The Eligibility Definition Used in the Social Security Administration’s Disability Programs Needs to be Changed

In its October 2003 report on the definition of disability used by the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) disability programs [i.e., Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for people with disabilities], the Social Security Advisory Board raises the issue of whether this definition is at odds with the concept of disability embodied in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, more importantly, with the aspirations of people with disabilities to be full participants in mainstream social activities and lead fulfilling, productive lives. The Board declares that “the Nation must face up to the contradictions created by the existing definition of disability.” I wholeheartedly agree. Further, I have concluded that we have to make fundamental, conceptual changes to both how we define eligibility for economic security benefits, and how we provide those benefits, if we are ever to fulfill the promise of the ADA. To convince you of that proposition, I will begin by relating a number of facts that paint a very bleak picture – a picture of deterioration in the economic security of the population that the disability programs are intended to serve; a picture of programs that purport to provide economic security, but are themselves financially insecure and subject to cycles of expansion and cuts that undermine their purpose; a picture of programs that are facing their biggest expenditure crisis ever; and a picture of an eligibility determination process that is inefficient and inequitable -- one that rations benefits by imposing high application costs on applicants in an arbitrary fashion. I will then argue that the fundamental reason for this bleak picture is the conceptual definition of eligibility that these programs use – one rooted in a disability paradigm that social scientists, people with disabilities, and, to a substantial extent, the public have rejected as being flawed, most emphatically through the passage of the ADA. Current law requires eligibility rules to be based on the premise that disability is medically determinable. That’s wrong because, as the ADA recognizes, a person’s environment matters. I will further argue that programs relying on this eligibility definition must inevitably: reward people if they do not try to help themselves, but not if they do; push the people they serve out of society’s mainstream, fostering a culture of isolation and dependency; relegate many to a lifetime of poverty; and undermine their promise of economic security because of the periodic “reforms” that are necessary to maintain taxpayer support. I conclude by pointing out that to change the conceptual definition for program eligibility, we also must change our whole approach to providing for the economic security of people with disabilities. We need to replace our current “caretaker” approach with one that emphasizes helping people with disabilities help themselves. I will briefly describe features that such a program might require, and point out the most significant challenges we would face in making the transition.

Universal Access-NY User’s Guide

What is Universal Access-NY? Universal Access-NY is a complete online planning toolkit, www.UniversalAccessNY.org, where a One-Stop Delivery System can assess its practices, and develop work plans to improve physical and programmatic accessibility for all One-Stop customers. This web site and manual was developed by Cornell University’s Employment and Disability Institute, through the support and guidance of the New York State Department of Labor, with funding from two U.S. Department of Labor Work Incentive Grants (WIG 1 and 2). This web site was designed for use in a collaborative manner, bringing together One-Stop personnel, agency partners, business leaders and customers with disabilities. Universal Access-NY supports continuous improvement, with features that encourage multiple uses and incremental systems change.

Promising Practices: Ensuring Choice Under the Ticket to Work Program - The Indiana PABSS Approach

The Ticket to Work program offered disabled and blind social security beneficiaries the promise of greater choice when selecting a vocational rehabilitation provider. With the issuance of Transmittal #17, much of the opportunity to choose a provider was removed. The Protection and Advocacy agency in Indiana took steps to protect the rights of disabled and blind beneficiaries to choose providers in the face of this significant policy change. Learn what was done to protect the rights and ability of beneficiaries to seek and choose vocational rehabilitation providers.

Who Participated in School-to-Work Programs in 1998? Technical Report

[Excerpt] This report is based on a survey of 7425 students attending high school during the 1998/99 academic year that asked about recent participation in school-to-work (STW) activities. The survey is the first wave of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth begun in early 1997 (NLSY97). Ninety-three percent of the youth surveyed in the initial wave were interviewed in the second follow up that we are analyzing here. The statistics reported below are based on weighted data and so represent the population of 15 to 19 year olds attending school during the 1998/99 academic year. Youth who graduated from or dropped out of high school before fall 1998 were not asked questions about participation in school-to-work programs and so are not included in our analysis.

Social Security Programs Throughout the World: Asia and the Pacific, 2006

[Excerpt] This second issue in the current four-volume series of Social Security Programs Throughout the World reports on the countries of Asia and the Pacific. The combined findings of this series, which also includes volumes on Europe, Africa, and the Americas, are published at 6-month intervals over a 2-year period. Each volume highlights features of social security programs in the particular region. This guide serves as an overview of programs in all regions. A few political jurisdictions have been excluded because they have no social security system or have issued no information regarding their social security legislation. In the absence of recent information, national programs reported in previous volumes may also be excluded. In this volume on Asia and the Pacific, the data reported are based on laws and regulations in force in July 2006 or on the last date for which information has been received.1 Information for each country on types of social security programs, types of mandatory systems for retirement income, contribution rates, and demographic and other statistics related to social security is shown in Tables 1­4 at the end of the guide. The country summaries show each system's major features. Separate programs in the public sector and specialized funds for such groups as agricultural workers, collective farmers, or the self-employed have not been described in any detail. Benefit arrangements of private employers or individuals are not described in any detail, even though such arrangements may be mandatory in some countries or available as alternatives to statutory programs. The country summaries also do not refer to international social security agreements that may be in force between two or more countries. Those agreements may modify coverage, contributions, and benefit provisions of national laws summarized in the country write-ups. Since the summary format requires brevity, technical terms have been developed that are concise as well as comparable and are applied to all programs. The terminology may therefore differ from national concepts or usage.

Union-Management Training Programs in the Public Sector: The New York Experience

[Excerpt] New York State has a long history of union-management education and training programs, making it unique in public sector employment. This chapter examines the programs undertaken at both state and city levels, as well as the applicability of the New York experience to other public sector jurisdictions. Although the profile of the New York State and city work force differs from that of the rest of the nation, there is much of value here for educators, union leaders, and others involved in public sector employment.