Another Truly Shocking Expose: (The Governmental Fleecing of Children and the Poor in General. Daniel Hatcher Discusses his Recent Book: Injustice Inc. - How America's Justice System Commodifies Children and the Poor)

1). “Injustice, Inc. - How America's Justice System Commodifies Children and the Poor”, (Video), March 7, 2023, C-Span 2 Book TV, Duration of Video 1:07:05.

University of Baltimore law professor Daniel Hatcher argued that the U.S. justice system commodifies the poor and children. Red Emma’s Bookstore in Baltimore hosted this event.

Note: This is a video of an interview with Daniel Hatcher discussing his latest book, Injustice Inc. - How America's Justice System Commodifies Children and the Poor

There is a transcript provided in Item 2). below.

2). “Injustice, Inc. - How America's Justice System Commodifies Children and the Poor”, (Transcript), March 7, 2023, C-Span 2 Book TV, Transcript, at <https://www.c-span.org/video/?526518-1/injustice-inc-americas-justice-system-commodifies-children-poor>

University of Baltimore law professor Daniel Hatcher argued that the U.S. justice system commodifies the poor and children. Red Emma’s Bookstore in Baltimore hosted this event.

~~ recommended by dmorista ~~

Introduction by dmorista: Another truly shocking interview in which an academic researcher reveals the horrific details about how various institutions of government in the U.S., generally in cahoots with some swindlers from the private sector, take the funds meant to support the country’s poorest and most vulnerable children. That revenue is then used either for private gain, or to run courts and other public institutions that are used to “control” and “punish” the poor; while keeping taxes on the more affluent members of society as low as possible. (About 3 weeks ago I posted an interview from the NPR Show “On Point”, that addressed some of these same issues. That article was “Sociologist Matthew Desmond on why poverty persists in America”, March 23, 2023, The Ongoing Class Struggle, at <https://ongoingclassstruggle.blogspot.com/2023/03/why-poverty-persists-in-america-michael.html>).

This video was presented on C-Span 2’s Book TV. And a rough transcript (that I did some work on to make it more intelligible) was also posted for this video on the C-Span website. Daniel Hatcher has done a great service to all of us by doing the research, and having worked as a court official previously. The details are horrifying.

1). “Injustice, Inc. - How America's Justice System Commodifies Children and the Poor”, (Video), March 7, 2023, C-Span 2 Book TV, Duration of Video 1:07:05

University of Baltimore law professor Daniel Hatcher argued that the U.S. justice system commodifies the poor and children. Red Emma’s Bookstore in Baltimore hosted this event.

Note: This is a video of an interview with Daniel Hatcher discussing his latest book, Injustice Inc. - How America's Justice System Commodifies Children and the Poor

There is a transcript provided below.

(This is a Graphical Image of the Youtube Link to this interview with Daniel Hatcher. To watch the actual video go to <https://www.c-span.org/video/?526518-1/injustice-inc-americas-justice-system-commodifies-children-poor>)

2). “Injustice, Inc. - How America's Justice System Commodifies Children and the Poor”, (Transcript), March 7, 2023, C-Span 2 Book TV, Transcript, at <https://www.c-span.org/video/?526518-1/injustice-inc-americas-justice-system-commodifies-children-poor>

University of Baltimore law professor Daniel Hatcher argued that the U.S. justice system commodifies the poor and children. Red Emma’s Bookstore in Baltimore hosted this event.

Transcript:

Show Host: Starting now. University of Baltimore Law Professor Daniel Hatcher argues that the US justice system commodifies the poor and Children. I am going to skip right to what Dorothy Roberts says because Dorothy Robins was one of our speakers when she came here to present and move torn apart. This is what Dorothy says. Once again, Daniel Harow powerfully exposes how government systems operate and extractive poverty industry motivated by profit rather than justice. This eye opening book is essential for understanding system mechanics and for working to help. And we're going to get into a lot of things with this book and I can't wait to get into it. Daniel L Hatcher is professor of law at the University of Baltimore where he teaches civil accuracy clinic uh in which law students represent low income clients. So that's what I'm talking about. Not just learning but acting right. He is the author of uh uh in addition to tonights book, The Poverty, Excuse Me, the Poverty industry, the exploitation of America's most vulnerable citizens. Uh Daniel was a former Maryland Legal Aid and Children's defense Fund attorney attorney and has long been a scholar advocate and teacher on poverty and justice. We're so glad to have Daniel here. We're also glad to have uh uh another member of the Reds Fan Shanta is here uh also from U B, this University of Baltimore Family. Right. Uh Shante is assistant professor, faculty director of the Center for Families Children and the Courts at the University of Law School of Law previously represented parents in Brooklyn who are embroiled in the child welfare system. And as a result of that experience writes about state action, family separation, focusing on issues related to race, poverty and gender. This is important. We need to listen to this. And so we're gonna have some high powered folk kids. So I need you to make some real, real radical noise as we discuss injustice incorporated, how America's justice system commodifies Children and the poor, make some noise for Daniel El.

Hatcher: Thank you so much for the introduction. Thank you. Thank you for all that you do for increasing awareness, right? Any change starts with awareness, I have to say thank you to my brilliantly beautiful and beautifully brilliant wife who is here honored that multiple law students from the University of Baltimore are here are future Advocates for Justice and multiple colleagues. And I'm grateful all around. I'm thrilled to be here presenting with Bay who heard the introduction from, from Ken and I will add to this that Shanta has both a she has an infinite kindness, right? While simultaneously this just fierce, brilliant advocacy. Right? And, um, she is already in her teaching and her scholarship and her advocacy causing immense change and she's gonna continue to do so. And it's an honor to, to speak with you. Um, I'm gonna turn out over Sean before we get into the, the process, all of that. Um, well, I am thrilled to be here. I'm so grateful for the invitation and because I think it's so important that the world hears more about your work and hopefully reads the entire book. And as you know, and thank you for sparing me from having to do my bio.

Show Host: Um You know, I do a lot of the work that you reference in the book. And even I was stunned by some of your research and you reveal some really astonishing facts about the ways that the court system and court officials are able to profit off of the poor. And before we get into the specifics of that, I'd love to talk to you about why you decided to write this book.

Hatcher: Well, I wish I didn't have to write the book because it candidly took a lot out of me, you know, both in the research. She saw me in the research, as you described. I often will fall down into the matrix of the research and one issue will lead to another and to another. It also takes a lot out of you when you're reading the stories and understanding the numbers, right? Because there's a risk that when we read report after report number, after number, data point, after data point that you can almost become numb to it, right? And you can forget that each number is a child. So we have to remember that each number comes with a story in the book. You know, I exposed just a few of those stories and I try to uncover how all these revenue mechanisms are causing harm and are really turning our justice institutions on their head from their intended goal of providing equal and impartial justice to maximizing revenue. And so I feel driven to write the book mostly from my client. So I've been an advocate for Children and the poor in a variety of ways for over 25 years now. And my first work as a legal aid lawyer was representing Children in the highly dysfunctional Baltimore foster care system. And that work was overwhelming to me. I represented hundreds of youth within just a year. I still see their faces. I still wonder how they're doing. I worry and I still think I could have done more. I should have done more so experiencing through them and through my adult clients and all the difficulties of poverty that they've been encountering in their perseverance, right? You know, when you have somebody who is struggling with poverty, it's just barrier after barrier, after barrier, not just the difficulty of being low income, but all the systemic barriers that are put in front of you. So when somebody is struggling with that, be it a youth or an adult and they're able to break through even partially, that's just heroic. And I often think I know that if I were in their shoes, I don't think I would be able to make it out. So they inspire me and I feel driven through their stories and then realizing the systemic harm that they're confronted with, I feel driven to try to uncover that and expose it so that hopefully we can begin to right some of those wrongs. Yeah. And I mean, you've uncovered many, many wrongs and I'm wondering how you first learned that courts were able to make money off of cases in the way that you expose in your book. Well, a variety of ways, one of the most stark examples that I that I initially uncovered in my last book and actually scholarship before that and I can describe a former client. So in addition to representing youth who are in the foster care system, I represented a former foster youth and I'm going to call him John even though it's not his real name. But so John was pulled into the system at age 12 when his mother died, he was shuffled from placement probably 20 or more within that time to different foster homes, group homes, never getting the services that he needed. He, when I encountered and met John and became his attorney. He told me about how he always wanted to be an auto mechanic and he loved cars. But the foster agency wouldn't even help him when he was in the system. Help to gain access to even the cost or the process of gaining his own driver's license. Right. And then I find out with John that while he's in the system until his mother died, he's eligible for survivor benefits. His mother had worked paid into the system. But the foster care agency, the very agency that exists for the sole reason of serving and protecting his welfare, his best interests sought those benefits out, applied for the benefits. Never told John never told that they were applying, never told him that they were applying to become the representative pay to control of those funds and then took literally every penny of those benefits from him. Right? And if you think like the stats of former foster youth are just lined up against them, right? You know, like again, for those who are able to do somewhat well after leaving the system, I'm amazed most aren't right. You know, and so he had this potential to have this monetary resource and it wasn't just the money, right? They took this connection from him, right? You know, he had this money that was left to him from his deceased parent that he could have used both the money and that to his parent to then help himself, right? And I just don't know how you put a number on that. So then I uncover a contract, right, that the state of Maryland, the foster care agency actually had a contract with the company by the name of Maximus. And I found one of the contract documents through a Public Information Act request refers to foster youth as a revenue generating mechanism, right? So this was really the first example that I encountered of Children being monetized by the systems that are supposed to serve their, their welfare. In this book, I uncover what I think is even more concerning that are various systems of justice, right, including our courts that are supposed to be monitors of mission that are supposed to review agency actions have become part of the poverty industry. Um You know, you talk about your client John as a foster youth and I'm going to take interviewer privilege because this is my area of interest. And you know, I spend a lot of time thinking about the harm of removing kids from their parents and what happens to them in foster care and the general harms inflicted by the child welfare or family policing system as I call it. And you know, I've watched Children removed from their parents in court and will never have those images out of my brain. And to think that people, the courts are making a profit off of that kind of pain and harm is really a lot to process. And I'm wondering if you could explain how that is or how that could be a variety of ways. Unfortunately. And I agree it's striking and one of the more striking examples that I uncovered as I was researching into a lot of the funding streams and there are many, when you deal with Children pulled into either the child welfare system or the juvenile justice systems programs for adults that are supposed to serve the adults, often the aid funds that I've uncovered have become general revenue sources for the county coffers or for the state coffers. Again, the last book, it was Ways in which human service agencies partnering with private companies to really turn, who are supposed to be their beneficiaries and their revenue tools. So um what you described, you know, that's an example I initially uncovered out of Ohio and then multiple states are using the same contractual scheme, juvenile courts are actually entering contracts to become part of the executive branch to become the local foster care agency in Ohio. So if you just think about that for a second, we had a revolutionary war some years ago to escape the idea of tyranny of centralized power that was in the hands of one entity. In that case, the English crown and the founders as flawed humans as they were created a structure of government built upon that separation of powers and most crucial within that the independence of our judiciary. So here you have in Ohio, I found the juvenile courts are actually becoming contracted to become part of that executive branch to take on the local foster care agency function and then what they do in order to generate the funds, you know, they first put on their court hat, adjudicate Children delinquent and then they put on the contractual foster care, placing agency hat, the Children are then removed or labeled as a foster care candidate and constantly processed. They put their court hat back on again, review their own actions, right? And if they review themselves favorably, they can generate more revenue, they're pulling down what's called federal foster care for e revenue, which is a very large funding source that supposed go to foster care agencies to provide services to Children. But the courts found a way to tap into that. And literally, I even have a quote from one of the juvenile court judges, literally the more Children removed from their homes, the more revenue the courts can make. And you dig further and you start to understand how the math works and how the mechanics work. It's not just that they're generating revenue from the services, right from the removal from the court operations and then the foster care, placing agency operations that they took over, they're generating administrative costs. And this sounds kind of dull at first. But what that means is they're literally using vulnerable Children pulled into the system to fund overhead, right, and to fund the overhead for the entire court structure from paying salaries for benefits, right to travel, to even depreciation, courthouse buildings. I even found a training where they're actually able to claim the administrative cost for the process of claiming administrative costs. If you understand that you're smarter than me, right? It starts to sound like a pyramid scheme in terms of the revenue. I found a slide and a training where the training for the courts and how to maximize this revenue. They literally referred to youth as if they were members of the Jetsons or the Flintstones, right? And it sounds like they bring comical culture like they trying to make a joke about this process of claiming revenue from Children. And the name that they use for one of the Children was Betty Ruble, they misspelled it, not rebel ruble. And through that slide, what's explained to the court staff is that the more poor Children that are removed from their homes compared to non poor Children. So there's this what's called a rate is what they use by the revenue maximization consultants that many of the courts work with. And what the rate is is literally the percentage of poor kids who are removed from their homes compared to non poor kids. And if that percentage goes up, if you have a greater percentage of poor kids, they can claim more revenue. So it's just to say it's strikingly concerning is an statement, you know, like the incentives are stark, it's unconstitutional that I argue in the book. I don't think it's an argument, right. You know, it couldn't be a more clear violation of separation of powers and what's supposed to be judicial impartiality, which is required by due process in our constitution and an application of ethics.

Show Host: Can we dig into that a little more, you know, you say that the more poor Children that are involved, the more money the courts make? Why?

Hatcher: Well, because there's this funding stream again that the courts are pursuing and it's not just courts, prosecutors have similar contracts. I can talk about that more as well. Probation departments title four E is what it is called of the Social Security Act and it's a large federal funding stream, right? And the way it's set up and the way the courts are maximizing revenue is that funding ends up only available if the Children come from poor families, if they're removed from families who used to be eligible for the old welfare law, it was called a DC, right? So they had to be pulled from poor families and that then becomes the rate, right? So they literally seen these contract document and train where the revenue maximization contractors will advise this goal of increasing your rate, right? And that when you're reading it, a person like, what is that? That sounds like, you know, sort of an economic principle or something. It's literally increasing the percentage of poor kids compared to non poor kids that are removed from their homes that allows the increased generation of. So title 40 funds are tied to a program that does not exist anymore and hasn't existed for quite some time. And through that, we're allowed to make more money because of this connection between a program that doesn't exist and a funding structure that's in place through the Social Security Act. Right? And it's a lot of money that's coming in. I've seen examples in Ohio in their own annual report. And you start to dig into some of these annual reports, right? You know, and it feels more like you're often reading almost a presentation to potential investors, right? More so than a report of an Institution of Justice in the annual report and budget documents, millions that are being drawn down an annually for this process. And this is just one right, you know, through the foster care funds, you can have the same court who could generate revenue from, from a child, adjudicated delinquent and removed from his home. Um Then that same court in Ohio and in other states could operate under an additional contract. You know, another one of these interagency contracts to generate more revenue by pursuing what's called child support. Although it's not against the mother from whom the child was removed. So the court will then pursue the mother for child support that isn't actually owed to the child or it isn't benefiting the child used to repay the cost of foster care that the court just ordered. Right. And then they're making even more revenue through that process, pulling down what's called title four D revenue. And in some of these contracts I've seen they're making even more money through that process. Yeah, I wanna come back to child support for sure.

Caller: Um, and you know, you mentioned Ohio. OK. And you know, your book talks about Texas and Louisiana like, all right, I expect some of that. Um, my husband has lived in both Texas and Louisiana is staring at me. But, um, you know, in reading your book, I was shocked to learn that some of these practices are happening here. Right.

Hatcher: Right. Well, these practices are happening. I do uncover a lot of examples across the country, right? And sometimes more of the striking examples can tend to happen in some what are considered more traditionally conservative areas. And you can see some irony sometimes in the practices, right, where you have the current leadership that might be adamantly against any federal aid for low income individuals while they are actually seeking out and maximizing that federal aid, but they not actually using it the way they're supposed to for the poor that are actually using it as a general revenue source to go into the general coffers. Maryland has several examples as well in which are happening, as I described earlier, Maryland has had a contract with the company and engaged in the practice on their own as well to pursue and take survivor benefits from Children and their care from, from foster youth and disability benefits. They'll even take veterans assistance benefit if a child had a parent who died in the military. And some states, I've seen, you know, similar to that practice a at a regulation where they even take burial plots from Children if they happen to have them look for literally anything that's a potential source of revenue. So Maryland is also engaged in these child support contracts as well statewide. The courts contract again with the executive branch agency and you have the executive branch child support agencies is one of the parties, right? And these proceedings are literally funding the courts that they appear before. You know, if you just think about that, it's like you imagine one party is paying for all the judicial officers that they're hearing in these child support courts, right? That's not supposed to be constitutional, right? When you have control over someone's finances, right? That's the control over their will and the circumstances. And then state's attorneys as well have these, have these contracts in Maryland where they're pulling in revenue through the child support proceedings. Yeah, I don't want to talk about this a little more. You know, I teach child support, we sometimes do child support cases and you know, it's complicated. Right. Child support is meant to ensure that parents are sharing the financial burden of caring for a child. Right. Kids are expensive and you know, a lot of the times the parents are not living together, one parent gets stuck with all the costs and we want to make sure that it's fair. All right. That makes sense. Kids need to eat. But if a parent fails to pay the child support that they ordered, the state can go after them because again, we want to get that money so that the kids can get what they need. But is that actually what child support enforcement looks like? Because it sounds like it's not because if that were true, the money would not be going anywhere near the courts, it would be going to these kids. And isn't that the whole point? Right. It's a great question. And there's really, this is an oversimplification. There's really two systems of child support that most people don't realize there's a system for the poor, largely forced. And then there's a system for the non poor and for the non poor. Like you may have judges that may hear your case through a divorce proceeding, including child support and and alimony, maybe even dividing vacation properties, you name it, it can take days, you know, through these proceedings, the four D courts, the courts for the poor are barely even courts and some states in some states, they are literally not and they're overseen not by judges but by judicial masters. Magistrates are called in some states, some states are friends of the court, right, various terms. And in some states, I've seen, like sometimes these non judicial officials don't even have to be lawyers. I've seen in some states don't need a college degree. And in Alaska, you can become what's the equivalent of a judicial master, certain ruling on cases that involve Children. If you simply, you don't even need a high school diploma, you simply need to be of age and a resident, right? So there's concern with the structure to start, but the four D structure of child support, most people don't realize that much of the four D child support system is actually not even money that's owed to the Children. Parents are pulled into the system when a low income mother temporarily needs public assistance, right? Or the child is removed into foster care. Like the example we talked before and then child support is, is what it is called, will be pursued against the low income parent to pay those costs back. And it's just an immensely harmful system because when the custodial parent is poor, the non custodial parent is often poor as well. There's a vastly disproportionate impact based upon income and race. Most of the families pulled into the this four D child support system are poor in Maryland statewide. I believe the number is about 70% of those pulled into the four D system in Maryland are black families. Right? And then one of the um enforcement tools that's frequently used, there's multiple, one of them is the license suspension. So here you have somebody who's desperately trying to, you know, stay above water and, and to deal with all the other revenue mechanisms that I discussed in the book and including court fines and fees and then their license suspended. So how do you get to your job? What if you need your license as part of the job? Right. And that impact one of our clinics at the University of Baltimore, the data and design clinic did some research and found that although the black population in Maryland statewide is about 30% 70% of the license suspensions are inflicted upon black families. So it has a vast, vastly disproportionate impact. And then like when you get into a situation where you have a low income parent who's struggling to say it's the mother who is desperately trying to get her child back after removal into the foster care system. Now, she's laid with thousands of dollars of debt that quickly accrue her license is if she's lucky enough to get above ground employment, right. They're immediately going to start garnishing her wages at 65%. Right. So, you know, the math doesn't work. How do you make ends meet? So that, so what it does for many individuals and what I would do if I were in their shoes. I would find a way to get money to my child directly. Right. I'd quit the job. Right. Work under the table and find a way to get money to my child. Right. And that's what many parents do. But then it creates this growing, growing debt obligations I owe to the state and the power of the state collections behind that so often they can never break out. Yeah. And I know in a lot of those instances, also people are doing this sort of informal support, but they're so scared of the enforcement that they stop because they don't want to get caught, they don't want to get held in contempt. And not only are they, you know, their income is limited in this way, but now the relationship has been impeded because they actually were supporting all along and having a relationship and once the enforcement proceedings get started, it's not, it's too hard to maintain the relationship. It's a crucial point and harmful point, right? In terms of the devastation to families again, with the disproportionate impact based on race, both currently and historically, right. You know, the four D program was encouraged largely by a senator from Louisiana who was a segregationist, right? And the initial program was solely aimed at cost recovery at punishing the poor. It grew from what were called the, the Bastardy Acts in the early colonies and grew from the poor laws um in England So all about punishing the poor, um and indemnifying towns from the risk of poor Children and these contracts that you see. So it's not just that the system can potentially be harmful, you know, often, often is harm is monetized. So then through these contracts that covering including Maryland in multiple states, Pennsylvania statewide, the family courts, somewhat like what Ohio courts have done. The family courts in Pennsylvania have contracted to become the local child support agencies, right? And again, their goal in doing this is then they can pull down the federal 40 revenue where the federal funding stream is supposed to be provided for child support agencies to help serve Children. But it said the courts are monetizing that and they're pulling in millions through this process. And it's not just again through the administrative cost and the contractual revenue that they can pull in in these contracts that are uncovered in Pennsylvania and other states, they're incentivized at twice the rate towards the pursuit of the government owed support. So in those families who are the most low income, who have been needing public assistance or if Children have been pulled into foster care, there's even contingency fees, right, that the courts get, they get 15% based upon how much money they pursue that. They're calling child support or medical support to pay back the cost of Medicaid against the poor families, a contingency fee, right? Any kind of incentive like that. That's the opposite of impartiality. So again, it's another example of just a clear abdication of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, right? And of the due process, impartiality. Yeah. Um All right. So we've talked about the courts which I'm still, you know, still working through some of this, but it's not just the courts, right? It's everyone from prosecutors to probation departments who are profiting in this way. Let's start with how one child can benefit police officers financially. Sure, a lot of ways a child and his family and in the book I talk about, I write about a child who's both simultaneously real and hypothetical I call him Sean. They with a dollar sign and real to the extent of former youth that I've represented and the parents that I've represented and real based upon the statistics and the real data. And, you know, he's hard to write about, you know, you know, because I know Sean, you know, and, and I, and I, and I know his parents, you know, like I, I, I know the story and he could be pulled into the system again so he could be first processed by the courts to generate revenue through removal. And then the courts might generate more revenue by pursuing his mom, right? For child support to repay the cost of foster care that the court has ordered. The prosecutor's office may have a similar contract to prosecute the cases. They're pulling in both title four E revenue. And I've seen contracts where again, the prosecutors are incentivized by an equation that literally the more Children, the more poor Children that are removed from their homes, the more revenue that the prosecutor's offices can generate, the prosecutors offices can generate further revenue through child support contracts. Again, through the prosecutorial contracts. Again, incentivized the more cases process, the more harm, the more revenue and then the policing agencies come into play and probation as well. And the policing agencies can have both contracts that generate revenue from title four, from the foster care and from child support to carry out arrests. I've seen contracts where sheriff's offices will share revenue with the amount of money they make from carrying out arrest warrants in child support proceedings. And then they often become sort of the foot soldiers for these enforcement mechanisms for the factory operations in which they are pursuing endless fines and fees on top of fines and fees. So the courts will frequently order fines find that there's a fine from a misdemeanor case, sometimes even just a minor traffic situation that will quickly grow to thousands of dollars when there's fees lapse on top of fees on top of the fees and interest is charged right. There might be a private company that gets involved in collection as well that adds on more fees on top of that. But in several, the sheriff's office will take part in these collections and then not just in the fines and fees, they'll pursue utility cut offs, evictions, foreclosures, repossessing cars ning again a contingency fee in some jurisdictions, they call it a poundage. Right. So, in New York, I write about an example where there are what's called city marshals in New York. And even though they're called city marshals, they're not employees of the city and they don't earn any salary. Right. They're mercenaries, like bounty hunters, hired guns, they make all their money, all of it by the pursuit of the poor and in the city's own documents. Right. They list the average revenue that one of these city marshals is pulling it after costs $420,000 per city marshal. And then that generates revenue for the city. Right. So again, they're commodified, not just poverty, they're commodifying the harm of poverty and it becomes an escape. That's just one of the examples. I mean, they are even the sheriffs that gain revenue through food. Right. You know, in Alabama and in some other jurisdictions, there have been stories where some of the sheriffs, they get a certain amount of money for food, for the prisoners. And if they feed even more cheaply, right, if they really diminish like the amount of food and the quality of the food as cheap as they can, they'll pocket the rest. Right. And that's been reduced somewhat in Alabama, but it's still happening. They're still taking a 25% cut so it becomes almost endless and it becomes overwhelming as you start to dig into these examples. Yeah. Well, now that you mentioned, you know, you talked about how hard it was to research and, you know, finding more and more, it sounds depressing. Um, and as someone who shares your love of depressing research, you know, um, it's helpful sometimes to think about, you know, is there any hope, you know, is there anything that you found that might indicate that things might get better? I think there is hope. I think we have a long road ahead. Right. And I think working towards improving the system is working towards this goal of equal and partial justice. And the words of equal justice are carved over our US Supreme Court. I believe in those words, right? You know, I still do. It's hard to, sometimes, you know, there are times that I wish I could give to apathy, like, you know, it would be so nice just to not care, right? Because it takes a lot out of you when you're working both with the individuals directly and the research and understanding, you know, what's behind the research. But we have to keep striving for that. And there is hope, you know, my clients give me hope, their perseverance law students, give me hope in terms of their perseverance and dedication to the study of law and to justice. And we've had some success in the example I described before where agencies are taking survivor benefits and disability benefits from foster Children and their care. We've started to have some success in pushing back on that. And some of the strongest voices who have helped to push back against that practice have been former foster youth who have been empowered to have their voice and to stand up including testifying in multiple states and to explain the harm. And now based on my research and working with multiple advocates, over 10 states have started to move in the right direction to push back on that. I testified in the district of Columbia and an ordinance was enacted. They are also in Philadelphia. So multiple cities are also moving forward in the right direction. So change is possible, but it's a long fight but we have to keep striving for it. What do we do? Um I see lawyers, I see law students. Um I'm sure there are other types of advocates in the audience and watching. What can we do? Well, I think it starts with, it starts with awareness. So what we're at a is is doing by hosting book talks and other events and other news organizations, right? You know, increasing awareness is the first crucial step to any change because we have to understand what the problem is in order to work towards the right solution because we need to fix it and we need to fix it in the right way, right? But then those of us in the justice system, I think it falls on us first. Right. And all of us, whether we're judges, prosecutors, prosecutors are supposed to be ministers of justice under the ethical rules and that's a crucial role. Right. If the ethics are taken seriously, right, our probation officers are policing officers. If they're true to their missions, you know, you look up any mission of a various sheriff's offices and policing agencies to serve and protect, right and to protect the vulnerable, right? There's some good sounding missions if they're true to those missions. So we have to hold ourselves accountable, right? And what I write about in the, in the solution, even though I think, you know, county by county state by state, it's gonna get nuanced right to, to figure out what exactly the solution are, solutions are, but it really comes down to mission and ethics, right? We need to have, um that, um, you know, zero focused attention to the mission of equal and impartial justice and then the ethics are being true to that mission, right? And I, and I argue in the book again, I don't think it's an argument. I think it's an ethical truism that if you have a judge, a prosecutor, an attorney, we're officers of the court, right, who's trying their best to be ethically true individually, to live up to their ethical obligations, right? If they're operating in a system that's compromised, that's ethically compromised, I argue their ethics are compromised and well, you can't just try to be good yourself. Right. You have to improve the system. So we all have to strive to do that. And if we don't, you know, look, if justice officials don't right their own wrongs, we need more litigation to happen across the country. And there have been some excellent cases brought constitutional claims successfully brought by groups like the Civil Rights Corps, a Southern Poverty Law Center and the like, unfortunately, we'll need more litigation. I think, I think we need more transparency and oversight. You know, inspector general's offices that can happen at the or the like that can happen at the state level, even county level, sometimes of requesting data certainly at the federal level. And we need our Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to take an even more active role. They've done some good investigations over the year, they essentially ceased over the prior four years, but now has become reenergized again. And we need that oversight to make sure that our justice systems are seeking justice, not money. Because if you just, you know, if you, if you think about that again, you know, like, look, you know, for profit companies, they exist to make a profit right? Fine. But our courts, they're not supposed to exist to make money, right? They're supposed to be driven by that ethical ideal of equal impartial justice or human service agencies, right? They exist to serve the best interests of their beneficiaries, be it foster care, Children, elderly individuals in nursing homes, right. Anyone needing their services that they shift from that mission to monetizing the harm, you know, immeasurable harm that results in it doesn't stop. Yeah. Um, well, I hope all of you out there, um, are ready to get to work. I find anger personally a very good motivator. So I thought it would be useful to end on an example that really stuck with me about how we are commodifying Children. And could you share with us what you learned about the juvenile facility being built right here in Charles County, Maryland? Sure. So like, you know, one of the chapters in the book, I write about title bodies in the beds, right? So you have various private actors, sometimes small companies who are bought by a larger company or bought by a larger company who are traded on the stock market, right? Who are generating revenue by jailing Children and in one way or another, sometimes now they're called better sounding names. It might be a residential treatment center, sometimes even academy or, or a camp, they're still detaining Children, right? And you know what I what I found in the research you have, you have towns, cities, states, sometimes that look towards these detention facilities and the widest variety of the term as a factory, right? And as a job producer and a revenue producer for the town, you know, I've seen report after report stories where one small town in North Carolina where the town manager was frustrated because the local factory was leaving during 2008, the last financial crisis that we had before COVID. But he expressed some hope that things were looking up for the town because they're building a new juvenile detention facility for girls. Right. And that was going to bring in more jobs and more money. right? You know, so as a revenue producer here in Maryland, right in Charles County, there's this economic report where they're considering the placement and the the whole process for a new detention facility, they literally use as part of the report, an economic tool and and discussing again the revenue production that would happen from Children. And the comparison in this document was to a factory building automobiles, right? So they're calling it, you know, what the way they're treating it, literally treating Children as commodities like a factory. And it's like a, it's almost like a factory assembly line, but more of a disassembly line, right, where we have already struggling, individuals are deconstructed for every possible penny. So it's happening right here. But you know, so we have to be aware, you become an angered, upset, frustrated by the research by the stories, but we have to bear witness. You know, we have to understand what's happening so we can work towards change. Well, thanks to all of you for bearing witness. Um and Dan, is there anything else that you want to leave us with before? So I wanna make sure to leave time for questions. I would open it up if anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to. So

Caller: what we do is they'll come around with a mate and thank you first of all, because there's so much that I um my mind is big, you know, listen to it. I can't even wrap, I can't wrap my head around it. Uh, now I have to, uh, I wanna come around with the mic and we ask that, keep your questions kind of directly truncated because there's so much we can talk about all night on this. We want to keep our questions relatively truncated. Uh, of course, we always invite diversity questions. So, yes, I think everybody can probably hear me because I'm a teacher. I'll use sound pretty good. Um, so thank you very much for being here. Um, I'm wondering two things are the judges and the people I understand about the businesses who fund the prisons, take the cut of the food and all of that. I know where that money goes, but the judges and the people in the system, are they complicit or are they brainwashed to think they're helping? Where does that come from? And also, is there a legislative opportunity opportunity to stop the flow of federal money to these people?

Hatcher: Yes. To all of that, I can unpack it a little bit. So maybe starting with the last, I think there are potential legislative effects that could happen both at the state level and federal level. Certainly with title four of the Social Security Act, we need improvements right. There needs to be a delinking of title four from poverty, right. So to the extent that it is available and provided, right, it isn't based on only poor Children, right? And there can be improved guidance from the federal government even without legislation. Certainly at the state level, we need to the extent that the revenue is necessary for the justice institution to serve its role, right? You need that revenue to be from a neutral source from ideally state or county taxation that are equitable and from these revenue schemes, right? We need to have a way that organizations, the institutions are funded, right? Without the incentives. I do think, you know, like our justice officials or prosecutors, I've seen examples where some prosecutors will directly get some revenue, right. You know, and if it's not the individual, it's the office in which the judges, the prosecutors work. You look at the annual reports and it's line items in the revenue for the annual report, sometimes millions. So and even if again, but even if an individual judge doesn't know if they, if they are trying to do their best, what our constitution requires for impartiality is not just actual impartiality, but the appearance of impartiality, right? And that's such a crucial idea because, you know, if you're trying to establish a conflict, right. You know, you could have a judge or perhaps you could say, well, there's incentives and, yeah, we can make more money if more, more poor Children are removed from their homes. But that doesn't phase me. Right. You know, and how do you prove that is challenging to say the least. So, one of the longest principles of due process in our country is the principle of not just actual but the appearance of impartiality. It's crucial.

Caller: Hi. So I'm a child support legal aid practitioner. And when I tell even my most progressive friends that the government actually profits off of 40 child support cases where parents are essentially forced into court and a father is made to pay money for a child that doesn't even go to the child that has been pocketed by the government. People are shocked. This is something that not enough people know. And so I'm just wondering, I routinely hear people exclaim that, you know, they, they were unaware that this is a practice that's been going on for decades. Um How, you know, beyond just reading your book, how do we get out the word that systems are, are treating poor people and people of color in this really abhorrent way, we definitely.