Senate Committee on Finance Held A Hearing On Preventing
Benefits To Prisoners, Fugitives, The Deceased And Other Ineligibles.
Fritz Streckewald, Acting Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Disability and
Income Security Programs testified.
April 25, 2001
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for asking me to appear before you today to discuss the
findings of audits that have been conducted by the Social Security
Administration's (SSA) Office of the Inspector General (IG). Today, I want
to briefly discuss the efforts the agency is undertaking to strengthen and
maintain the integrity of the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance
(OASDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs in the areas
addressed by these audits. But first I would like to describe the scope
and magnitude of our Agency's activities as administrator of the Social
Security program.
Importance of Social Security and SSI
SSA paid almost $430 billion to 52 million OASDI and SSI beneficiaries
last year. Each workday about 100,000 people visit our 1,300 field offices
and over 240,000 people call our 800 number telephone service. Each
workday we process an average of 20,000 initial claims. Every year we
correctly credit over 250 million earnings items to workers' accounts,
respond to 60 million telephone calls, and process about 6.6 million
Social Security and SSI claims for benefits.
The public's trust in Social Security programs is absolutely critical.
Because of the importance of program integrity, $1 out of every $4 in
SSA's administrative budget is dedicated to program stewardship and
program integrity. We must remain vigilant if we are to fulfill our role
as stewards of the public trust.
Fugitive Felons
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 made it illegal for fugitive felons to collect SSI payments. This
prohibition does not apply to the OASDI program. Under this law an
individual is ineligible to receive SSI benefits during any month in which
the individual is:
- fleeing to avoid prosecution for a crime which is a felony under the
laws of the place from which the person flees;
- fleeing to avoid custody or confinement after conviction for a crime
which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the person
flees; or
- violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal
or State law.
SSA protects the integrity of the SSI program by stopping payments to
fugitive felons and protects the public by providing information to law
enforcement that assists in the apprehension of a fugitive fleeing from
justice.
This Fugitive Felon Project utilizes a multi-faceted approach that
requires extensive and cooperative efforts of many law enforcement
agencies throughout the United States. SSA and our Office of the Inspector
General are actively involved in this project by identifying and taking
action against fugitive felons collecting SSI payments.
This project identifies individuals who are prohibited under the law
from receiving SSI benefits by conducting computer matches with available
sources of warrant information, which include the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (FBI) National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the
states. The NCIC is a major national repository for information on felons
and other offenders. We also have signed agreements with U.S. Marshals
Service and the FBI, giving us access to all federal warrants.
Unfortunately only about 30 percent of all outstanding warrants are
reported to the NCIC since the reporting of such information is voluntary
and selective. Eleven states report all of their warrants to the NCIC.
These states are Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, Arkansas, New Mexico, Kansas, and Missouri. The
remaining 39 states report some, but not all warrant information to the
NCIC.
In a joint effort to develop comprehensive sources of warrant
information, SSA and the IG are actively pursuing matching agreements with
those states that only provide some of their warrants to the NCIC. SSA
currently has signed matching agreements with Alaska, California,
Colorado, Kentucky, Nebraska, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington to obtain the additional
warrant information that is not reported to the NCIC. In addition, we have
agreements with three major metropolitan police departments, New York
City, Baltimore and Philadelphia.
Negotiating these individual state and local agreements is a major
undertaking. We need to address state and local variations in records,
incompatible formatting of data, privacy concerns, and the lack of state
and local central reporting repositories. Our regional fugitive
coordinators and field office staff are working to negotiate matching
agreements with all state and local authorities. Every effort is being
made to automate the matching operations necessary to identify SSI
recipients that have outstanding warrants.
One of the difficulties with such matches is that law enforcement
agencies frequently do not have accurate identifying information for
fleeing felons. Felons often use aliases and the law enforcement agency
may not have an accurate Social Security Number (SSN). Therefore, their
correct identification may be difficult. Unlike prisoners, fugitive felons
are not incarcerated and may not have been convicted of a crime. For these
reasons our matching operations are carefully designed to determine that
the person being sought by law enforcement is the same individual
receiving SSI. In order to protect individuals from unwarranted invasions
of their privacy resulting from collections and use of information about
them, all of our data matches and exchanges are done pursuant to
agreements that comply with Privacy Act requirements, and we take security
measures to limit access to the data.
When we obtain warrant information from the NCIC or from any other
source, these records are first matched against SSA's files to verify
identity information, such as name, date of birth, and Social Security
number. Once the records are verified then a second match is conducted
against our SSI recipient files to determine which of the fugitives are
receiving SSI benefits. The results of the second match are then forwarded
to the IG for processing. The two-step matching process performed by SSA
takes four to ten days, from the time the warrant information is obtained
from a participating federal, state or local agency until the information
is forwarded to the IG.
The IG must conduct thorough investigations of the warrant information
matches to ensure that the fugitive felon warrants are valid and that the
appropriate individuals are brought to justice. The IG works with the FBI
Information Technology Center (ITC) to verify that the felony, probation
or parole violation warrant is active. The ITC provides the address
information about each SSI recipient to the appropriate law enforcement
agency so that they can apprehend the individual. Over 22,000 SSI
beneficiaries were identified during FY 1998 - 2000. Over 2,800 of these
fugitives were apprehended.
After action by the appropriate law enforcement agency the IG refers
their findings to SSA for appropriate action. SSA also provides feedback
to the IG reflecting the actions taken and any overpayment that may have
occurred.
Even though SSA is working to expand the number of matches through
agreements with local authorities, much of the investigative process
cannot be automated. Verification of warrant information requires direct
contact with the local law enforcement personnel who issued the warrant.
If the felon is no longer in the jurisdiction of the originating law
enforcement agency, then additional contacts must be made with law
enforcement personnel in the new jurisdiction in order to facilitate the
fugitive's apprehension.
SSA needs to be very careful when reviewing warrants to make sure they
are accurate, up-to-date, and that it pertains to the correct person. To
arrest or to suspend benefits of the wrong individual would have severe
consequences.
SSA has gained experience identifying and suspending benefits as a
result of our enforcement of prisoner suspension provisions, and we would
like to discuss the experience briefly.
Prisoner Suspensions
Social Security benefits are not payable to certain persons
incarcerated as a result of a conviction of a crime and certain other
confined individuals (for example, those found not guilty by reason of
insanity). SSI benefits are not payable to anyone confined to a public
institution for any reason.
Beginning in 1994, SSA undertook several significant initiatives with
State and local entities to identify prisoners who should not be receiving
OASDI or SSI benefits. Changes in agency enforcement efforts have
increased program savings under the prisoner suspension provisions.
Today, SSA maintains over 2,600 incentive payment agreements, which
provide monthly reports from approximately 5,500 facilities. An additional
1,200 facilities report to us monthly under agreements that do not provide
for incentive payments. These agreements, like those for the fugitive
felon program, incorporate strong privacy protections. This represents 95
percent of correctional facilities, including the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, all State prison systems, and most county and local jails. These
reports cover 99 percent of the inmate population in the United States.
With the support of these Federal, State, and local entities, SSA has made
substantial progress in ensuring that incarcerations are timely and
accurately reported and that benefits are suspended promptly. We continue
to pursue the goal of having 100 percent of the prisoner data reported and
continue to negotiate with the remaining correctional facilities.
SSA is able to share prisoner information with other agencies
administering Federal or federally assisted cash, food, or medical
assistance programs for purposes of determining eligibility. For example,
SSA shares prisoner data with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
Department of Education, the District of Columbia and the fifty state
agencies administering the food stamp program under the Department of
Agriculture.
Deceased Beneficiaries
One of the issues in the IG report concerns payments made to deceased
beneficiaries. SSA compiles and maintains a comprehensive database, the
death master file (DMF), containing death information that includes
reports from family members, funeral homes, all of the States and some
territories, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Health Care Financing
Administration, the postal authority, banking institutions, and other
sources. SSA independently verifies reports from other government agencies
before terminating benefits. SSA processes over 2 million death reports
annually.
Timely reports of death help prevent overpayments, which may occur
because a spouse or a representative payee negotiates a check after the
individual has died or the benefit was electronically deposited into a
joint or payee account.
An intercomponent workgroup has identified ways the Agency could
improve its death reporting operation. These improvements will be
implemented through system enhancements and when completed will strengthen
the processes we use to terminate deceased beneficiaries.
Within the next two months we will pilot an Electronic Death
Registration under an agreement with the State of New Jersey.
Workers' Compensation Offset
OIG reports have raised concerns about the administration of the
workers' compensation (WC) provision. Since 1965, the Social Security Act
has provided for the reduction of Social Security disability insurance
benefits when the worker is also eligible for periodic or lump-sum WC
payments from Federal, State, or local government programs. During the
application process, SSA asks the worker whether he or she is or will be
receiving any workers' compensation payments that would require offset. If
appropriate, offset is imposed and the worker is advised to report any
changes to these payments.
Many different agencies administer WC payments and the records are
often decentralized and are not always automated. In some States, the
payments are administered at the State level; in other States, the
payments could be made by many different private insurance carriers, or
the employer could be self-insured. Because of the fragmented structure of
WC programs, SSA relies primarily on beneficiaries to voluntarily report
changes in WC status and payments. Payment errors occur when the
beneficiary does not inform SSA of changes in the WC payments. To address
this problem SSA has instituted a number of measures.
- In 1999, SSA began its review of WC cases in which offset was
imposed before 1999--approximately 112,000 cases--as a 3-year project.
Presently, the project is on target, and one-half of the cases have been
reviewed and reworked. These cases are difficult to work and typically
take about 10 hours to process. To ensure accuracy, each case receives a
second review. Over FY 2000-FY2001, SSA is expending approximately 285
workyears on this project, representing a significant resource
commitment. We plan to conclude the project by September 2002.
- We have developed a computer matching agreement with the State of
Texas. Texas sent SSA 699,000 records involving WC payment data from
1991-2000 and we are currently validating this data before matching it
with our beneficiary rolls. Implementation is scheduled for summer of
2001. Although few states have centralized records, we intend to use
this agreement with Texas to help us in developing matching agreements
with other States where records exist. In addition, we have an ongoing
computer matching program with the Department of Labor (DOL) to identify
disability beneficiaries who are receiving Federal WC payments
administered by DOL.
- Beginning next month, we will implement a new procedure that
requires processing centers to re-verify WC payments every 3 years. This
is a significant improvement because it will enable us to periodically
update with the beneficiary the WC information that is on our records.
- SSA has committed and continues to commit significant resources to
improve the accuracy and timeliness of our processing of claims
involving WC offset. Beginning this fall, improved automation will allow
SSA field offices to be able to input post-entitlement WC changes. We
have also provided and continue to provide specialized training to the
employees of the program centers and field offices.
We recognize the importance of the IG findings regarding WC offset, and
believe that SSA has demonstrated that we are working hard to improve our
administration of the WC offset procedures. Through these actions, SSA is
taking the necessary steps to correct the problems identified by the IG.
Student Monitoring
The final issue we wish to discuss is the process used to monitor
school attendance by child beneficiaries who are over 18. As a result of
SSA's own review and the IG recommendations, in March 2001 we began to
implement a new process for monitoring school attendance.
We have established processes to:
- Obtain documentation from the student and certification from a
school official of the students' continuing education plans before
awarding benefits. Also, at that same time, the school official is being
provided a form to be retained in the student's file. The school
official is encouraged to notify SSA of any changes in the students'
status (e.g., no longer a full-time student, drops out, marries).
- Contact the student directly (by phone or in person) when the
certification of attendance from the school is initially returned to the
field office (FO). At that time we explain to the student his/her
reporting responsibilities and when entitlement to student benefits will
end. The FO determines the correct termination date and inputs that
information into our computer records; benefits for the student will end
with the termination date unless they are previously terminated-e.g.,
because the student drops out of school.
Under the old process, we verified school attendance with the school at
several points during the school year-which was very labor intensive and
did not result in significant improvements in payment accuracy. Under the
new process, we will obtain verification of the student's statement of
attendance from the school before we pay benefits and encourage the school
to report any changes in the student's status. In the personal contact
with the student, we stress their responsibility to report to us any
changes in their school attendance.
Conclusion
SSA is making continued progress to improve our management of all
Social Security programs. We are committed to our role as stewards of the
trust funds. We value our partnership with the IG to further these efforts
and look forward to working with this Committee to assure public
confidence in our programs.
I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Top of Page
|