San Antonio, Dallas top 'lottery-like' systems for Social Security benefits

by

comment

picture-12jpg

In San Anto­nio, Texas, peo­ple hop­ing to get Social Secu­rity dis­abil­ity pay­ments could see their cases assigned to any of 17 judges. The luck of this draw mat­ters a lot. One of the judges grants ben­e­fits in just 14 per­cent of cases. Another judge hands over benefits—which range from about $700 per month to about twice that—92 per­cent of the time.

That 78 per­cent dis­par­ity rate makes San Anto­nio the sec­ond most lottery-like sys­tem in the Social Secu­rity Administration’s arch­i­pel­ago of hear­ing offices, accord­ing to a data analy­sis by the Trans­ac­tional Records Access Clear­ing­house, a non-profit research orga­ni­za­tion housed at Syra­cuse Uni­ver­sity. (Dal­las is num­ber one, with 83 per­cent disparity).

“To a sur­pris­ing extent the records on dis­abil­ity deci­sions show again and again that even within the indi­vid­ual offices there is not a clear con­sen­sus among the judges about which claims should be awarded ver­sus which should be denied,” the authors of the report , David Burn­ham and Sue Long, write. “The prob­lem today is some­what worse than it was four and a half years ago.”

The report exam­ines the more than 1.1 mil­lion deci­sions by 1,422 admin­is­tra­tive law judges who had each decided 100 or more dis­abil­ity appeals dur­ing the last 18 months. The judges decide appeals of peo­ple rejected for Sup­ple­men­tal Secu­rity Income (SSI), a pro­gram for poor peo­ple with lit­tle or no work his­tory, and Social Secu­rity Dis­abil­ity Insur­ance (SSDI), a dif­fer­ent pro­gram that pays peo­ple who have worked and paid into the sys­tem. Both pro­grams use the same cri­te­ria to deter­mine whether a per­son is suf­fi­ciently dis­abled to qual­ify for ben­e­fits. TRAC assumes that, in any given hear­ing office, any batch of at least 100 cases will have an equiv­a­lent num­ber of legit­i­mate appeals.

For three decades SSI and SSDI out­lays have been grow­ing as more and more peo­ple claim dis­abil­i­ties pre­vent them from doing remu­ner­a­tive work. The dis­abil­ity sys­tem has spawned a bur­geon­ing legal sub­spe­cialty ded­i­cated to get­ting peo­ple their ben­e­fits, but recip­i­ents still often remain impoverished.

The cur­rent TRAC study is the sec­ond of two parts; part one exam­ined the size of the queue wait­ing for ben­e­fits, draw­ing a scathing denun­ci­a­tion from Social Secu­rity Com­mis­sioner Michael J. Astrue.

(In a press release, the Social Secu­rity Admin­is­tra­tion calls Part Two of TRAC’s report “more unsup­port­able grand­stand­ing mas­querad­ing as aca­d­e­mic research.”)

Crit­ics of the dis­abil­ity ben­e­fits sys­tem attack from both sides. Advo­cates for the ben­e­fi­cia­ries decry the long waits and seem­ingly ran­dom deci­sions, while fis­cal con­ser­v­a­tives see a large, little-examined give­away pro­gram for peo­ple who game the sys­tem. The Social Secu­rity Admin­is­tra­tion appears whip-sawed between these critics.

In Bal­ti­more, one judge, Charles Stark, granted ben­e­fits in 94 per­cent of cases, while the tough­est judge, William Under­wood, granted ben­e­fits in only 48 per­cent of cases. The 45 per­cent dis­par­ity rate ranked Bal­ti­more 62nd out of 155 offices.

Judge Stark ranked 37th among those show­ing high grant rates. San Antonio’s Judge William Her­bert, at just under 92 per­cent, was 62nd. Detroit’s most gen­er­ous admin­is­tra­tive law judge, Mary Con­nolly, granted ben­e­fits in 84 per­cent of cases, mak­ing her 212th among judges and very much on par with the most gen­er­ous judge at Baltimore’s National Hear­ings Cen­ter, in Reis­ter­stown, Vivian Mit­tle­man, who granted ben­e­fits 83.6 per­cent of the time. The national office showed a dis­par­ity rate of 33.4 per­cent, rank­ing it num­ber 111 in the survey—in the bot­tom third of the dis­par­ity ratios recorded.

Sue Long, the sta­tis­ti­cian and pro­fes­sor at Syra­cuse University’s Whit­man School of Man­age­ment who ana­lyzed the data, says an admin­is­tra­tive law judge who requested anonymity told her that the push for pro­duc­tion has led to higher grant rates. “I was told that to grant dis­abil­ity takes less time than to deny it,” Long says. “They have these report drafters, they are given eight hours to draft [a denial] and four hours to draft” [an approval]. — Edward Ericson Jr.

Support Local Journalism.
Join the San Antonio Current Press Club

Local journalism is information. Information is power. And we believe everyone deserves access to accurate independent coverage of their community and state. Our readers helped us continue this coverage in 2020, and we are so grateful for the support.

Help us keep this coverage going in 2021. Whether it's a one-time acknowledgement of this article or an ongoing membership pledge, your support goes to local-based reporting from our small but mighty team.

Join the San Antonio Press Club for as little as $5 a month.