Oct 11, 2018

Proposed Regs On Rep Payees

     The Social Security Administration has published proposed regulations to implement legislation passed in August that prohibits persons convicted of certain criminal offenses from serving as a representative payee in certain circumstances. I hope there's enough discretion remaining in this proposal. Certainly, there are rep payees who rip off Social Security beneficiaries but the biggest problem I've seen has been a lack of anyone willing or able to be a rep payee. Blanket disqualifications may exclude trustworthy people. It's possible to commit a crime, be convicted, serve your time and then get out and live an honorable life.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

A family I'm acquainted with whose disabled child will get SSI at age 18 has 2 parents convicted of felonies in their past. The father's has already impacted some benefits even though both were years ago as young adults and both are now stable parents raising a family including one severely impaired child. Jobs and housing were impacted, it'd be a horror to find that they couldn't serve as payee for their child/adult son when the time comes.

Anonymous said...

9:46 - The linked proposed rules explicitly state that a felony conviction will not be an absolute bar for custodial parents in certain situations, including where they previously served as the rep payee for a minor who has since turned 18, or where the beneficiary's disability began before age 22. In those situations, SSA would use a "best interests" test.

Anonymous said...

Or even a Supreme Court Justice!

Anonymous said...

The agency is already doing this now, although the 5 year criminal background check requirement is a new one. Of course, SSA's criminal background check basically involves checking Lexis-Nexis (or Accurint, as it is called now) for criminal history, so it isn't worth much. I don't see them allowing access to anything more comprehensive such as NCIC checks any time soon.

Since the agency has already been doing almost all of this, I suspect this is simply a CYA regulation.