The Foster Care Gold Rush
How America Built a Billion-Dollar Machine to Warehouse Children
Seven Years After Congress Promised to End Child Warehousing, Foster Youth Are Still Being Locked Away While Taxpayer Dollars Fuel the Industry: By Project Milk Carton Investigations
In 2018, Congress told America it was turning a page on one of the most damaging practices in the modern child welfare system: the warehousing of foster children in institutional settings. The Family First Prevention Services Act was promoted as a historic correction, a long-overdue effort to stop pushing children into group homes, residential treatment centers, and psychiatric facilities when what they needed was family, stability, community-based care, and meaningful support before crisis became removal. The law was supposed to change the financial logic of foster care itself. Instead of rewarding systems for removing children and placing them in beds, federal dollars would finally begin moving toward prevention, family preservation, and less restrictive care.
That was the promise. Seven years later, the evidence shows something far darker. Across the country, foster youth are still being sent into locked and semi-locked behavioral facilities, shipped across state lines, held in emergency rooms and offices because no safe placements exist, prescribed psychiatric drugs at rates wildly higher than other children, and placed inside systems where abuse investigations, sexual assault lawsuits, restraint deaths, and billing fraud settlements have become part of the landscape. The language changed. The paperwork changed. The facilities learned new acronyms. But the underlying business model — taking traumatized children, placing them into institutional settings, and billing taxpayers for their confinement and treatment — survived.
Behind the soothing phrases of modern child welfare policy — “trauma-informed care,” “qualified residential treatment,” “behavioral stabilization,” “clinical acuity,” and “least restrictive placement” — sits an industrialized foster care economy that has adapted to reform without being transformed by it. The four major residential treatment operators examined by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee — Universal Health Services, Acadia Healthcare, Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health, and Sequel Youth & Family Services/Vivant — collectively represent a staggering concentration of money, beds, contracts, and political inertia. Their combined revenue reaches into the tens of billions, while federal audits, lawsuits, state investigations, and congressional findings describe recurring patterns of abuse, dangerous restraint practices, sexual violence, overmedication, understaffing, and fraudulent or medically questionable billing.
The central scandal is not merely that bad facilities exist. Bad facilities are only the visible edge of the machine. The deeper scandal is that Congress tried to restrict the machine, and the machine learned how to route around the restriction. States reclassified facilities. Operators pursued certification. Agencies leaned on exceptions. Medicaid continued paying for treatment. State and local dollars filled gaps when federal reimbursement became harder. Children continued moving through congregate care pipelines even as policymakers claimed the era of institutional foster care was ending.
The Family First Prevention Services Act was supposed to make institutional placement the exception. In practice, federal investigators found that more than half of states reported congregate care placements had increased or stayed the same after implementation. Forty-two states reported using stopgap placements such as hotels, office buildings, emergency rooms, and temporary holding environments. Forty-three states reported using out-of-state placements, and twenty-nine said those out-of-state placements had increased since October 2021. Four states reported that 100 percent of their congregate care facilities were now Qualified Residential Treatment Programs. That is the kind of number that should make any serious investigator stop cold. When every facility suddenly becomes “qualified,” the question is not whether the system achieved reform. The question is whether reform was converted into a paperwork exercise.
This is the story of how a law designed to end child warehousing collided with a billion-dollar institutional care industry, a fragmented oversight system, and government agencies still dependent on the very facilities they claim to be reducing. It is the story of how foster children became revenue units inside overlapping streams of Title IV-E funding, Medicaid reimbursement, state contracts, philanthropic grants, and private behavioral health expansion. Most importantly, it is the story of children who were promised family-first care but were instead delivered into a system where the warehouses never really closed. They simply learned new language.
The Law That Was Supposed to Change Everything
To understand the scale of the failure, it is necessary to understand what the Family First Prevention Services Act was designed to accomplish. Before FFPSA, the federal foster care financing structure created a powerful and perverse incentive. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act reimbursed states for foster care maintenance payments, meaning federal funds helped support children after they had already entered foster care. For decades, critics argued this arrangement tilted the system toward removal and placement rather than prevention and family stabilization. States could receive federal support once children were in care, but far less support to keep children safely with their families in the first place.
FFPSA attempted to change that logic in two ways. First, it opened Title IV-E funding for certain evidence-based prevention services, including mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and in-home parenting support. That part of the law was supposed to help families before children were removed. Second, and more directly relevant to this investigation, FFPSA restricted federal reimbursement for congregate care. Under the law, states could generally claim Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments for children placed in child care institutions for only fourteen days unless the placement met a specific exemption. The goal was clear: stop using federal money to support long-term institutional placement of foster children except in narrow, carefully regulated circumstances.
The primary pathway around the fourteen-day limit became the Qualified Residential Treatment Program, or QRTP. A QRTP was not supposed to be a dressed-up group home. It was supposed to be a clinically appropriate, trauma-informed, time-limited residential setting for children with serious emotional or behavioral needs that could not be met in a family setting at that moment. To qualify, a facility had to use a trauma-informed treatment model, maintain licensed nursing and clinical staff, facilitate family involvement and sibling outreach, provide discharge planning, offer at least six months of family-based aftercare support after discharge, and obtain accreditation from an independent accrediting body.
On paper, those requirements sound serious. In practice, they created a compliance battlefield. The law assumed that if Congress tightened reimbursement rules, states and providers would either reduce congregate care or upgrade facilities into genuinely therapeutic environments. But the law also left room for interpretation, state discretion, uneven court review, and industry adaptation. It did not create a powerful national enforcement apparatus capable of independently verifying whether every QRTP actually functioned as a high-quality therapeutic program. It did not solve the shortage of family placements. It did not build community-based alternatives at scale. It did not eliminate the financial pressure on state agencies to find beds for children no one else was prepared to take.
That is where the reform began to fracture. A state child welfare agency under pressure still needs somewhere to place a teenager in crisis. A judge reviewing a placement still relies heavily on agency recommendations and paperwork. A facility seeking continued reimbursement has every reason to obtain accreditation and present itself as compliant. A contractor whose business depends on occupied beds has every incentive to maintain placement flow. The law changed the reimbursement rules, but it did not dismantle the infrastructure, dependency, or economic incentives that made institutional placement so durable in the first place.
The fourteen-day rule was supposed to act like a gate. Instead, in too many places, it became a hurdle to be cleared through certification, exceptions, reclassification, or alternate billing streams. FFPSA tried to move the system toward family-based care, but it ran headfirst into a national child welfare apparatus that had spent decades building relationships with residential providers, psychiatric facilities, group care networks, Medicaid-funded treatment systems, and private operators. The result was not the clean break Congress promised. It was a messy, expensive, often opaque reshuffling of labels and payment mechanisms.
The Industry That Refused to Die
The March 2026 Government Accountability Office report should have detonated across the child welfare world. Federal investigators surveyed forty-nine states and the District of Columbia to assess whether FFPSA was actually changing congregate care use. The findings were devastating because they cut through years of official optimism. Twenty-six of forty-nine states reported that congregate care placements had either increased or remained the same since FFPSA implementation. In other words, the central reform mechanism of the law — limiting federal support for institutional placement — had not produced the nationwide reduction Congress intended.
The picture became even worse when investigators looked beyond ordinary congregate care numbers. Forty-two states reported using stopgap placements such as hotels, offices, emergency rooms, and other temporary settings. These are not therapeutic environments. They are emergency holding patterns created by placement scarcity. When children sleep in offices or wait in emergency rooms because the system cannot find a safe home, that is not reform. That is collapse with better vocabulary. It means the state has removed a child from one allegedly unsafe environment only to place that child into another form of instability.
Out-of-state placements reveal another layer of failure. Forty-three states reported placing children outside their borders, and twenty-nine reported increases in those placements since October 2021. Sending children across state lines is not a neutral administrative decision. It often means cutting children off from family contact, siblings, attorneys, schools, therapists, caseworkers, and local oversight. It complicates monitoring, weakens accountability, and makes it harder for young people to maintain any sense of continuity. When states rely on distant facilities, they are not just outsourcing care. They are exporting responsibility.
Then there is the QRTP data. Only thirty-four of forty-nine states reported having QRTPs at all, meaning fifteen states had none. Of the states that did have QRTPs, many struggled to meet the requirements. Half reported that 50 percent or less of their congregate care facilities met QRTP standards. Ten states reported that only 1 to 25 percent of facilities qualified. Two states closed or paused QRTP implementation because compliance proved too difficult. The hardest requirement, according to the research brief, was not a decorative paperwork provision. It was six months of family-based aftercare support — the exact feature most connected to helping children transition safely back to families and communities.
Against that backdrop, the finding that four states classified every single congregate care facility as a QRTP becomes almost impossible to accept at face value. If most states are struggling to get even half their facilities into compliance, how did four states suddenly achieve universal qualification? Did every facility truly implement trauma-informed models, maintain clinical staffing, engage families, conduct meaningful discharge planning, and provide six months of aftercare? Or did state systems discover that the fastest way to preserve federal reimbursement was to classify the existing institutional landscape as compliant?
This is the heart of the QRTP illusion. When a reform depends on certification, the certification process becomes the battlefield. If the system can preserve funding by changing classifications, then the public may see reform on paper while children experience continuity of confinement in practice. A group home becomes a treatment program. A residential facility becomes a QRTP. A compliance checklist becomes evidence of transformation. But if staffing remains thin, family involvement remains weak, aftercare remains underbuilt, and children remain institutionalized for long periods, then the new terminology functions less as reform and more as camouflage.
The institutional care industry did not need to defeat FFPSA outright. It only needed to survive it. And survival required adapting to the new reimbursement environment while preserving the core revenue model: beds filled by children whose placements generate government payments.
The QRTP Illusion and the Paperwork Path to Compliance
One of the most consequential failures of FFPSA implementation is the gap between statutory standards and operational reality. QRTP requirements appear rigorous when read in isolation, but real enforcement depends on who verifies compliance, how deeply they investigate, whether they review outcomes rather than documents, and whether there are consequences when facilities fail. The law created a category that sounded clinically elevated, but it did not guarantee that every facility wearing the QRTP label would actually deliver high-quality therapeutic care.
Facilities and states quickly learned that compliance could be pursued through documentation. A facility could adopt a trauma-informed treatment model in writing, revise policies, train staff through standardized modules, secure accreditation, and present the required materials to state agencies and courts. But paper compliance does not tell us whether a teenager in crisis receives skilled treatment at 2 a.m. It does not tell us whether staff know how to de-escalate without force. It does not tell us whether family therapy is meaningful or occasional. It does not tell us whether children are being prepared for discharge or simply held until another placement opens.
The accreditation requirement illustrates the problem. QRTPs must be licensed and accredited by an independent accrediting organization, but the major accrediting bodies operate in a marketplace where facilities seek and pay for accreditation. This does not mean every accreditation is fraudulent or meaningless. It does mean the structure deserves scrutiny. When an accreditor’s business model depends on facilities needing certification, the public has a right to ask how often facilities are denied, how often accreditation is revoked, how rigorous site visits are, how abuse histories affect accreditation status, and whether state agencies treat accreditation as proof of quality rather than one limited data point.
The Government Accountability Office found that states often framed QRTP implementation around continued eligibility for Title IV-E reimbursement beyond fourteen days. That finding matters because it reveals the driving incentive. If the purpose of QRTP conversion is primarily financial preservation, then reform has already been compromised. The question becomes not “How do we safely reduce institutional placement?” but “How do we keep federal money flowing for placements we still rely on?” That is a very different question, and it produces very different behavior.
The six-month aftercare requirement may be the most revealing pressure point. True aftercare requires staff, planning, coordination, family engagement, community providers, and ongoing support after a child leaves the facility. It is not glamorous. It does not produce the same immediate revenue logic as filling a bed. But it is essential if the goal is to prevent children from bouncing back into institutions. The fact that many states found this requirement especially challenging suggests the system was better prepared to institutionalize children than to transition them home.
This is why QRTP reform cannot be judged by the number of facilities certified. It must be judged by outcomes: length of stay, restraint rates, abuse reports, medication patterns, family reunification, educational progress, discharge stability, reentry into congregate care, and youth testimony. If those indicators do not improve, then QRTP status becomes a label pasted over an old model. The danger is that the public hears “qualified residential treatment” and imagines a carefully regulated therapeutic environment, while the child inside experiences something closer to containment.
America’s Foster Children Became a Revenue Stream
The financial architecture of institutional foster care is the reason this system is so difficult to dismantle. A child in a residential setting can generate money through multiple channels at once. Title IV-E can support room and board under certain circumstances. Medicaid can pay for behavioral health treatment. State and local funds can fill gaps when federal reimbursement is restricted. Private contractors can receive subcontracts from lead agencies. Nonprofit foundations can receive federal grants. Large behavioral health companies can bill for psychiatric services, therapy, residential care, and related treatment. Once these funding streams overlap, a single child can become the center of a surprisingly complex revenue chain.
FFPSA mainly targeted Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments for congregate care. But Title IV-E is not the only money. Medicaid is the larger and often more powerful engine. While Title IV-E may cover the placement side, Medicaid covers treatment services. For psychiatric residential treatment facilities, or PRTFs, this can mean significant reimbursement tied to the child’s behavioral health classification. Because children under twenty-one are treated differently under Medicaid rules than adults in certain institutional settings, operators can continue billing for residential psychiatric services even when other funding streams become politically controversial.
North Carolina provides a glimpse of the scale. According to the research brief, PRTF care in that state generated more than $550 million in Medicaid expenditures from 2018 to 2022, more than $100 million per year. Foster youth make up less than one percent of the child population, yet in states like North Carolina they can represent up to 42 percent of PRTF placements. That is a flashing red light. It suggests the foster care system is not merely intersecting with psychiatric residential care; it is helping feed it.
This dual-billing structure creates dangerous incentives. If a child’s placement can be justified as medically necessary, Medicaid reimbursement can continue flowing even when child welfare reform supposedly discourages congregate care. If a state loses some Title IV-E reimbursement because a facility is not QRTP-compliant, it can shift costs to state funds, local funds, or Medicaid-supported treatment structures. The result is not necessarily fewer institutional placements. It may simply be a different accounting pathway for the same child in the same bed.
The ChildNet example in Florida shows how dense these networks can become at the state level. One lead agency, in one state, in one tax year, disbursed more than $32 million across fifty-two contracts for residential group care. Recipients included large nonprofit providers, group homes, transitional programs, and residential operators. If that spending level is even roughly representative across Florida’s twenty Community-Based Care lead agencies, the statewide annual flow could approach hundreds of millions of dollars. And Florida is only one state.
Devereux’s federal grant profile adds another layer. The research brief identifies more than $251 million in federal grants across 114 awards to the Devereux Foundation, largely tied to residential shelter services for unaccompanied children. The descriptions evolved over time, including references to licensed and exempt facilities. The issue is not simply that Devereux received federal money. The issue is that large residential providers can sit at the intersection of multiple public systems — foster care, immigration-related child shelter services, Medicaid, education, state contracts — while abuse allegations and oversight failures accumulate in parallel.
This is how child welfare becomes a market. Not a free market in the ordinary sense, because the customers are government systems and the product is custody or treatment capacity. But a market nonetheless: beds, contracts, referrals, billing codes, reimbursement rates, accreditation, and occupancy. In that market, children are not described as commodities, but the financial structure can make them function like units of revenue. That is the brutal truth policymakers rarely say aloud.
The Corporate Operators and the Business of Occupied Beds
The Senate Finance Committee’s “Warehouses of Neglect” investigation did not examine marginal actors. It examined some of the largest and most influential residential treatment operators in the country. Universal Health Services reported $15.8 billion in annual revenue and operated hundreds of behavioral health facilities. Acadia Healthcare reported approximately $3.2 billion in annual revenue and operated more than 260 facilities. Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health, despite nonprofit status, reported roughly $494 million in annual revenue. Sequel Youth & Family Services, later tied to Vivant Behavioral Healthcare, became infamous for scandals that led multiple states to sever ties.
The Senate’s core conclusion was devastating: the operating model of these facilities was to warehouse as many children as possible while keeping costs low in order to maximize profit. That statement should not be softened. It describes a business model where revenue depends on occupied beds and costs are controlled through staffing decisions. In residential care, staffing is not a minor expense. Staffing is safety. Staffing is treatment quality. Staffing is abuse prevention. Staffing is de-escalation capacity. When operators reduce staffing costs, they are not merely trimming overhead; they are changing the risk environment around vulnerable children.
Universal Health Services represents the scale of the issue. UHS has paid major False Claims Act settlements related to allegations of billing for medically unnecessary inpatient behavioral health services, failing to provide adequate services, improperly using restraints and seclusion, and paying illegal kickbacks. In 2024, UHS-related verdicts reached astonishing levels, including a $535 million verdict involving Pavilion Behavioral Health and a $360 million verdict in Virginia involving sexual abuse at a children’s hospital. These are not small compliance violations. They are signals of catastrophic failure inside systems entrusted with children.
Acadia Healthcare presents another version of the same problem. The company operates one of the largest behavioral health networks in the country, with thousands of beds and tens of thousands of patients served daily. It paid a $19.85 million multistate Medicaid fraud settlement in January 2025 involving allegations of billing for medically unnecessary inpatient behavioral health services. It also paid $400 million to settle foster care abuse cases related to a former subsidiary. A company can describe itself as a provider of care, but when its financial history includes fraud settlements and massive abuse-related payouts, the public has a right to examine whether the model is producing harm at scale.
Devereux occupies a particularly complicated position because it is a nonprofit organization. Nonprofit status can create an aura of public mission, but nonprofit does not mean small, poor, or immune from institutional incentives. Devereux operates across multiple states, serves children in campus-based and community-based residential settings, and has received large amounts of federal funding. It also faces extensive sexual abuse litigation, including more than fifty consolidated lawsuits and allegations involving staff abuse and grooming. The existence of nonprofit structure does not erase the need for scrutiny when children report harm inside institutional settings.
Sequel Youth & Family Services may be the clearest example of scandal, rebranding, and structural survival. At its peak, Sequel operated dozens of residential treatment centers across multiple states. After private equity firm Altamont Capital Partners acquired a controlling stake, the company became increasingly associated with allegations of abuse, restraint misuse, and dangerous conditions. The death of sixteen-year-old Cornelius Fredericks at Lakeside Academy in Michigan became the defining case. Staff restrained him face-down for approximately twelve minutes after he threw a sandwich. He died of asphyxiation. A child died over cafeteria food, inside a facility that was supposed to provide care.
After the scandals mounted, states began cutting ties. But the deeper lesson is that companies and facilities can restructure, rebrand, sell assets, rename campuses, and continue operating through successor entities or related networks. Vivant Behavioral Healthcare emerged after Sequel’s brand became toxic. Some facilities were sold. Others changed names. The public may think a scandal ended when a company disappears from headlines, but the infrastructure can persist. Buildings remain. Contracts shift. Staff sometimes remain. Children continue arriving.
This is why corporate genealogy matters. Investigators cannot stop at the facility name printed on a license. They must track ownership, management companies, parent entities, private equity involvement, sale transactions, successor brands, subcontracting relationships, and state contract history. In an industry where reputation can be shed through rebranding, accountability requires following the corporate bloodline.
The Human Cost: Restraints, Sexual Abuse, and Institutional Violence
The human cost of congregate care cannot be understood through financial tables alone. The numbers matter, but the lived reality is physical. Children are restrained. Children are isolated. Children are searched, monitored, medicated, and controlled. Children report sexual abuse by staff or peers. Children are placed in environments where the power imbalance is total and escape is impossible. When a child inside a residential treatment facility says something happened, the system often controls the records, the witnesses, the cameras, the medication logs, the incident reports, and access to outside adults.
Physical restraint is one of the clearest danger points. Restraint is often presented as an emergency safety intervention, but repeated investigations show it can become a routine management tool in undertrained and understaffed facilities. The death of Cornelius Fredericks illustrates the nightmare scenario: a behavioral incident, a staff response, a prone restraint, and a child suffocated under the weight and control of adults. The research brief also identifies restraint-related deaths involving UHS facilities, including a nineteen-year-old with autism in Georgia who choked on his own vomit during an eight-minute face-down restraint while staff sat on his midsection, and a child in Virginia who died of positional asphyxiation during a restraint monitored by a nurse.
These cases matter because they destroy the comforting myth that fatal restraint is always the result of one rogue employee. When deaths occur across operators, states, and facility types, investigators must ask whether the model itself creates the conditions. Understaffed facilities managing traumatized youth with inadequate training are predictable pressure cookers. If staff are not equipped to de-escalate, they may rely on force. If facilities are built around control rather than trust, children may escalate. If children escalate, staff may restrain. If restraint becomes normalized, tragedy becomes a matter of time.
Sexual abuse is even more structurally disturbing because residential treatment facilities concentrate vulnerable children under adult control. The Senate investigation found that sexual abuse risks were routine, not isolated. Devereux faces dozens of lawsuits involving allegations of staff sexual abuse and grooming. UHS faced enormous verdicts involving child sexual abuse. Acadia paid a $400 million settlement related to foster care abuse cases. Sequel facilities faced sexual abuse allegations in multiple states. The pattern is not a single company’s failure. It is an industry-wide warning.
Institutional environments can be uniquely dangerous for children already carrying trauma. Many foster youth have histories of abuse, neglect, removal, family separation, poverty, disability, or prior institutionalization. They may not be believed easily. They may fear retaliation. They may not know how to report. They may be physically distant from family, attorneys, advocates, or caseworkers. They may be told their behavior or diagnosis makes them unreliable. In that environment, predators do not need perfect secrecy. They only need weak oversight, high staff turnover, poor reporting systems, and children whose credibility has already been undermined.
The Senate report’s most important contribution was its refusal to treat these harms as accidents disconnected from the business model. When a facility maximizes occupancy and minimizes labor costs, safety deteriorates. When children are placed far from home, outside monitoring weakens. When state agencies need beds, they may overlook warning signs. When operators are large and multi-state, abuse patterns can be fragmented across jurisdictions. When settlement costs are absorbed as business risks, the system can keep moving.
This is the part of the story that should haunt policymakers. Children were not harmed because America lacked enough slogans about trauma-informed care. They were harmed inside systems that already had policies, licenses, accreditations, contracts, and oversight agencies. That means the protective architecture existed on paper and still failed in practice.
The Psychiatric Drug Pipeline
Psychotropic medication use among foster youth is one of the most alarming indicators of institutional system failure. The research brief documents that foster children are prescribed psychiatric drugs at rates between 2.7 and 4.5 times higher than non-foster children. At any given time, roughly one in four foster youth is taking psychotropic medication. Among Medicaid-covered foster youth, estimates reach approximately 35 percent. More than 100,000 youth reportedly receive two or more psychotropic medications simultaneously.
The numbers become even more concerning inside congregate care and therapeutic settings. Nearly 60 percent of youth in therapeutic foster care have been reported as taking psychotropic medications, and more than 60 percent of those youth were taking multiple medications. Some institutional studies found that half of adolescents in congregate care were taking multiple drugs, and roughly 15 percent were taking four or more concurrent psychotropics. These figures raise profound medical, ethical, and operational questions.
No serious analysis should pretend that all psychiatric medication is improper. Some children have serious mental health needs. Some medication can be clinically justified, stabilizing, and even lifesaving. The issue is not whether medication should ever be used. The issue is whether foster youth — especially institutionalized youth — are being medicated at extreme rates because the system is substituting chemical management for therapeutic care, stable relationships, adequate staffing, and community-based treatment.
Former foster youth have testified about feeling overmedicated, exhausted, sluggish, and emotionally blunted. Those accounts matter because medication experience is not captured fully in billing codes. A prescription may be marked as compliant in a chart while the child experiences the medication as sedation. A facility may describe a regimen as treatment while the child experiences it as control. The gap between clinical documentation and lived experience is precisely where abuse can hide.
The operational incentives are troubling. In an understaffed residential environment, a heavily medicated child may be easier to manage. Fewer behavioral incidents can mean less staff time, fewer disruptions, fewer crisis calls, and fewer visible signs of facility instability. That does not prove every prescription is improper, but it does identify a dangerous incentive structure. When staffing is inadequate and children are difficult to manage, medication can become operationally convenient.
Medicaid reimbursement adds another layer. Psychiatric diagnosis, medication management, therapy codes, and residential treatment claims all exist within a billable medical framework. When the same children are caught between child welfare custody and Medicaid-funded behavioral health treatment, the system needs strong safeguards to ensure medical decisions are based on child welfare needs, not facility convenience or reimbursement logic. The research brief suggests those safeguards remain inadequate.
The psychotropic pipeline must therefore be investigated alongside placement patterns, facility staffing, restraint incidents, and Medicaid billing. These are not separate scandals. They are connected pieces of the same institutional ecosystem. A child removed from family, placed in a facility, diagnosed or re-diagnosed, prescribed multiple drugs, restrained during escalation, and billed through Medicaid is not moving through isolated systems. They are moving through one integrated machinery of custody, control, and reimbursement.
The Olmstead Problem Nobody Wants to Touch
The civil rights dimension of this crisis may prove to be one of the most consequential. The Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C. held that unjustified institutionalization of people with disabilities can constitute discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The principle is known as the integration mandate: people with disabilities should receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate when community-based care can reasonably meet their needs.
For foster youth, this mandate has enormous implications. Many children placed in residential treatment centers, psychiatric residential treatment facilities, and other congregate care settings have mental health disabilities or behavioral health diagnoses. If those children could be served safely in family-based or community-based settings with proper supports, then unnecessary institutionalization is not merely bad policy. It may be a civil rights violation.
The Department of Justice has already recognized this theory in litigation involving Los Angeles County and the State of California, where federal attorneys argued that foster youth with mental health disabilities were being unnecessarily institutionalized because the system failed to provide adequate community-based housing and behavioral health services. That argument should send shockwaves through every state child welfare agency in the country. If the failure to build community alternatives results in institutional placement, states cannot simply claim children are too difficult to serve. They may be creating the very conditions that justify segregation.
This is where FFPSA and Olmstead intersect. FFPSA tells states to reduce reliance on congregate care and build prevention and family-based alternatives. Olmstead tells states that unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities can be discriminatory. Together, they create a powerful legal and moral framework against foster youth warehousing. Yet enforcement remains weak. More than twenty-five years after Olmstead, foster youth remain among the least protected populations affected by institutionalization.
The enforcement gap is striking. Adult disability institutionalization has received significant litigation, advocacy, and policy attention. Foster youth institutionalization has not received the same sustained federal civil rights pressure, even though the harm profile is severe. Children in foster care often lack political power, stable advocates, consistent legal representation, and media visibility. They are easy for systems to move, label, medicate, and forget.
A serious national response would require the Department of Justice, HHS Office for Civil Rights, CMS, ACF, and state attorneys general to coordinate around the integration mandate. They would need to ask hard questions: Which children in congregate care could be served in the community? Which states lack sufficient alternatives? Which facilities function more like detention than treatment? Which Medicaid dollars are supporting unnecessary institutionalization? Which courts are approving placements without meaningful review? Until those questions are answered, the Olmstead promise remains largely theoretical for foster youth.
Federal Oversight Failed at Every Level
The oversight system surrounding institutional foster care is fragmented by design. The Children’s Bureau approves state Title IV-E plans. State agencies license and monitor facilities. Courts review certain placements. Medicaid agencies process treatment claims. Accrediting bodies assess compliance. HHS OIG audits monitoring systems. CMS oversees Medicaid payment integrity. DOJ may pursue fraud or civil rights enforcement. Each entity sees part of the elephant, but too often no one sees the full animal.
The Children’s Bureau’s role is especially important because state Title IV-E plans are supposed to demonstrate compliance with FFPSA. Yet approval of a plan does not necessarily mean meaningful verification of every facility’s real-world practices. The system relies heavily on state self-certification and documentation. If a state claims facilities meet QRTP requirements, federal approval may proceed without the kind of aggressive independent investigation that would reveal whether treatment quality, staffing, family engagement, and aftercare actually exist.
The HHS Office of Inspector General’s June 2024 findings expose how weak state monitoring can be. Nearly one-third of states could not identify patterns of maltreatment in residential facilities. Some states failed to consistently report whether maltreated children were in residential settings to the national NCANDS database. More than a dozen states did not adequately track repeated abuse at a single facility or across facilities owned by the same company. That is not a minor technical flaw. It means policymakers may not even know where abuse is clustering.
Multi-state operators make this weakness especially dangerous. A company operating facilities across dozens of states can generate complaints, lawsuits, incident reports, and regulatory findings across separate jurisdictions. If states do not share data effectively, a pattern that looks obvious nationally may appear isolated locally. One state may see a facility problem. Another state may see a different facility problem. No one connects the corporate pattern. Meanwhile, the operator continues receiving referrals, contracts, and Medicaid payments.
CMS also plays a central role because Medicaid is one of the largest funding streams supporting psychiatric and residential behavioral health treatment. Yet CMS does not appear to coordinate deeply enough with ACF to cross-reference child welfare placement data against Medicaid billing. That creates a blind spot. A child may be generating Title IV-E-related placement claims in one system and Medicaid treatment claims in another, while no federal entity examines the total cost, duration, medical necessity, facility history, and child outcome in one unified view.
The continued ability of operators to receive Medicaid payments after major fraud settlements raises another question: when does settlement become simply a cost of doing business? UHS paid major False Claims Act settlements and continued operating. Acadia paid a Medicaid fraud settlement and continued operating. Settlements may recover money, but they do not automatically transform the underlying incentive structure. If the revenue stream remains large enough, penalties may deter only the most visible misconduct while leaving the model intact.
Courts are supposed to provide another layer of protection, especially for QRTP placements requiring judicial review. But court oversight depends on time, information, independence, and willingness to challenge agency recommendations. Overloaded family courts are not always equipped to conduct deep facility-level analysis. A judge may receive an assessment, hear that no family placement is available, and approve the residential placement as the least bad option. That may satisfy procedural requirements while failing to protect the child from unnecessary institutionalization.
The oversight failure is therefore not located in one agency. It is systemic. Each institution can claim partial responsibility while the child experiences total custody. The state removed them. The facility controls them. Medicaid pays for them. The court approves them. The accreditor certifies the setting. The federal government reimburses or monitors from a distance. When harm occurs, every entity can point elsewhere. That is how accountability dissolves.
The Child-Specific Exception and the Exemption Machine
FFPSA included exceptions because lawmakers understood that some children may temporarily require specialized settings. In theory, the child-specific exception was a narrow safety valve for unusual cases where a child’s needs could not be met in a family setting or QRTP-compliant environment. In practice, narrow safety valves can become wide escape hatches when systems are under pressure.
The child-specific exception allows states to justify continued placement based on an individualized assessment. That sounds reasonable until one asks who performs the assessment, what alternatives were actually available, how often judges reject the recommendation, and whether federal auditors later test the justification. If the same agencies that rely on congregate care also help produce the documentation supporting congregate placement, the risk of circular reasoning is obvious. The system says the child needs the placement because the system lacks an alternative, then treats the absence of an alternative as evidence the placement is necessary.
The law also requires states to prevent inappropriate diagnoses from being used to justify QRTP placement. That safeguard exists because Congress anticipated a dangerous possibility: children could be labeled or diagnosed in ways that make institutional placement easier to defend. But a safeguard written into a plan is not the same as enforcement. Without robust auditing, diagnostic review, prescribing oversight, and outcome tracking, the protection may exist mainly on paper.
The sex trafficking exemption presents another troubling pathway. FFPSA allows continued federal reimbursement for certain settings serving youth who are victims of sex trafficking or at risk of becoming victims. Protecting trafficking survivors is a legitimate and urgent goal. But broad language can be exploited. The research brief notes that HHS provided limited detailed guidance on when to apply this exemption, states interpreted it differently, and some designated most or all congregate care settings as serving youth at risk of trafficking. If true, that converts a protective exemption into a funding strategy.
The danger is that exemptions can reduce oversight rather than increase protection. QRTPs at least carry specific standards and review requirements. If a facility avoids QRTP classification by fitting into another exemption category, children may remain in nonfamily settings with less federal scrutiny. The result is perverse: an exemption meant to protect especially vulnerable youth may help keep them in institutional settings with weaker accountability.
Other reclassification strategies further complicate the picture. States can shift youth into supervised independent living categories, rely more heavily on state and local funding, increase Medicaid billing for treatment, or send children to out-of-state facilities where regulatory conditions differ. Each maneuver may be legally defensible in isolation. Taken together, they suggest a system highly skilled at preserving congregate care capacity despite congressional intent.
This is why the phrase “loophole” may actually understate the problem. A loophole sounds accidental. What appears here is closer to an exemption machine: multiple legal, financial, and administrative pathways that allow institutional placement to continue while formal compliance is maintained. The machine does not need one perfect loophole. It needs enough partial pathways to keep beds filled and bills paid.
The Foster Care Population Declined, but Institutionalization Did Not
One of the most misleading narratives in child welfare reform is that declining foster care numbers automatically mean children are safer or systems are less institutional. National foster care population data shows the number of children in care declined after its 2018 peak. On the surface, that sounds like progress. Fewer children in foster care could mean better prevention, fewer removals, or improved family support. But the congregate care data complicates that story.
The GAO found that many states did not see corresponding reductions in congregate care. More than half reported that the percentage of children in congregate care had increased or stayed the same. This means the foster care population may have become smaller but more concentrated among children classified as high need, behaviorally complex, or difficult to place. Those children are precisely the ones most likely to be sent into residential treatment centers, psychiatric facilities, and group settings.
This creates a dangerous policy trap. As foster care numbers decline, states may celebrate success while the children who remain in care experience more intensive institutional control. The public hears that fewer children are in foster care, but does not hear that a stubborn share of children are still being warehoused, held longer, shipped farther, or placed in emergency stopgaps. Averages conceal severity. Population decline conceals concentration.
Step-down placement shortages intensify the trap. States reported widespread difficulty finding lower levels of care for children leaving congregate settings. If a child stabilizes in a facility but no therapeutic foster home, kinship placement, community program, or family reunification option exists, the child may remain institutionalized longer than clinically necessary. Longer stays generate more billing. Longer stays also deepen disconnection from normal adolescence, family bonds, and community life.
This is how emergency infrastructure becomes permanent infrastructure. A state begins by using congregate care because there is no immediate alternative. The facility network expands or remains financially viable because children continue to need placements. Courts and agencies become accustomed to the option. Contractors build operations around the demand. Medicaid and state funds sustain the model. Over time, the system treats institutional capacity as indispensable, even while officially claiming it wants to reduce it.
The hardest truth is that many states may now be dependent on the very placements federal law intended to discourage. Without enough community-based services, therapeutic foster homes, family preservation programs, crisis stabilization options, and aftercare supports, agencies fall back on beds. Beds are tangible. Beds are available. Beds can be contracted. Beds solve tonight’s emergency, even if they create tomorrow’s trauma.
Educational Neglect and the Lost Years of Institutional Childhood
The educational consequences of institutional foster care are often treated as secondary, but they are central to the harm. Childhood is developmental time. A year inside a poor-quality residential setting is not just a placement episode. It is a year of school disruption, social isolation, lost credits, inconsistent instruction, and separation from normal adolescent life. For foster youth already facing instability, that lost time can be catastrophic.
Nationally, only about 65 percent of foster youth graduate high school by age twenty-one, compared with roughly 84 percent nationally. Youth aging out of foster care frequently have histories of congregate care placement. Research shows that school mobility undermines graduation, and foster care often produces repeated school changes. A child moved from home to emergency placement, then to a group facility, then to an out-of-state residential center, then back to another temporary placement is not just moving beds. They are losing educational continuity with every transfer.
Residential treatment facilities often claim to provide education, but the quality and accountability of those educational services vary widely. Some programs operate internal schools. Others coordinate with local districts. Some provide minimal instruction under therapeutic or behavioral justifications. The Senate investigation found that facilities can receive public education funding while delivering inadequate educational services. If a child leaves a facility behind in credits, behind in literacy, and disconnected from a diploma pathway, the damage follows them long after discharge.
Educational neglect is also tied to control. Institutional education can become secondary to behavior management. A child who is restrained, isolated, sedated, or frequently disciplined is not learning. A child heavily medicated may struggle to concentrate. A child traumatized by abuse inside a facility may disengage. A child who knows they may be moved again may stop investing in school altogether. The academic failure is not separate from the institutional experience; it is produced by it.
The long-term consequences are predictable. Lower graduation rates increase the risk of unemployment, homelessness, poverty, criminal justice involvement, and dependence on public systems. When foster youth age out without a diploma, without family support, and with institutional trauma, society later pays again through shelters, emergency services, prisons, hospitals, and welfare systems. The same government that failed to educate the child during custody may later punish the adult for the outcomes that failure helped create.
This is why any serious investigation of QRTPs and residential treatment must include facility-level education outcomes. How many children graduate after placement? How many lose credits? How many receive special education services? How many experience school exclusion or internal suspension? How many return to public school on track? Without these answers, “treatment” becomes an incomplete word. A facility cannot claim to heal children while destroying their educational future.
Why Reform Keeps Failing
Child welfare reform fails when it changes rules without changing incentives. FFPSA restricted reimbursement and promoted prevention, but it did not eliminate the placement crisis. It did not create enough therapeutic foster homes overnight. It did not solve workforce shortages. It did not rebuild community mental health systems. It did not provide enough intensive wraparound care to prevent institutionalization for every high-need child. It did not break the dependence states had already developed on residential providers.
Every actor in the system faces pressure. Caseworkers need immediate placements. Judges need viable options. State agencies need contractors willing to accept difficult cases. Facilities need occupancy. Medicaid systems process claims. Legislators want reform without owning the cost of building alternatives. Families in crisis need support long before removal, but prevention systems remain uneven. In that environment, congregate care survives because it offers a crude solution to immediate system failure: a bed.
That bed may be expensive, harmful, distant, and poorly monitored. But it exists. For an agency facing a child with acute behavioral needs and no foster family available, existence can outweigh quality. This is the moral hazard at the center of the system. Once a facility network exists, governments use it because they need it. Once governments use it, operators remain financially viable. Once operators remain viable, they lobby, expand, rebrand, and embed themselves further into the system.
Scandal alone does not end the model because scandal can be localized. A facility closes. A company changes its name. A settlement is paid. A few staff are fired. A state announces new monitoring. But the placement need remains, and another facility steps in. Unless the underlying demand is reduced through real family preservation and community care, the system keeps reproducing itself.
The public also struggles to follow the complexity. Title IV-E, QRTP, PRTF, Medicaid, IMD, ACF, CMS, NCANDS, AFCARS, CARF, Joint Commission — the alphabet soup protects the system from scrutiny. Ordinary readers understand that children should not be abused in facilities, but the financial mechanisms that keep those facilities operating are buried inside bureaucratic language. That complexity is not accidental in its effect. It makes outrage harder to sustain and accountability harder to assign.
The reform failure is therefore not a mystery. America tried to reduce institutional care without fully replacing the institutional function. It tried to restrict funding without closing alternate billing channels. It tried to enforce standards through systems already dependent on provider capacity. It asked courts to review placements without ensuring judges had independent information. It asked states to self-report compliance while states faced financial and operational pressure to preserve congregate care options. The result was predictable: adaptation, not transformation.
The Question America Refuses to Ask
At the center of this investigation is a question policymakers rarely say out loud: What if the institutional foster care model is not malfunctioning, but functioning according to its incentives? If revenue depends on occupied beds, then empty beds become financial problems. If staffing is the largest controllable cost, then understaffing becomes tempting. If Medicaid pays for treatment intensity, then high-acuity classifications become financially useful. If accreditation unlocks reimbursement, then certification becomes a business necessity. If states lack alternatives, then even troubled facilities remain indispensable.
Once billions of public dollars flow through a system, constituencies form around that money. Facility operators, lead agencies, subcontractors, consultants, accreditors, managed care organizations, pharmaceutical companies, legal vendors, lobbyists, and state bureaucracies all become part of the ecosystem. Not every actor is malicious. Many people inside the system genuinely want to help children. But good intentions do not erase structural incentives. A system can be filled with well-meaning individuals and still produce institutional harm because the financial architecture rewards the wrong outcomes.
FFPSA attempted to push the system away from warehousing by limiting federal reimbursement. The system responded through reclassification, QRTP certification, child-specific exceptions, trafficking exemptions, Medicaid billing, state funding substitution, out-of-state placements, and corporate restructuring. That response reveals the resilience of the institutional model. The machine did not need to publicly oppose reform. It only needed to metabolize reform into new administrative routines.
This is why dismantling child warehousing requires more than new terminology. It requires attacking the economic structure beneath the terminology. If states are paid or pressured in ways that make institutional beds necessary, beds will remain. If Medicaid continues paying massive sums without integrated child welfare oversight, operators will continue building treatment capacity around billable children. If courts approve placements based on agency paperwork rather than independent evidence, judicial review will remain procedural. If accreditors certify facilities without transparent public accountability, certification will remain insufficient.
The moral clarity is not complicated. Children should not be placed in institutions because governments failed to build families, services, and communities capable of supporting them. Children should not be medicated into manageability because facilities lack staffing. Children should not be shipped across state lines because local systems collapsed. Children should not be sexually abused in facilities funded by taxpayers. Children should not die in restraints administered by adults paid to protect them.
The complexity lies in dismantling the machine that makes these outcomes recurring rather than exceptional.
The Children Behind the Statistics
Large investigations can become abstract. Revenue figures, federal audits, state surveys, legal citations, and settlement amounts are necessary, but they can also distance readers from the central reality. Behind every metric is a child whose life was interrupted by systems claiming to act in their best interest. A child removed from home. A child placed in a facility far away. A child told the placement was temporary. A child who stayed for months. A child who learned that adults with clipboards, badges, policies, and treatment plans could still fail to protect them.
Institutional language hides pain. “Placement disruption” may mean a child lost another home. “Behavioral incident” may mean a traumatized teenager panicked. “Physical intervention” may mean adults held a child down. “Medication adjustment” may mean sedation. “Out-of-state placement” may mean separation from siblings and everyone familiar. “Length of stay” may mean a childhood measured in billing days. “Level of care” may mean a locked door.
This language matters because systems use it to make the intolerable sound administrative. The public hears technical terms and assumes professionals are managing complexity. Sometimes they are. But sometimes technical language becomes a fog machine, obscuring the simple moral fact that children are being confined in harmful environments because adults built a system that needs somewhere to put them.
The research brief’s fatality data adds a grim backdrop. National child welfare fatalities rose from 1,825 in 2019 to 1,968 in 2023, with a peak of 2,010 in 2022. Not all of those deaths occurred in congregate care, and no responsible investigator should claim they did. But the broader trend matters because it shows a child welfare system under severe stress at the same time it claims to be reforming. A system that cannot prevent rising fatalities, cannot reliably track maltreatment in residential settings, and cannot reduce institutional placement should not be trusted on paperwork alone.
The children most likely to be institutionalized are often those with the least public sympathy: teenagers, children with behavioral diagnoses, children with trauma histories, children who have run away, children labeled aggressive, children who have already experienced multiple failed placements. That is precisely why they need stronger protection, not weaker. Systems can justify almost anything once a child is labeled difficult. The label becomes a permission structure. The child becomes a problem to manage rather than a person to defend.
If America is serious about child welfare, it must stop judging systems by the elegance of their policy language and start judging them by what happens to the children with the least power inside them. Not the children featured in brochures. Not the pilot-program success stories. The teenager restrained in a facility. The girl reporting abuse by staff. The boy waking up in an office because no placement exists. The youth taking four medications. The child sent three states away because the local system ran out of options.
That is where the truth of the system lives.
What Real Accountability Would Require
Real accountability would begin with data integration. CMS and ACF should be required to cross-reference Medicaid claims with child welfare placement records so federal officials can see the total taxpayer cost per child, per facility, per operator, and per episode of care. Without integrated data, the system cannot identify dual-billing patterns, unusually long stays, repeated admissions, questionable medical necessity, or facilities that generate high revenue while producing poor outcomes. The current fragmentation benefits everyone except the child.
Second, QRTP certification should be audited independently at the facility level. Not through paper reviews, but through outcome-based investigations. Auditors should examine restraint rates, seclusion use, psychotropic prescribing patterns, staff turnover, abuse allegations, law enforcement calls, hospitalization rates, family contact, discharge stability, reentry into congregate care, educational progress, and youth interviews. A facility should not keep QRTP status merely because its policy manual uses the right language.
Third, child-specific exceptions and trafficking-related exemptions should be tracked nationally and published in usable form. If a state relies heavily on exceptions, that is not a footnote; it is a warning signal. Federal agencies should examine whether exceptions are clustered by facility, region, diagnosis, age group, race, disability, or court. They should also test whether community alternatives were genuinely unavailable or simply underdeveloped.
Fourth, out-of-state placements should trigger heightened scrutiny. Every child placed across state lines should generate automatic reporting to the sending court, receiving state regulator, federal oversight entities, and the child’s attorney or advocate. States should have to justify why no in-state family or community-based option exists, how family contact will be preserved, how education will continue, and how abuse reports will be monitored.
Fifth, psychotropic medication oversight must become real rather than symbolic. Children in state custody receiving multiple psychiatric medications should have independent medication review, especially when they are placed in congregate care. Prescribing patterns should be analyzed by facility and operator. If one facility has unusually high rates of polypharmacy, that should trigger investigation. Medication should never become a staffing substitute.
Sixth, civil rights enforcement must move from theory to action. DOJ and HHS should examine whether states are violating the Olmstead integration mandate by unnecessarily institutionalizing foster youth with mental health disabilities. If children could be served in family or community settings with appropriate supports, then failure to build those supports should not be accepted as an excuse for segregation. The ADA does not disappear when a child enters foster care.
Finally, financial accountability must follow corporate structures. Investigators should track parent companies, private equity ownership, successor entities, facility sales, management agreements, and rebrands. A facility network with a history of abuse should not be able to escape scrutiny by changing names. States should be required to disclose whether providers or related entities have histories of settlements, verdicts, license actions, deaths, or substantiated abuse.
These reforms are not radical. They are the minimum requirements for a system that claims the legal right to remove children from their families and place them under state-approved control. If the state takes custody of a child, the state assumes a duty higher than paperwork compliance. It assumes the duty to protect.
The Reckoning Ahead
The foster care system is approaching a collision point. Lawsuits are growing. Federal investigations are sharpening. Former foster youth are speaking publicly. Journalists are beginning to connect residential treatment scandals to Medicaid billing, corporate ownership, and FFPSA loopholes. The old defense — that these are isolated incidents in otherwise necessary facilities — is becoming harder to sustain.
America now faces two possible futures. The first is cosmetic reform. Facilities will rebrand. Operators will update websites. States will revise guidance. Accrediting bodies will adjust standards. Agencies will promise stronger monitoring. Congress will hold hearings. A few facilities may close. A few settlements may be paid. But the underlying placement economy will remain intact, and children will continue cycling through institutional pipelines under new names.
The second future is more difficult. It requires admitting that child warehousing is not only a policy failure but an economic structure. It requires building enough community-based care that states no longer depend on residential beds as the default emergency solution. It requires funding family preservation before removal, therapeutic foster care before institutionalization, and aftercare before discharge failure. It requires treating congregate placement as a system failure to be explained, not a routine option to be processed.
The Family First Prevention Services Act was supposed to mark the beginning of the end for institutional foster care. Instead, it revealed how deeply institutional care was embedded in the child welfare economy. The law exposed an uncomfortable truth: a system built over decades cannot be dismantled by changing reimbursement language alone. The warehouses did not close because too many agencies, operators, and funding streams still depended on them.
Somewhere tonight, a child is entering one of those facilities. Their file will contain professional language. Their placement will have a justification. Their care may be billed through Medicaid. Their room and board may be tied to state or federal funds. Their facility may be accredited. Their treatment plan may say trauma-informed. Their court order may say necessary. Every document may appear orderly.
But the deeper question remains unanswered: did that child need an institution, or did the institution need that child?
Until America is willing to answer that question honestly, the foster care gold rush will continue under the banner of reform. The children will keep moving through the machine. The beds will stay full. The invoices will be paid. And the country will keep pretending that a warehouse becomes a treatment program simply because the sign on the door changed.
If you enjoyed this work and feel encouraged by independent investigations like this, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to The Constitutional Republic on Substack.
Your support helps us continue:
investigative reporting
public records research
educational transparency projects
community outreach
and future investigations like this series
Most importantly, please share this article.
Independent journalism survives when ordinary people help spread information powerful institutions would prefer remain ignored, misunderstood, or buried beneath complexity.
Because silence protects systems.
Informed communities protect children.
ALL paid subscriptions are tax deductible Project Milk Carton | 501(c)(3) | EIN: 33-1323547
SOURCES AND CITATIONS
Federal Government Sources:
• GAO-26-107592, "Child Welfare: HHS Should Clarify Guidance on State Spending for Congregate Care" (March 3, 2026)
• HHS OIG, "Many States Lack Information To Monitor Maltreatment in Residential Facilities for Children in Foster Care" (OEI-07-22-00530, June 21, 2024)
• U.S. Senate Finance Committee, "Warehouses of Neglect: How Taxpayers Are Funding Systemic Abuse in Youth Residential Treatment Facilities" (June 12, 2024)
• Sen. Ron Wyden, Letter to CMS/ACF demanding action on RTF abuse (September 3, 2024)
• Sen. Ron Wyden, Letter requesting DOJ investigation of Medicaid fraud by RTFs (October 9, 2024)
• Sen. Ron Wyden, Letter requesting GAO investigation of deceptive marketing by RTFs (December 20, 2024)
• DOJ, Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) — Statement on Enforcement of Integration Mandate • DOJ, Statement of Interest in Ocean S., et al. v. Los Angeles County (Olmstead foster youth case)
• DOJ, UHS False Claims Act Settlement — $122M (2020)
• DOJ, UHS False Claims Act Settlement — $127M (2024)
• DOJ/HHS OIG, Acadia Healthcare Medicaid Fraud Settlement — $19.85M (January 2025)
• MACPAC, "Medicaid Coverage of Qualified Residential Treatment Programs for Children in Foster Care" (2021)
• MACPAC, "Appropriate Access to Residential Behavioral Health Treatment" (June 2025)
• Family First Prevention Services Act, P.L. 115-123, 42 U.S.C. § 672(k
Court Cases and Jury Verdicts:
• Pavilion Behavioral Health (UHS) — $535M verdict, Champaign County, December 2024
• UHS Virginia — $360M verdict, Richmond, September 2024
• Acadia Healthcare — $400M settlement, foster care abuse cases (2023)
• Devereux Foundation — 50+ consolidated sexual abuse lawsuits, EDPA
• Sequel Youth — Multiple state enforcement actions; Cornelius Fredericks death case (2020)
PMC CivicOps Database Queries:
• TAGGS: Devereux Foundation federal grants — $251,168,559 across 114 awards (ALN 93.676)
• Form 990 Schedule I: ChildNet Inc residential group care disbursements — $32,260,254 across 52 contracts (TY 2023)
• Form 990 Schedule I: Helena Devereux Foundation → Devereux Foundation grants — $15,353,530 (TY 2022-2023)
• AFCARS Metrics: National foster care population trends (2013-2022)
• NCANDS: National child welfare fatalities (2019-2023)
• SAM.gov: UHS entity registration (UEI: 9UYW6, Active)
Corporate Financial Disclosures:
• UHS Annual Report 2024 — $15.828B total revenue, 331 behavioral health facilities
• Acadia Healthcare Q4 2024 Results — $3.2B annual revenue, 262 facilities, 11,850 beds
• Devereux Foundation ProPublica/Charity Navigator — $494M revenue (2024)
Journalism and Analysis:
• APM Reports, "Sequel Youth & Family Services" investigation series
• The Imprint, "Senators Slam Kids' Treatment Centers as 'Warehouses of Neglect'"
• NBC News, "States fail to track abuses in foster care facilities" (June 2024)
• NBC News, "Residential treatment centers put profits ahead of children's safety" (June 2024)
• The Hill, "Five years on, the Family First act has failed in its aims"
• Child Welfare Monitor, "Surprise, surprise! Family First has not reduced the use of congregate care!" (March 2026)
• Harvard Law Review, "Community Integration of People with Disabilities a Quarter Century After Olmstead" (January 2025)
• Texas Tribune, foster care death investigations (February 2025)
• Levy Konigsberg LLP, Devereux sexual abuse lawsuit filing (May 2024)
Academic and Research Sources:
• Springer, "A 26-Year Study of Restraint Fatalities Among Children and Adolescents in the United States"
• AAP Pediatrics, "State Implementation of Congregate Care Reforms for Children in Foster Care" (2024)
• Duke Law, "FFPSA: Expectations, Limitations, and Reality"
• CCHR International, "Foster Children 4x More Likely to Get Psychotropic Drugs" (2023)
• Congressional Hearing CHRG-113hhrg94399, "Caring for Our Kids: Are We Overmedicating Children in Foster Care?"
PROJECT MILK CARTON — 501(c)(3) — EIN: 33-1323547 899 Eastlake Dr, Spring Creek, NV 89815 https://projectmilkcarton.org