From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (footnote omitted0:
Our objective was to determine whether beneficiaries1 who received Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) services attribute those services to their work-related outcomes. ...
The Social Security Act authorizes SSA to pay State VR agencies for the services they provide beneficiaries who meet certain conditions. ... SSA does not manage State VR agencies. ...
More beneficiaries in our population had unsuccessful work outcomes after they received VR services than those who had successful outcomes – 62 percent did not have successful work outcomes while 38 percent did. Per our survey, the beneficiaries with unsuccessful work outcomes did not find VR services as helpful as those with successful work outcomes. While SSA reimburses VR agencies for services provided, SSA does not have authority over the quality of those services. Accordingly, while our survey indicates VR agencies could better serve some beneficiaries, SSA has limited ability to effect change in the quality of VR services its beneficiaries receive. ...
Of the 122 beneficiaries with successful outcomes who responded to whether they would have been able to return to work without the VR services they received, 79 (65 percent) replied no. Of the 123 beneficiaries who responded to whether they would have been able to work for as long as they had without VR services, 85 (69 percent) replied no. ...
Note the implicit assumption that VR would do a better job if only it were managed by Social Security. LOL.
The entire thrust of the report seems to be that a 38% success rate is poor. Actually, that rate seems pretty good to me. Of course, VR turns away a lot of people. They only work with those who
seem to have potential. You can call it cherry picking if you wish but
I'd say they're just realistic. OIG seems to assume that there's some way of rehabilitating most Social Security disability recipients which is wrong. The people drawing those benefits have very serious health problems. Few of them get better. In fact, the majority keep getting worse over time.
"OIG seems to assume that there's some way of rehabilitating most Social Security disability recipients which is wrong."
ReplyDeleteYES. Let's not forget that OIG is run by Gail Ennis, whose employees (98% of them) have no confidence in: https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2021/10/after-having-their-computers-monitored-employees-blast-ssa-watchdog/186091/
And the same Gail Ennis who was given the job of OIG, despite having zero experience, after she donated thousands of dollars to the Trump campaign: https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/interior-inspector-general-ennis-trump-donor/
I think the entire program is designed to expect people to go back to work or else they would eliminate the 3 year and 5 year reviews and make everyone a mine CASE.
ReplyDeleteAs a disabled veteran that helps transition other disabled veterans back to work I can tell you that there are two big problems are employers not being willing to work with accommodations. The second problem is the time and effort it takes to uncover new skills, train and find additional assistive technology. Nobody wants to pay for those things or invest the time to get them done properly. Some return to work permanently and some we cannot find replacement skills. But they all take time and effort, something it appears nobody wants to pay for. It is easier to just pay them a disability check and hope you dont have to look them in the eye.
ReplyDeleteSome disabilities are easier to accommodate than others. But, when there is really nothing you can do CONSISTENTLY, accommodations are difficult. Overcoming one disability can be done, often for years. But, as you pile up limitations and rehabilitating conditions, anything other than limited, occasional work, just isn't realistic. Some think it's a lack of will... Which I find insulting. I know I WILLED myself every day for nearly 30 years. Will is nog enough.
ReplyDeleteGetting a 38% return to work rate from a group that was carefully vetted and found to be incapable of substantial gainful work is a great result. Isn't the overall return to work percentage rate from disabled beneficiaries in the mid to low single digits? That would be your comparison point.
ReplyDeleteIf adding VR to the mix boosts the return to work percentages that much higher then it is worth it, even if VR agencies reasonably cherry pick those most likely to return to work.