legislation if all Democrats stay united, as expected. Rep. Don Bacon (R-OK) told the New York Times that he is against the package, given its cuts to foreign aid programs to provide medicine and AIDS prevention. Politico reported Monday that at least 10 moderate Republicans have privately said that they oppose the legislation. Later on Monday, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) joined with Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NV), his fellow co-chair in the Public Media Caucus, in releasing a statement opposing the public broadcasting rescission. 'While we reaffirm that public media must be objective and legitimate concerns about content should be addressed, funding decisions should be objective as well,' they said. In the Senate, where Republicans have a 53-47 majority, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) expressed her support for federal funding in an op-ed last month. But with so much scrutiny over the cost of Trump's separate tax and spend bill, and former No. 1 ally Elon Musk warning it will bankrupt the government, will GOPers look to the rescissions package as a way to prove their fiscal hawkishness? Last week, in an interview with The Hill, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) praised his state's public television entity and recognized its value to rural America, but said that he still intended to support the rescissions package. As one public media advocate said last week, the worry is that no GOP 'hero' has emerged to take on the fight for funding, at a time when so much else is vying for attention. If federal funding is clawed back, there will be plenty of people taking a cue from Elmo to find work via LinkedIn, and this time it will be for real. Best of Deadline A Full Timeline Of Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni's 'It Ends With Us' Feud In Court, Online & In The Media Where To Watch All The 'John Wick' Movies: Streamers That Have All Four Films 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store