What kind of a lowlife would steal from orphans and kids with disabilities? Sadly, the answer is not a character in a 19th century novel by Dickens, whose literary indictment of society’s mistreatment of children remains unsurpassed. In this case, the state governments of New Hampshire and Vermont and many other jurisdictions are culpable.

The plot of this Dickensian tale revolves around federal Social Security benefits due to children who have a disability or a parent who is deceased or has a disability. This money is supposed to be used to promote the best interests of the child by covering unmet needs. But for many years, advocates say, child protection agencies all over the country have routinely applied for Social Security survivor and disability benefits on behalf of children in foster care, often without their knowledge, and then applied the money to cover the costs of foster care services for that child.

This creates a two-tier system in which the state fully covers the routine costs of foster care for most children while charging some others for the same services.

The Congressional Research Service has reported that in 2018, states expropriated $179 million in federal benefits that were owed to about 27,000 foster children. In New Hampshire in 2023, the state collected $521,000 in benefits from about 90 children who were eligible due to their disability or a parent’s death or disability.

If you find this shocking and appalling, you are not alone. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said at a congressional hearing that she “nearly fell out of my chair” when she learned of the practice. Indeed, a New Hampshire Bulletin story that appeared in the Valley News last month was a real eye-opener.

The Children’s Advocacy Institute, which is leading a campaign to end the practice, asserts that the retention of children’s benefits by the states is contrary to federal law. It also points out that, “Foster youth have no obligation to pay for their own care. Child protection agencies do.” Seizing their federal benefits to cover general expenses is both “immoral and predatory,” the institute asserts. It’s hard to disagree with that characterization.

Those federal benefits should instead be applied to cover the unmet needs of foster children at present, or saved for them to access when they leave or age out of the system. Having that money available when they leave foster care can be life-changing for a highly vulnerable population, giving them a leg up to access food, health care, housing, educational opportunity or job training.

If you are wondering, as we were, how this bizarre system evolved, one answer is provided by Catherine Rymph, professor at the University of Missouri and author of a book on the history of foster care in America. She told The New York Times that as foster care became a responsibility of state and county governments in the 20th century, policymakers feared that allocating too much money to the system might encourage people to become foster parents just for the money. That fear has left the foster care system stretched thin in many places, providing an incentive for states to “claw back whatever money they can,” Rymph said.

It just may be, however, that this story will have a happy ending, as do some Dickens novels. As of May, the Children’s Advocacy Institute reports, 29 states and other jurisdictions (such as counties and big cities) had taken action across a broad spectrum, from incremental to comprehensive change, “to protect the rights of foster youth to their federal benefits.”

In New Hampshire, an effort spearheaded by Rep. Mary Jane Wallner, D-Concord, to end the practice fell short this year. But lawmakers did pass an amended version of her bill asking the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services to report by November about how Wallner’s plan would affect the state budget. Even the legendarily parsimonious Legislature ought to recognize that this is a wrong that needs to be righted whatever the cost, which in any case isn’t much if we’re talking a little over $500,000 a year.

At least New Hampshire has gotten further than Vermont, where, we’re told, the issue has been discussed at the Statehouse but no specific legislation has been proposed. This strikes us as an odd circumstance in a state noted for liberal thought and even more liberal spending.

We urge both the Twin States to fix this thing, and soon.