Resolve Philly/Spotlight PA investigation reveals how Pennsylvania welfare agencies take money owed to foster kids
A new investigation published by Resolve Philly and Spotlight PA examines how counties in Pennsylvania are taking Social Security money intended for children in foster care, a controversial practice that has drawn criticism from lawmakers and child advocates.
Child welfare agencies have defended the practice, arguing that it’s allowed under the law and a necessary way to cover costs. But as Resolve Philly journalists Julie Christie and Steve Volk reported, “it’s often done without a child’s knowledge and how some counties use the money is unclear.”
The investigation is based on data from 47 counties in Pennsylvania. After analyzing the records, Christie and Volk found that child welfare agencies took nearly $16 million from at least 1,300 kids over a recent four-year period. “The benefits can add up to thousands of dollars per child,” they reported, “money that, once they age out of foster care, could ease that transition by paying for groceries, rent, tuition, or medical treatment.”
The statewide investigation, which follows an earlier Resolve Philly and Philadelphia Inquirer story focused on Philadelphia, involved a lengthy, painstaking reporting process. Christie and Volk spent more than a year requesting records from child welfare agencies in all 67 counties across Pennsylvania. Many agencies initially denied their public records requests, forcing the journalists to appeal to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records and go through a mediation process to get the data they needed.
In Lackawanna County, the government actually took Volk and Resolve Philly to court to shield records from the public. With free legal support from Paula Knudsen Burke, the Pennsylvania Local Legal Initiative attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Volk and Resolve Philly ultimately obtained the records after reaching a settlement with the county.
In an interview with the Reporters Committee, Volk discussed how the investigation came together, why the practice of diverting Social Security money is so concerning, and what it means for journalists like him to be able to turn to RCFP attorneys for free legal support.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.
What finding from this investigation surprised you the most?
Honestly, the fundamental revelation that this has been going on at all for all these years still remains kind of the most compelling part of this. It just doesn’t make any sense from jump street to do it this way. And the due process part of it, the fact that [the foster kids] never know, is just super alarming. [The welfare agencies] are supposed to serve as the surrogate parent. What surrogate parent sends the money somewhere else, or sweeps it into the general fund?
Could you talk about the significance of these funds to foster care children versus their significance to the government?
It’s less than 1% of the budget for virtually any foster care agency, sometimes much less than 1%, and it’s the difference between living in the street for some of these young people, or having a roof over their head. So that’s really pretty profound. You know, between eating or not eating three meals a day. And when I look at it in those terms, you know how much more impactful it is for the kids involved.
When you think of the investment strategy here, if [kids in foster care] have this nest egg, then we’re not using social services and things to support the problems that they might face if they didn’t have this money to build on. So to me, it works from both ends of the spectrum. If your sole concern is the government’s budget, you should let these kids keep their own money. And if your sole concern is the future of these young people, they should keep the money.
Reporting a statewide investigation like this is no small task. Could you describe what that process was like for you and Christie?
It was incredibly tedious and maddening, but there was something really powerful about it, too. We were able to marshal this and then really learn something about how bureaucracies respond to requests like this.
Some counties would say they don’t have responsive records and we would appeal for mediation. And when we would attend them, virtually all counties that resisted on some level at first it turned out weren’t sure how to respond because no one had ever asked for that information before.
It was a lesson in like, these are human beings on the other end who are doing the best they can, and they needed direction. And we needed to be dogged and not take that initial no for an answer, right? It got to a point where we were able to say to counties when they were resisting: “You know, we filed this request so far with 38 counties. Twenty-five immediately sent records.”
In Lackawanna County, the government took you to court to block you from accessing these records. After teaming up with Burke and the Reporters Committee, how confident were you that you would be able to get the records you needed?
From my perspective, [the county’s] rejection of the request looked completely baseless on its face, because they were saying that these were private documents that would reveal people’s identities. But in our very request we’ve been very specific that we don’t want people’s identities. Redact all of that information.
When we got their rejection, Julie and I were joking about it, because it was like, why don’t we just send them a magic marker? Because all they have to do is redact the information just like we asked them to. That, obviously, is not a good legal response.
[With Burke’s support], I was so confident that we were gonna win this thing. Paula basically just filed a “what are you talking about?” kind of response. And the next thing you know, [Burke and attorneys for the county] were having a meeting of some kind, and then she was back in touch, saying, “Okay, we’re getting the stuff.”
What was it like working with Burke?
She was a journalist who segued into law, and so she understands this so well. She really understands what I’m up against and what I’m doing, and what Julie’s doing, and I just feel so confident. When I’ve got Paula involved in something, I know it’s gonna be okay. I know it’s going to work out.
What does it mean to be able to access legal support from Reporters Committee attorneys at no cost to you or your newsroom?
It’s the difference between getting legal support and not getting legal support. Our budgets are what they are, and there are things that we might have to leave alone if we didn’t have the legal support. So it’s the difference between doing [the investigation] and not doing it. It’s about as big a difference as you can get.
Read the full Resolve Philly/Spotlight PA investigation, and learn more about the reporting behind it.