In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Sullivan v. Zebley case fundamentally changed, albeit temporarily, the criteria under which children qualified for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program based on disability. Instead of a system based on medical criteria alone, 1996 enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) tied children’s eligibility for SSI, in part, to the effects of their medically determinable impairments on their ability to function day-to-day in age-appropriate activities at home, at school, and in their communities. This paper examines what happened to the Zebley cohort after the age of 18 relative to cohorts who received SSI payments under stricter criteria. This paper evaluates the long-term impact on educational attainment, earnings, SSI and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) participation, and other markers of adult development for the Zebley cohort. We find that, overall, SSI receipt in childhood is associated more [with] positive outcomes than negative ones. The Zebley cohort has a longer attachment to the labor force and a lower likelihood of welfare receipt in adulthood, but also a higher likelihood of lacking health insurance coverage. In addition, those with health conditions most likely to be affected by the new evaluation criteria appear to substitute welfare benefits for disability benefits These results are consistent with the hypothesis that SSI receipt at the margin improves adult outcomes.
Jan 19, 2013
SSI Child Benefits Result In Better Long Term Outcomes For Disabled Children
The abstract of a research study by Norma Coe and Matthew Rutledge (emphasis added):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The bottom line is that SSIDC benefits should not be cash benefits. It should be a voucher for a medical and/or educational expenses. I am a CR in a NYC field office and I see rampant abuse. I am not saying many children do not deserve it, but the parents are simply running wild with it many cases. Unacceptable. I'm not as concerned with getting SSI people off the rolls as improving a truly disabled child's future...
I lived two houses down from a divorced single mother whose son was physically quite healthy, but had severe autism with frequent violent outbursts. She couldn't hold a job, because at least one or twice a week he would be sent home from school for indefinite amounts of time due to the violence. She'd tried to find a residential placement for him as he got older (and bigger, and stronger) but our state doesn't have a lot of options for that, and those are pretty grim. What would have happened to them without SSI, or if she'd had only medical or educational vouchers? What would happen to other families with children that require such extensive care?
What would happen if SSI didn't exist at all? I work as a CR in a very low income inner city office and I agree, the abuse by parents is rampant. It's common to have a young mother with multiple children filing applications for every child. The bottom line is that there are a lot of unfit parents out there who try to cash in on their children. I tend to agree with the first poster - vouchers are the way to go. Vouchers for medicine, child care and even rent. Cash is just a bad idea. I strongly believe that if it were turned into a voucher program and not a cash assistance program, you would see the number of applications being filed decline.
#3 - you've given the best argument for abortion.
this just in, more money equals better situation.
No kidding SSI results in better outcomes. That doesn't change the fact that it's (mostly) just welfare.
"We find that, overall, SSI receipt in childhood is associated more [with] positive outcomes than negative ones."
Maybe the kids weren't that disabled in the first place. That why the seems to be doing so well as an adult after receiving SSI.
This is all very interesting, considering the folks that get dropped off the rolls at the age 18 CDR, who may not have been disabled in the first place, but encouraged to malinger by their parents?
There are so many illegal alien parent cases, that I always wondered how were we really supposed to check their income and resources?
@12:06
I hate to sound cold, but that isn't SSAs concern. The concern you raise deals with a crappy healthcare (specifically that for mental illnesses) and employment laws. Those things are horrible, but is it SSAs job to provide cash benefits to people victimized by those things to better their situations? I feel that those people should get government money, I do! But by letting SSA become backdoor welfare, you strengthen the argument against the programs, weaken its solvency, and prevent the real problems from facing higher scrutiny and maybe actually being changed (since SSA provides a decent enough bandaid that the proles don't come a-running with pitchforks).
Post a Comment