Social Security Rewards A Jail

The Birmingham News reports on Social Security's program to reward jails which report incarcerated SSI recipients. The reward is $400 per inmate if the report comes within 30 days after the imprisonment and $200 for reports from 31 to 90 days after imprisonment. Sound like small potatoes? It amounted to $228,000 to Jefferson County, Alabama over the last four years.

Three Members Of Family Indicted For Social Security Fraud

Three members of a Missouri family have been indicted for concealing a 1997 death in order to collect the man's Social Security benefits, according to a KSHB article. The allegation is that the man's body was secretly buried on the family farm.

Big Fraud Ring Alleged In Wisconsin

The La Crosse Tribune reports on charges brought against 19 people for fraud against the Social Security Administration. The alleged fraud happened at several Social Security offices in Wisconsin. Authorities allege that the defendants filed false claims that Social Security checks had been lost or stolen. Those involved are said to have cashed both the original check and the replacement check. There may have been more than 1,000 illegal transactions.

COLA Announced

The Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Social Security for this year is 3.3%, according to the Associated Press.

New Regs On Rep Payees And Penalties

Today's Federal Register contains new final regulations from Social Security on represetative payee policies and penalties for false or misleading statements or withholding information. These regulations have been relatively uncontroversial.

Work Incentives Planning And Assistance Projects

From today's Federal Register:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) announces its intention to competitively award cooperative agreements to establish community-based work incentives planning and assistance projects in thefollowing locations:

• State of Alabama, the counties of Autauga, Baldwin, Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Choctaw, Clarke, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Dallas, Elmore, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Lee, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Mobile, Monroe, Montgomery, Pike, Russell, Washington, and Wilcox;
• State of Indiana, the counties of Clark, Crawford, Daviess, Dearborn, Dubois, Floyd, Gibson, Greene, Harrison, Hendricks, Jackson, Jefferson, Jennings, Knox, Lawrence, Martin, Monroe, Ohio, Orange, Parke, Perry, Pike, Posey, Ripley, Scott, Spencer, Sullivan, Switzerland, Vanderburgh, Vermillion, Vigo, Warrick, Washington;
• State of Kentucky, the counties of Bath, Bell, Bourbon, Boyd, Bracken, Breathitt, Carter, Clark, Clay, Elliott, Estill, Fleming, Floyd, Garrard, Greenup, Harlan, Harrison, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Knox, Laurel, Lawrence, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Madison, Magoffin,
• State of Ohio, the counties of Ashtabula, Mahoning, Portage, Stark, Martin, Mason, McCreary, Menifee, Montgomery, Morgan, Nicholas, Owsley, Pendleton, Perry, Pike, Powell, Robertson, Rockcastle, Rowan, Whitley, and Wolfe;
• State of Nevada, all counties;
• State of New York, the counties of Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster, and Westchester; Summit, and Trumbull; and
• Pacific territories of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, andAmerican Samoa.

New Rules On Suspending Benefits For Failure To Cooperate

Social Security has published final rules on suspension of disability benefits for failure to cooperate with a continuing disability review.

Social Security Advisory Board Draft Report On Social Security Hearing Process

The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has issued a draft report on Social Security's hearing process, by which they mean the way in which Social Security claimants get hearings on disputed Social Security claims, usually disability claims.

The report contains the following paragraph demonstrating clearly the bizarre lack of current concern about the enormous current backlog of claimants awaiting hearings, as compared to concern in the past about much lower backlogs:

In 1976, Congress enacted legislation to facilitate an expansion in the number of ALJs. It characterized that legislation as being of an “emergency” nature to address the “tremendous” backlog of approximately 105,000 cases, with the objective of eliminating that backlog and reducing the average processing time for hearings to 90 days. In 1991 SSA was concerned about a 229-day processing time and formed a Strategic Priority Workgroup to deal with the problem. Average hearing offi ce time for SSA cases soared in the mid 1990s, as the wave of initial claims filed in the early 1990s made their way through the system. In 1995 when processing time hit 350 days, SSA launched a Short Term Disability Project. After falling to 274 days in 2000, processing times rose to 415 days in 2005. It should be noted that this average includes dismissals and decisions made on the record without a hearing. The average processing time for a claimant who has a hearing and waits for a decision is closer to 500 days.

The SSAB describes the current situation as "an intolerable burden on claimants and simply unacceptable."

The report includes the following recommendations:

• The selection process for ALJs should be reformed to make it more responsive to the needs of SSA.
• The ALJ pay system should be revised to provide additional incentives to recruit and retain hearing offi ce chief ALJs (HOCALJs). SSA should also explore with the Office of Personnel Management the possible use of pay for performance for ALJs, with due care for the need to protect decisional independence.
• SSA should address the de facto dual management structure for the hearing offi ce process, which results in confusion and lack of accountability and should provide HOCALJs with the tools and supports they need to do their job well.
• SSA’s multilevel appraisal system should be expanded to all parts of the hearing process. Appraisals should be based on quantifi able performance data, including both quality and quantity of work performed.
• There is a need for additional training and ongoing professional development.