Don't Forget

 

A Poll

 

online polls

Information Requested

    From a Request for Information posted today by Social Security in the Federal Register:

... This request for information (RFI) seeks public input to inform how Federal agencies can support broader State and local efforts to improve the outcomes of children in the child welfare system who are eligible for Federal benefits. The input we receive will inform our deliberations about potential policy changes. ...

 Application

• For children who have contact with the child welfare system but who are not in foster care, what opportunities or challenges exist for child welfare agencies to assist with screening children for SSA benefit eligibility and applying for benefits?

• What opportunities or challenges exist for child welfare agencies to apply for SSA benefits on behalf of children in foster care or living away from their parents with other caregivers? Are there differences depending on whether the child or their family are eligible for other public benefits, such as preventative child welfare services, TANF, SNAP, or title IV–E foster care payments?

SSA Benefit Use and Conservation
• Current SSA rules allow payees, including child welfare agencies, who serve children in foster care to use SSA benefits to pay for the child’s current needs, including the cost of monthly foster care maintenance payments. Payees must conserve SSA benefits for future use only after meeting all of the child’s current and foreseeable needs. How effectively do these rules contribute to the ability of child welfare agencies to serve children in foster care? Are there differences depending on whether the child receives Social Security benefits or SSI payments?

• Please describe if it would be beneficial to offer additional guidance or clarification related to when Social Security benefits or SSI payments must be conserved by payees, including, as applicable, child welfare agencies, or expand on what kinds of factors should be considered in a conservation decision.

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, how do you make decisions about the use and conservation of the children’s SSA benefits? What do you do with SSA benefits that are not used as part of the monthly foster care
maintenance payment?

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, a child may be eligible to receive benefits from various sources, including Federal, State, and local. What are the benefits in using SSA benefits before or after other sources of funding to cover the costs of the child’s foster care maintenance?

• For child welfare agencies, if you were required to conserve SSA benefits on behalf of eligible children in foster care, would that affect the agency’s decision about whether to screen or apply for SSA benefits on behalf of a child?

• What would be the implications or challenges if child welfare agencies are restricted from using SSA benefits for foster care maintenance and required to conserve SSA benefits?

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, do you conserve any amount of the children’s SSA benefits for future use? If not, why not? If you do, how do you determine how much to conserve? Do you hold the funds, such as in a savings account or a trust account? Do you use Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts or special needs trusts to conserve funds? What are the benefits of and impediments to using ABLE accounts or special needs trusts? Does the decision on whether to conserve benefits depend on the type of benefit provided to the child (e.g., Social Security, SSI, foster care maintenance payments, etc.)?

• For current and former foster youth, what current needs would be met if you had access to your conserved SSA benefits? Are there examples of current needs that are not commonly met by the monthly foster care maintenance payments? If so, which needs?

General

 
• Are there other aspects of HHS’s or SSA’s programs where guidance, technical assistance, or information can be offered or improved to better support children in foster care or otherwise in contact with the child welfare system. ...

Inflation And Social Security Disability Recipients

     From The Bulletin on Retirement and Disability:

... Social Security Disability (SSD) program beneficiaries, like other consumers, have been negatively affected by inflation over the past several years. In a survey from June of 2023, more than half (59 percent) of SSD program beneficiaries reported higher prices for the disability-related goods and services they need to purchase, and more than one-quarter reported reducing food spending to cover disability-related costs, Zachary Morris and Stephanie Rennane found in Examining the Impact of Inflation on the Economic Security of Disability Program Beneficiaries (NBER RDRC Paper NB23-08).

Using new survey data, the researchers found that 82 percent of beneficiaries reported out-of-pocket expenses related to their disability, with average annual spending of $4,412 and median spending of $384 as of June 2023. Fifty-nine percent of beneficiaries reported higher spending on disability-related goods and services compared to two years earlier. In response to these rising costs, 25 percent of beneficiaries indicated they went into debt; 43 percent found recent COLA adjustments insufficient to maintain their standard of living. ...

Happy Halloween!

 

Dad In Freezer Case

    The title of this New York Post article says it all:  Twisted son left dad’s corpse in backyard freezer for years — so he could keep cashing his Social Security check. 

    You might think this is such a bizarre story that it must be without precedent. No, this happens semi-regularly at Social Security. As I've posted before, they've even made a movie about one such case -- Bernie.

In Person Service Matters

    From Effects Of Suspending In-Person Services At Social Security Administration Field Offices On Disability Applications And Allowances by Monica Farid, Michael T. Anderson, Gina Freeman, and Christopher Earles, a study for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

In this study, we examine the effect of the suspension of in-person services at Social Security Administration (SSA) field offices during the COVID-19 pandemic on applications ...

The paper found that:

• There were systematic differences in the characteristics of applicants by mode of application. In-person applicants were older, less likely to have completed high school, and less likely to speak English compared to phone or online applicants.
  

• The suspension caused a 6-percent decrease in the volume of applications, implying that not everyone who wanted to apply in-person was able to apply using other modes. The effect was larger for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) applications compared to Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) applications.
  

• The suspension of in-person services caused some would-be in-person applicants to apply by phone, but it did not cause an increase in the volume of online applications.
  

• We did not find evidence that the suspension disproportionately affected groups of applicants defined by educational attainment, age, or English-speaking status.
  

• Our estimates imply that in-person service suspensions explain more than 50 percent of the decline in SSI and DI applications during the pandemic. ...
  

    The first and fourth points above seem to be in tension with each other.

Prove Me Wrong

 

    Let’s imagine a scenario. Donald Trump is elected President.  A year later Trump issues an “executive order” (he’s big on those) saying that henceforth only U.S. citizens are eligible for Social Security benefits. This is to “save” Social Security. The order is blatantly illegal. Statutes and U.S. treaties make legal immigrants eligible for benefits.  The order is no great surprise. Trump has already ordered the arrest of political opponents and ordered the Department of Justice to ignore court orders for their release. He’s already ordered a complete end to refugee admissions across the U.S. borders, which also violates U.S. law and treaties and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to ignore court orders to admit refugees. He’s ordered the Army to suppress peaceful demonstrations. Court orders, even habeas corpus, are routinely ignored in the second Trump Administration. If you don’t know what habeas corpus is, just take it from a lawyer, if there’s no habeas corpus, no one has any rights whatsoever. When government employees have protested all the illegality, the Trump Administration has had two responses. First, don’t worry, I’ll give everyone involved a pardon so you won't get into trouble. Second, either do it or you’re fired since Civil Service protections will have long since been removed from all federal employees.

     So, what are you going to do if you’re a Social Security employee ordered to implement a blatantly illegal order? Pretend that if the President orders it, that it can’t be that illegal? Try to drag your feet? Tell yourself that you only have a small role in the process so what you do doesn't matter. Refuse to be concerned about it since you have no non-citizen friends or family? Implement the order because you like the policy even if it's illegal? Refuse to implement the order and get fired? Quit your job so you don’t have to implement the illegal order? 

     In general, I have enormous sympathy for Social Security employees but on this I expect that few of you will have the courage to quit or court firing.  Prove me wrong but I can hear you now. “I’ve got a family to feed.” “Refusing to implement the illegal order will do no good. If I don’t do it, someone else will.” “I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know what the law is.” “I was just following orders.”

     I doubt this exact scenario will happen but somewhat less dramatic illegality is almost certain. Trump is already saying he'll end citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the U.S. illegally. That's a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. The obvious first step in ending birthright citizenship would be to deny Social Security cards to children born in the U.S. to those present in the country illegally. Would you want to implement a cruel policy that's clearly illegal?