How Many More Kids Should Be Drawing SSI?

     From How Many Medicaid Recipients Might Be Eligible For SSI by Michael Levere and David Wittenburg for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

Children’s participation in the federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program has declined substantially over the past decade. Many children with disabilities might be eligible for SSI, yet barriers such as a lack of knowledge of the program or perceived challenges with applying may limit participation. In this paper, we use machine learning models on Medicaid administrative data to estimate the number and characteristics of children who are potentially eligible for SSI but do not currently receive benefits.

The paper found that:

• A substantial number of children are potentially eligible for SSI. Depending on the exact probability used to define potential eligibility, the increase could likely range from 10 percent to 55 percent increase in enrollment (relative to the current number of SSI recipients). ...

    Note that the title of the study is misleading. They're not talking about all potential SSI recipients; just children.

Cutting Off SSI Disability Benefits At Age 18 Leads To Adverse Life Outcomes

    From The Impact Of Losing Childhood Supplemental Security Income Benefits On Long-Term Education and Health Outcomes by Priyanka Anand and Hansoo Ko, a study for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

Many youth with disabilities rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) as an important source of income for their families, but they must go through a redetermination process at age 18 if they are to continue receiving those benefits into adulthood. Our project uses data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) to examine the long-term impact of losing child SSI upon turning 18, due to the 1996 welfare reform, on education and health outcomes. We compare the long-term outcomes of those who turned 18 just after August 1996 with those who turned 18 just before, given that the reform increased the strictness of medical reviews for 18-year-old beneficiaries. Because the respondents are in their 30s and 40s in the later waves of the survey, we also examine the health outcomes of their children.

The paper found that:

• Those who were likely to lose SSI at age 18 have fewer years of education and are less likely to attend college than those who were less likely to lose their benefits.
• There is suggestive evidence of worse health outcomes for the children of those who were likely to lose their SSI benefits at age 18.

The policy implications of the findings are:

• Discontinuing benefits at age 18 has a negative impact on the human capital attainment of child SSI beneficiaries, which may explain their lower long-term earnings relative to other disadvantaged populations.
• The negative impacts of discontinuing child SSI benefits may continue into the next generation.
• Moderate amounts of cash transfers to children of vulnerable families may lead to lasting positive impacts. ...
  

    Wouldn't it be possible to do these age 18 redeterminations in a less harsh way, even without a legislative change? Give at least a little weight to the prior finding of disability? Where the claimant was approved based upon a child Listing and that child Listing is almost identical to the adult Listing, create a presumption that the disability hasn't ended? The current process seems to me to be designed to be as harsh as possible. Can't Social Security do better?

Turning 18 Doesn't Make You Healthier

     Mark Betancourt writes for Mother Jones about the problems caused by kicking large numbers of disabled people off SSI when they turn 18. Here's the key quote:

... Youth who lost benefits at 18 were twice as likely to be charged with a crime as they were to hold a job. Compared with those who stayed on SSI, they were 60 percent more likely to be incarcerated. Most were charged with income-generating crimes like theft, fraud, or prostitution. And they didn’t just commit crimes at a higher rate immediately after losing their checks but did so over the ensuing two decades. The study also found that increased spending on policing, adjudication, and incarceration nearly erased any government savings from reduced payouts; the added expenses far outstripped the savings when victims’ costs were included. ...

SSI Child's Disability Disappearing

     National Public Radio has a new piece out about the dramatic decrease in the number of people applying for and receiving Supplemental Security Income for disabled children.

    SSI is disappearing before our eyes, destroyed by antiquated income and resource rules and inadequate resources for the Social Security Administration to do much other than cut people off benefits.

Fewer Applications Where There Are Fewer Field Offices

     From Does the Drop in Child SSI Applications and Awards During COVID Vary by Locality? a study by Michael Levere, Jeffrey Hemmeter, and David Wittenburg:

Child applications and awards for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) fell sharply at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cumulative applications from April to September 2020 were about 30 percent lower than applications over the same period in 2019. Yet the decline varied substantially across local areas. In this paper, we explore the factors correlated with the change in applications and awards at the beginning of the pandemic.

The paper found that:

• The restriction of in-person services at all Social Security Administration (SSA) field offices in March 2020 played an important role in changes in SSI applications; counties with their own field offices, where the change in service availability is largest, experienced larger declines.
• The pandemic’s myriad disruptions to social and service networks through which people may learn about SSI also contributed to declining applications, as declines were largest in counties with more children that participated in SSI before the pandemic and in counties where more people had a self-identified disability.
• New macroeconomic stabilization policies such as economic impact payments and supplemental unemployment insurance payments also appear to have led to fewer child SSI applications. Counties with larger employment reductions early in the pandemic, which likely benefited most from these stabilization policies, subsequently also had fewer SSI applications.

Is This Wrong?

      From National Public Radio:

... Roughly 10% of foster youth in the U.S. are entitled to Social Security benefits, either because their parents have died or because they have a physical or mental disability that would leave them in poverty without financial help. This money — typically more than $700 per month, though survivor benefits vary — is considered their property under federal law.

The Marshall Project and NPR have found that in at least 36 states and Washington, D.C., state foster care agencies comb through their case files to find kids entitled to these benefits, then apply to Social Security to become each child's financial representative, a process permitted by federal regulations. Once approved, the agencies take the money, almost always without notifying the children, their loved ones or lawyers.

At least 10 state foster care agencies hire for-profit companies to obtain millions of dollars in Social Security benefits intended for the most vulnerable children in state care each year, according to a review of hundreds of pages of contract documents. A private firm that Alaska used while Hunter was in state care referred to acquiring benefits from people with disabilities as "a major line of business" in company records. ...

In a Marshall Project/NPR survey of all 50 state child services agencies, most pointed out that it is legal for them to apply to the Social Security Administration to become the financial representative for foster children's benefits — though federal regulations state that a parent, foster parent, relative or family friend is preferred. Almost all said they take kids' money as reimbursement for the cost of foster care, putting the funds in individual accounts to recoup what the state has paid for each child's room and board. ...

The state of Alaska is currently facing a landmark class action lawsuit over this practice that may reach the state Supreme Court later this year. ...

In the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case Washington State v. Keffeler, 39 state attorneys general argued that losing foster children's survivor and disability benefits could potentially cost state governments billions of dollars for years.

Daniel L. Hatcher, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and a leading expert on this practice, said it invites a larger question about the role of government. "I think sometimes these officials are so in the weeds of getting funding however they can, they don't even realize that this is not just another funding stream — this is literally children's own money," Hatcher said. "This is about whether we're going to use abused and neglected children's own money to pay for what we're supposed to be providing them as a society." ,,,

DAC Claims Get Missed All The Time

      From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

... An SSI recipient may be eligible for CDB [Child Disability Benefits -- Disabled Adult Child Benfits or DAC is what they're usually called] as a disabled child on a wage earner’s record [the father or mother] under the OASDI [Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance] program when the recipient meets the criteria for benefits. To conduct our review, we identified 1,017 SSI recipients who were potentially eligible for CDB from 1 of 20 segments in SSA’s system. From this population, we selected a random sample of 50 recipients for review.

... [W]e identified SSI recipients who were eligible for CDB. Our analysis of 50 SSI recipients identified 22 who were potentially eligible for, and 15 potentially technically entitled to, CDB. This occurred because SSA did not always (1) develop and dispose of leads related to CDB and/or (2) identify SSI recipients eligible for CDB during reviews of their non-medical eligibility factors and SSI payment amounts. Separate from our review, SSA has conducted projects, which identify SSI recipients who were potentially eligible for CDB. Based on the results of our review, we estimate 8,140 SSI recipients were potentially eligible for CDB and may be due underpayments totaling approximately $18.5 million. If SSA does not take action, we estimate the 8,140 SSI recipients may lose an additional $3.6 million over a 12-month period. ...

     In my experience there are two types of benefits that are very frequently missed: Disabled Adult Child and Widowers benefits. Parents benefits are usually missed but there are very, very few entitled to Parents benefits. I always discuss the possibility of DAC benefits with young disability claimants. Even if they're not eligible now because neither of their parents is on Social Security benefits or retired, they'll need the information for later. I also make a point of asking both older male and older female clients about their marital status so I don't miss Widows and Widowers claims.

Can We Just Quit Wasting Money On Such UnPROMISING Research?

     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.

Yeah, They Really Are Sick

     The most recent issue of the Social Security Bulletin, the agency's scholarly journal, contains an article by Jeffrey Hemmeter and Paul S. Davies on Infant Mortality Among Supplemental Security Income Applicants. The bottom line is that child SSI applicants die at a fairly high rate compared to other children.

Click on image to view full size

Social Security Seeks Input

     From a notice published by Social Security in the Federal Register (footnotes omitted):

This request for information (RFI) seeks public input on strategies for improving the adult economic outcomes of youth ages 14 to 25 with disabilities receiving SSI. ...

While studies have shown that transition-age SSI recipients are at risk of poor economic outcomes--lower earnings and employment--when they become adults, it is not clear what supports could improve these outcomes or who should provide them. ...

This RFI offers interested parties, including States, community-based and other non-profit organizations, philanthropic organizations, researchers, and members of the public, the opportunity to provide information and recommendations on effective approaches for improving adult outcomes for youth receiving SSI. ...

SSA's redetermination of SSI eligibility at age 18 also generally results in 30-40 percent of youth losing SSI eligibility (and the accompanying automatic Medicaid access that most SSI recipients receive) because their condition does not meet the adult standard for disability. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has noted that these issues contribute to the difficulties many child SSI recipients experience transitioning to adulthood. 

Several studies of transition-age SSI recipients suggest significant gaps exist in the awareness and use of services and policies currently available to youth. For example, prior to age 18, less than one quarter of SSI recipients received vocational training. About 40 percent of 16- and 17-year-old SSI recipients work, but only about 3 percent of eligible SSI recipients (of all ages) use the student earned income exclusion, a work incentive that excludes a certain amount of earned income from the SSI calculation. ...

SSA has recognized the difficult transition to adulthood and that many of these youth return to the SSI program in early adulthood. ...

We ask respondents to address the following questions, where possible, considering the context discussed in this document. You do not need to address every question and should focus on those that relate to your expertise or perspectives. To the extent possible, please clearly indicate which question(s) you address in your response.

Questions:

     1. What specific programs or practices have shown promise at the Federal, State, or local level in improving the adult economic outcomes of youth with disabilities receiving SSI?

     2. Given the requirement of VR agencies to serve transition-age individuals, the availability of Individualized Education Programs (IEP) and Section 504 plans in school settings, and the availability of services and supports elsewhere available to youths, what should SSA's role be in assisting the transition of youths to adulthood?

     3. How might SSA better support other agencies' youth transition-related activities?
          a. What SSA policies interact with other agencies' services and supports?
         b. Do SSA's and other agencies' policies need to be modified (technically or administratively) to improve utilization of these services and supports? How?

     4. Are there aspects of SSA's publications, mailings, and online information that SSA can improve to better support successful transitions to adulthood of youths receiving SSI?

     5. How can SSA improve its existing work incentive policies, such as the Student Earned Income Exclusion (SEIE) and Impairment-Related Work Expenses (IRWE), to better support and increase SSI youth engagement in work? Are there alternative models that SSA should consider to replace existing work incentives?

     6. How can SSA enhance and better target its existing service infrastructure including its Work Incentive Planning and Assistance (WIPA) program and Plan to Achieve Self Support (PASS), to increase SSI youth engagement in work and work activities?

     7. What lessons from SSA's youth demonstration projects, in particular the Youth Transition Demonstration (YTD) and the Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI (PROMISE) project, should SSA apply to new policies and demonstrations? What partners were not included in those demonstrations that should have been? Why?

     8. If SSA were to conduct a new demonstration project related to youth, which populations should SSA consider targeting, if any? How can SSA identify these populations? How many individuals enter these populations per year?

     9. Are there entities (for example, State VR agencies, medical practices, local education and training agencies, etc.) we could look to as exemplars based on current practices for serving youth with disabilities? What evidence exists to suggest these sites are effectively providing services that would lead to the increased self-sufficiency of youths with disabilities?

     10. In the absence of legislation renewing SSA's ability to refer Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries and SSI recipients directly to VR, how can SSA help connect youth to VR services?

     11. Should SSA expand the Ticket to Work (Ticket) program to include children or create a separate program for children with a similar mission (i.e., reimbursing service providers whose services result in increased employment and reduced need on cash benefits)?
         a. What services should such a program provide over and above the services youth with disabilities receiving SSI are already eligible for?
         b. What types of service providers should be allowed to participate in a youth Ticket program? Should such a program include all types of existing employment network providers or should it be limited organizations with existing providers that serve the broader youth population?
         c. Is there a lower age limit the Ticket program (either the current program or a new child-specific program) should include that is consistent with other common Federal, State, and local policies that promote self-sufficiency?
        d. Since most children are in school, what outcomes or milestones should a
program that included payments for child outcomes be tied to?
         e. How effective are such incentive payments to service providers likely to be when serving youth? Are there alternatives to current incentive payment structures that SSA should consider (e.g., a payment structure based on state-wide youth employment or youth SSI participation metrics)?
         f. How should the age-18 redetermination and the fact that over one-third of age-18 redeterminations result in the cessation of benefits because they do not have a condition that meets the adult standard for disability factor into such a program?
          g. Are there specific populations among SSI youth, such as youth in foster care, that such a program should consider for allowable services, providers, and expenditures?
         h. Would such a program be duplicative of the services provided by State VR agencies, which are already required to support the transition of youth with disabilities? Why or why not?

     12. Since the implementation of WIOA, are there specific examples of effective services that are funded through the PROMISE grants but not funded through State VR agencies or other Federal and State funding sources?...

     I can talk about something that I used to see that I don't see anymore even though it seemed effective. In the past, workers for the state Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency were in regular contact with school guidance counselors to identify disabled high school age children.  These children were offered VR help in making the transition to work. As appropriate, VR offered counseling, VR paid for post-high school training, VR offered sheltered workshops, VR used contacts with sympathetic employers to help at risk young people find employment, and VR offered job coaches. This has almost completely ended in North Carolina. It especially troubles me that there are no more sheltered workshops. You don't need a Ph.D. in VR to figure out that these sorts of services can be invaluable to disabled young people. Why did they stop? It's lack of operating funds for VR. The Social Security Administration can't solve this problem but Congress certainly can and should.
     I can and do refer disabled young people to VR. Every time I do, the parents tell me that they can't understand why no one at the school ever told them about VR. However, even after the young person gets to VR, it seems that they now receive only very limited help. It's nothing like it used to be.
     Please, let's give adequate funding to VR. They can do good work if we'll let them have enough funding.

Another Attack On People Suffering From Mental Illness

     From the Washington Post:

The food was nearly gone and the bills were going unpaid, but they still had their pills, and that was what they thought of as the sky brightened and they awoke, one by one. First came Kathy Strait, 55, who withdrew six pills from a miniature backpack and swallowed them. Then emerged her daughter, Franny Tidwell, 32, who rummaged through 29 bottles of medication atop the refrigerator and brought down her own: oxcarbazepine for bipolar disorder, fluoxetine for depression, an opiate for pain. She next reached for two green bottles of Tenex, a medication for hyperactivity, filled two glasses with water and said, “Come here, boys.”

The boys were identical twins William and Dale, 10. They were the fourth generation in this family to receive federal disability checks, and the first to be declared no longer disabled and have them taken away. In days that had grown increasingly tense, as debts mounted and desperation grew to prove that the twins should be on disability, this was always the worst time, before the medication kicked in, when the mobile home was filled with the sounds of children fighting, dogs barking, adults yelling, television volume turned up. ...

Talk of medications, of diagnoses, of monthly checks that never seem to cover every need — these are the constants in households like this one, composed of multiple generations of people living on disability. Little-studied and largely unreported, such families have become familiar in rural communities reshaped by a decades-long surge that swelled the nation’s disability rolls by millions before declining slightly in 2015 as older beneficiaries aged into retirement benefits, according to interviews with social workers, lawyers, school officials, academics and rural residents. ...

“I hesitate to use a term like ‘culture.’ It’s not a specific, measurable metric,” said Kathleen Romig, an analyst with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who studies disability in the United States. “Certain things like toxic stress or nutrition or preterm births or parental depression or genetics” offer a more revealing context for understanding generational disability.

And yet others say it’s about money.

Ruth Horn, director of social services in Buchanan County, Va., which has one of the country’s highest rates of disability, has spent decades working with profoundly poor families. Some parents, she said, don’t encourage their children academically, and even actively discourage them from doing well, because they view disability as a “source of income,” and think failure will help the family receive a check. ...

     For the record, genetic influences account for 60-85% of the risk for bipolar disorder so it is hardly surprising to find several people with bipolar disorder in the same family. Many who are initially diagnosed with attention deficit disorder in childhood are eventually diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
     Bipolar disorder is a very serious mental disorder. Although many people with bipolar can be stabilized with medication to the point that they can work and live fairly normal lives, that is certainly not the case with all. The disability produced by bipolar disorder has nothing to do with where a person lives or what their source of income is. Cutting off the income of people with bipolar disorder doesn't effect any cure. It just causes stress which makes the condition worse.
     With one exception, I don't often see two members of the same family as clients either at the same time or at different times. The exception is families where there's a lot of bipolar disorder.
     By the way, I don't know if there have been any studies, but I think a fair number of people with bipolar disorder get involved in relationships with other people with bipolar disorder producing children who face a really high risk of bipolar disorder. Why would this happen? Well, I guess you could say "birds of a feather ..." or "misery loves company" or you could say there was a lack of alternatives. Sometimes people meet in a psychiatrist's waiting room or in a psychiatric hospital. For better or worse, love finds a way and that's not always a good thing.
     In presenting a family where there's a lot of bipolar disorder, the reporter presented a skewed picture. He would have found it very hard to find a family to illustrate the point he wanted to make, and he definitely had a point he wanted to make, where the genetics of bipolar disorder weren't a major part. Would the reporter have used a family where there was a lot of hemophilia present to make the same point? I think not since he would have known that genetics were the problem, not culture or poverty or living in a rural area. This reporter was almost certainly unaware of how big a role genetics play in bipolar disorder.

We're Doing A Poor Job Of Helping Disabled Young People Make The Transition From School To Work

     From a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO):

The Social Security Administration’s (SSA) primary approach for encouraging employment for transition-age youth (ages 14 to 17) with disabilities who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is work incentives that allow them to keep at least some of their SSI benefits and Medicaid coverage while they work. But few transition-age youth benefit from these incentives. ... The work incentive targeted specifically to younger SSI recipients is the Student Earned Income Exclusion (SEIE), which allows income to be excluded from benefits calculations if a recipient is a student under age 22. However, less than 1.5 percent of all transition-age youth — and generally less than half of those with earnings —benefited from SEIE in 2012 through 2015. ... Data also show that almost no youth benefited from other incentives that allow them to exclude earnings used for specific purposes, such as the Impairment-Related Work Expenses incentive. The effectiveness of SSA-administered work incentives may be further limited because, according to SSA and other officials, youth and their families are often unaware of or do not understand them, and may fear that work will negatively affect their benefits or eligibility. ... 

SSA does not have a systematic way to connect transition-age youth on SSI to state Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agencies that provide training and employment services under the VR State Grants program administered by the Department of Education (Education). Although youth receiving SSI are generally presumed to be eligible for VR services, GAO found that less than 1 percent had an open VR service record in 2015 in four of the five states from which GAO collected VR data. ...

We recommend that the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration take the following actions: 

1. Analyze the SEIE data to determine why a large proportion of transition- age youth on SSI with reported earnings did not benefit from the SEIE and, if warranted, take actions to ensure that those eligible for the incentive benefit from it. 
2. Analyze options to improve communication about SSA-administered work incentives and the implications of work on SSI benefits, with a goal of increasing understanding of SSI program rules and work incentives among transition-age youth and their families. This should include, but not necessarily be limited to, updating SSAs procedures for staff meeting with SSI applicants, recipients, and their families to regularly and consistently discuss – when applicable—how work incentives can prevent reductions in benefit levels and how work history is considered during eligibility redeterminations. 
3. Work with the Secretary of Education to determine the extent to which youth on SSI are not receiving transition services through schools that can connect them to VR agencies and services. 
4. Explore various options for increasing connections to VR agencies and services , including their potential costs and benefits. One option, among others, could be to expand the Ticket to Work program to include youth.

     The report addresses an important topic. I have a few thoughts on this:

• Transition services are vitally important to disabled youths who are about to leave school. I have seen far too many cases where young people who urgently needed VR had no idea that VR exists. When I see clients in this situation, I tell them and their parents about VR but, of course, most disabled young people never see a Social Security attorney.
• Some years ago, at least in North Carolina, schools worked with VR to identify disabled young people in need of help and made sure they were offered that help. That seemed extremely effective. That's not happening now. (What about other states?) I'm pretty sure the problem is lack of VR funding. I'm not sure why the school systems don't at least give the disabled young people and their families the phone number for VR although as I discuss below state Vocational Rehabilitation may be of only limited value at this point.
• Sheltered workshops are a vital part of vocational rehabilitation for disabled young people trying to make the transition from school to work. Sheltered workshops have almost completely disappeared in North Carolina. I'm pretty sure it's due to lack of funding. (What about other states?)
• What I've seen over the last decade or two is declining effectiveness of North Carolina VR. They seem to be able to do little other than pay for community college courses. Disabled young people trying to make the transition from school to work typically need far more help. (What about other states?)
• Social Security's work incentives are far, far too complicated. That's not the agency's fault. Congress wrote the work incentives, not Social Security, but don't expect simplification to help much. There's plenty of evidence that work incentives have little value.
• Social Security lacks funding to do much to help disabled young people making the transition from school to work. I suppose the agency could send out mailings but they would need additional appropriations to do anything more. I think the money might be better spent elsewhere.
• I think additional funding for VR along with provisions requiring VR to coordinate with school systems would work better than anything the Social Security Administration can do.
• Finally, don't expect miracles. Most disabled children won't work on a regular basis no matter what anyone does. Many people who work at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) or who represent claimants get the mistaken impression that almost all children receiving SSI benefits have psychiatric or cognitive impairments that are of less than overwhelming severity. That's because that group is vastly over-represented in the population requesting hearings on SSI child disability claims. Most disabled children on SSI have physical problems and most of those problems are so overwhelming that the disability claims are approved quickly. Work is unlikely to ever be in the picture for most of these children. Many of those suffering from psychiatric disability have schizophrenia. While Social Security is denying too many schizophrenics, it's still a fact that most schizophrenia claims are being approved fairly quickly. The vast majority of schizophrenics won't be able to work no matter what anyone does for them.

Trump Proposal Coming On SSI Children's Benefits?

     The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has put out a piece on the importance of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for disabled children. I take it as a sign that they believe that Trump budget proposal will call for ending these benefits. By the way, if that is the proposal, take it seriously but don't get too excited. It wouldn't save much money and would be very difficult to get through the Senate. Think about it. Taking benefits away from disabled kids; how popular would that be, really?