• “Profiting from a child’s illiteracy,” Nicholas Kristof on the childhood SSI program (1/2)

    It’s hard to write about anything this weekend beyond the awful events in Connecticut. Maybe the best we can do right now to honor yesterday’s victims is to reach out a helping hand to someone in our own lives who is suffering or grieving. Very best to everyone affected by the tragedy.

    I did want to consider Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times column this week. His title, “Profiting from a child’s illiteracy,” presents the main thesis. Kristof visited rural Kentucky. What he saw there disturbed him:

    This is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability.

    Many people in hillside mobile homes here are poor and desperate, and a $698 monthly check per child from the Supplemental Security Income [SSI] program goes a long way — and those checks continue until the child turns 18.

    “The kids get taken out of the program because the parents are going to lose the check,” said Billie Oaks, who runs a literacy program here in Breathitt County, a poor part of Kentucky. “It’s heartbreaking.”

    This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.

    Kristof’s column was excoriated by many liberals, most recently in a nice piece by Kathy Ruffing and LaDonna Pavetti from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (If you have extra geldt this holiday season, the indispensible nonprofit cbpp.org is always a good place to put it….)

    Not everyone on the left was fair or civil. Matt Bruenig’s takedown was titled, “Nicholas Kristof is an irresponsible moron.” Although Bruenig presents valid criticism–see below, Kristof deserves a more respectful hearing. He has risked his life to report on many profound global health problems and violations of human rights. I admire him greatly for that.

    More generally, it’s a big mistake to demonize journalists and scholars who write about cultural and behavioral issues intertwined with poverty. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Oscar Lewis, Jason DeParle, Nicholas Lemann, William Julius Wilson, and others endured a mountain of unfair criticism for sometimes-flawed but useful good-faith efforts to discuss painful subjects. When journalists delve into sensitive waters–and maybe get a few things wrong or create misimpression–there’s a reaction to really slam them rather than to conduct a more positive conversation about the strengths and limitations of their work.

    It’s important to see poverty’s human face, even if that close-up view reveals discomfiting things. The high rate of youth violence and non-marital births in low-income minority communities certainly commands discussion—as do the occasionally perverse incentives created by specific forms of public aid. Some parents wrongly gamed the system under the old AFDC program. I’m sure the same is sometimes true of SSI, too.

    That said, Kristof presents an awfully incomplete and misleading view of disability policy. His impressionistic piece neglects a long line of policy research that specifically debunks sensationalist claims of widespread fraud. As Peter Edelman noted in response to Kristof’s piece, SSI employs a pretty tight screen of qualifying disabilities. Over the past decade, SSI has rejected about 54 percent of children claiming eligibility for mental health concerns. More than seventy percent of child applicants who presented with a primary impairment of ADHD were rejected, as well.

    Kristof also fails to engage the complex implementation challenges of disability policy. These challenges are especially difficult in addressing conditions he superficially labels “fuzzy.” Many disabled children have quite genuine functional capacity impairments that don’t neatly correspond to medically determinable diagnoses such as Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, or schizophrenia. The most controversial impairments arise in mental and behavioral health. Yet the same issues can arise in other areas such as cerebral palsy.

    Then there’s this. Program eligibility is an all-or-nothing determination that doesn’t gracefully match the continuous and multi-dimensional nature of real-world disabilities. Try as one might to define disability as a discrete physical or mental health state independent of the broader economic and social environment, this isn’t always possible or coherent. A high school dropout in Jackson, Kentucky who damages his back is much less likely to find gainful employment than a similarly-injured college graduate living somewhere more prosperous.

    Kristof’s essay left the impression that welfare dependence is a growing, chronic problem fed by ballooning SSI rolls. As he put things,

    More than 1.2 million children across America — a full 8 percent of all low-income children — are now enrolled in S.S.I. as disabled, at an annual cost of more than $9 billion.

    That is a burden on taxpayers, of course, but it can be even worse for children whose families have a huge stake in their failing in school. Those kids may never recover: a 2009 study found that nearly two-thirds of these children make the transition at age 18 into S.S.I. for the adult disabled.

    I tracked down the 2009 study that Kristof had read. It’s by Jeffrey Hemmeter, Jacqueline Kauff, and David Wittenberg. I read the study rather differently. (My next post will show a nice graph with some historical trends.)

    As Kristof reports, about two-thirds of youth on at age 17 are recertified at age 19 for the adult SSI program. Yet I read these numbers differently. Indeed the study’s other main finding is that “youth with behavioral disorders and mental disorders other than mental retardation are much less likely to receive SSI at age 19.” Moreover, the authors express concerns that these youth who do not transition into adult SSI do poorly.

    It seems to me that the childhood SSI program runs a reasonably tight ship. Most children deemed eligible for childhood benefits have identified, serious, and chronic impairments that make them SSI-eligible when they are older. Youth with the fuzzier conditions that Kristof questions are precisely those most likely to leave the program at adulthood.

    Of course, SSI could be operated better. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that the Social Security Administration (SSA) conducts many fewer continuing disability reviews (CDRs) than it did in the year 2000. GAO made a series of recommendations to do more reviews. Not unreasonably, SSA responded that it would be happy to do, as long as Congress agrees to allocate the required funds. Because Congress has not done so, there remains a significant backlog of such reviews, some of which might uncover cases of recipient fraud. But it’s a heavy political lift to hire bureaucrats or to expand SSA’s capacity to perform its assigned role. It has to be done.

    • Note too Kristof’s artful use of the word “now” and segue to a 2009 study based on data from 2001-2002.

    • Thank you for this–I just wish that as many people read TIE as NYT

    • With regards to the article from Breunig, do you object to the title of the piece, or the valid criticism? Because I see no reason to shield someone from valid criticism just because they have done good things in the past or because they write well. That seems to be a bit close to the fallacy of argument from authority. If anything, because of their past writing and their past, they should be less likely to make these errors, if they are a true expert.

      Aside from one problematic insult (as you noted), I see valid criticism.

    • Note too the healthcare incentive cited in the study in question: ” The choice to return to work might be especially difficult for many child SSI
      recipients who have unmet health needs and fear losing future access to health benefits through Medicaid” (p. 2030.

    • Note also that Kristof’s “full 8 percent of all low-income children — are now enrolled in S.S.I. as disabled” is simply not accurate. It would be more correct to say that about 4 percent of children in families with incomes below 200 percent of federal poverty line receive SSI. Kristof gets 8 percent by assuming that only kids with below poverty incomes get SSI. But, in fact, the majority of SSI kids live in families that have incomes that, while “low” are above the federal poverty line.

      I also think that most of the so-called intemperate responses to Kristof have been quite fair. If anything, Kristof deserves criticism from reasonable people for the rather intemperate tone of his article and, in particular, for relying soley on AEI’s Richard Burkhauser, a SSI critic whose views on the program are not mainstream.

      Finally, ditto on your point about the Hemmeter et al. research being rather more nuanced than Kristof made it out to be. Here’s a bit from their findings that jumped out at me: “We also find those who had been arrested have 41 percent lower odds than those who had not been arrested to be on SSI at age 19. Interestingly, youth with vocational training have 34 percent higher odds of SSI participation at age 19.”

      • Re that “8% of low-income children”: according to an 11/28/12 letter from 85 aid and advocacy groups to Obama, thanking him for preserving funding for children’s SSI, the figure is 4%. Since the letter cites approx 1.3 million children on the program, virtually the same as Kristof’s figure of 1.2 million, either there are radically different definitions of “low income” kicking around or Kristof is flat-out wrong. The letter is here:

        • Kristoff is flat-out wrong. He’s using the wrong denominator (children below 100% of the federal poverty line). Most of the 1.3 million SSI children live in low-income families with income ABOVE 100% of the FPL (lots of them have parents in poorly compensated jobs). A better denominator to use is 200% of the federal poverty line.

          For more on this, see this National Academy of Social Insurance brief: .