The Social Security Administration, along with the Departments of Education, Labor and Health and Human Services have worked together to create a plan to help young people receiving Supplemental Security Income improve their lives and, more to the point, move off government benefits. This plan, called PROMISE for Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI, was tested in six states. PROMISE has the following components:
- Formal partnerships between state agencies that provide the following services: vocational rehabilitation (VR) services, special education and related services, workforce development services, Medicaid services, income assistance from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and services provided by federally funded state developmental disability and mental health services programs
- Case management to ensure that PROMISE services would be appropriately planned and coordinated, help participants navigate the broader service delivery system, and help with transition planning for post-school goals and services
- Benefits counseling and financial education for youth and their families on SSA work incentives, eligibility requirements of various programs, rules governing earnings and assets, and topics promoting families’ financial stability
- Career and work-based learning experiences, including paid and unpaid work experiences in an integrated setting while they were in high school
- Parent training and information in two areas: (1) the parents’ or guardians’ role in supporting and advocating for their youth to help them achieve their education and employment goals, and (2) resources for improving the education and employment outcomes of the parents or guardians and the economic self-sufficiency. ...
Our old friend, the beltway bandit, Mathematica Policy Research, has done an evaluation of PROMISE. The bottom line is that PROMISE is quite unpromising. As the report says, "By 18 months after enrollment, none of the programs had a desirable impact on youth’s self-determination and expectations or youth’s reliance on Medicaid, nor on parents’ total income."
This sort of research is not harmless. This study cost $230 million. That money could have been better spent preventing further degradation of service at Social Security.
Can we just give up on the illusion that there's some crafty scheme that will put disabled people to work? We've tried these schemes for more than 50 years, often at great expense, and they never work. Never.
14 comments:
How are you a successful lawyer? Can you even read?
The $230 million was spent by the Department of Education.
Further, the report specifically says that the outcomes in the reports are not the expected outcomes of the intervention, which are expected to be in the future. This is an interim report 1.5 years into a project serving 14-16 hoping to affect adult outcomes, such as employment. If you're expecting large drop-offs from SSI before age 18 due to employment, I don't know what you're thinking. Clearly SSA, ED, HHS, and Labor were not thinking that. But then again, they can read...
My son was contacted by them regarding this and I do have to say that the theory sounds so good. The problem is that in the cadre of SSI eligibles, the fact that they are on SSI so young indicates that the disability levels are indeed high, meaning the numbers of individuals who have the physical, intellectual and emotional capabilities to successfully end up working after being in the program are statistically very few. Ask any parent with a child/ adult child who has a disability, or the folks who do service and support at places like the ARC and you can quickly identify the higher functioning (physical/intellectual) individuals who MAY be able to benefit.
Because we all wish our kids were one of these kids, riding transportation alone, handling money, relationships, employment and living safely. God bless but sure, let's maximize their potential.
But sadly, for every 1 of them there are 12 other individuals that may appear to be similar but who simply will not benefit from the money spent trying. Not their fault, but if it were "that easy" to support a disabled person across the strata of life, we wouldn't have the issues we have with services and home options etc. The point is that cherry picking these folks who can work over their limitations starts people to thinking all these individuals can do the same "if only we put resources into it". But the truth is that that goal is an impossible one for way too many. But somehow that truth is not acceptable.
SSI is for food, clothing and shelter. Which one of those three is not provided by their parents? Children should not be getting cash payments. Qualify them for Medicaid, no problem. They need to have their medical needs met. If an adult that has any one of those three items provided for them, then their check gets reduced by a third. So why do we pay children full benefits?
@10:05 When child SSI was created there was no obligation on schools to provide counseling or accommodations.
The disabled child had no access to most services we now take for granted unless they had cash to pay for those services.
@10:05
Parents' income is deemed to the SSI child, so if the child is eligible for SSI, that's a result of the parent having limited resources, meaning providing for the child's food, clothing, and shelter is limited at best.
Children do not get cash payments. SSA hasn't sent out cash in decades. Benefits are sent out via check or deposited directly into a bank account controlled by the parent to be used to provide for the child's needs.
Both adult SSI and child SSI recipients have their benefits reduced based on their living situation.
I like the way everyone ignored the facts put forth by 9:28 to push an agenda.
Which executive thought up this program?
@11:32
Yes, parents income is deemed, but my point is isn't it their responsibility to provide food, clothing and shelter to begin with? Why does SSA pay SSI benefits (they never gave out cash) to children?
It shouldn't be another welfare payment. Again, if they need Medicaid, give them Medicaid. The only time a child's benefit is reduced based on a living arrangement is if they aren't living with a parent. Ironic that a grandparent that is raising a grandchild, might see their grandchild's SSI benefit reduced. However, when that child lives with a parent, who is presumed to provide food, clothing and shelter, the child gets a full SSI check.
Anon 10:05. Your argument is basically against the entirety of the SSI program. You are against something for nothing.
Remember, only parents with low incomes can qualify their children for SSI. Presumably, the parents need extra assistance with a child with a disability. Medicaid is not enough to handle all that comes with dealing with a child with a disability.
Believe what you are against is parents using this cash for their own. This happens a lot.
As I have said before, the problem with SSI or SSD is not proving the disability. Ask anyone who has handled a child SSI and they will tell you it is extremely hard to qualify (usually they are at listing level). I used to train my entire firm on child SSI claimants but we stopped taking the cases due to the low chance of success.
The problem w/ SSI/SSD (and most welfare programs) is checking up on those already on it. CDRs are kind of a joke. Getting on usually is legitimate. But people stay on it too long. That is probably why most child SSI claimants have to reapply once they turn 18.
Sounds like you want all SSI gone. This sounds like something coming from the most evil politician against poor people ever - former House speaker Paul Ryan.
Why is the assumption that if a person has a problem with a program or application of rules on the blog then they automatically have to be against the entire program?
@4:14
Because SSA employees are overwhelmed with pressure to work down the backlog and they view any indication that the system is defective in some way as additional pressure to do better.
At least that's my guess.
Anon 4:14 "Children should not be getting cash payments. Qualify them for Medicaid, no problem."
That was the quote that was the problem. Access to Medicaid is not enough for most low income parents. This is especially true with severe physical disabilities such as severe ambulatory problems. The parents need help.
WOW, $230 million. I agree, tremendous waste of money.
You want people to go to work and get off SSI?
Make it easier, simpler. Remove the fear of losing benefits. Provide Medicaid assurance. Give people a long trial work period. Make it all simpler and easier to understand.
11:16
Have you heard about Section 1619b SSI eligibility? No fear of losing SSI entitlement just because you are working and performing SGA if you need and use Medicaid and you cannot afford to pay for it with your income. And this computation means that a quadraplegic can earn over $60K (at least in California where there is a state supp).
SSI has no trial work period. SSDI has a TWP, an EPE, as well as EXR.
But if you want a program that will do all those things, I don't see how it can be simpler and easier to understand.
Post a Comment