This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-196
entitled 'Social Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to
Prevent Improper Benefit Payments under Social Security Protection Act'
which was released on May 30, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 2006:
Social Security Administration:
Additional Actions Needed to Prevent Improper Benefit Payments under
Social Security Protection Act:
Social Security Protection Act:
GAO-06-196:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-196, a report to Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Continued high levels of unauthorized immigrant workers in the United
States have fostered concerns about whether they should be eligible for
Social Security benefits. Until recently, the Social Security
Administration (SSA) allowed noncitizens to collect benefits,
regardless of their work authorization status, provided that they met
certain legal presence requirements. However, in March 2004, Congress
passed the Social Security Protection Act, which under Section 211,
requires that noncitizens assigned a Social Security number (SSN) after
2003 have work authorization from current or past qualifying work to
collect benefits. This report describes (1) the steps SSA has taken to
implement Section 211 and how effective SSA’s policies and procedures
are in preventing improper benefit decisions, and (2) how Section 211
has affected the payment of benefits to unauthorized workers.
What GAO Found:
SSA has issued guidance and provided training to assist staff in
processing benefit claims under Section 211, but the absence of certain
internal controls has allowed some errors to go undetected. SSA issued
detailed guidance in August 2004 and subsequently provided staff with
training on the law, which some SSA field offices supplemented with
additional training. Although SSA’s policies and procedures were fairly
detailed, GAO found several incorrect claims determinations and a lack
of internal review for preventing them. With regard to the provisions
of Section 211, GAO found that SSA improperly approved 17 of the 19
claims that involved noncitizen workers who had been issued SSNs after
2003 and who lacked required work authorization. GAO also found that 1
of the 41 claims that SSA disapproved was improper. SSA officials
stated that the improper determinations were likely due to staff’s
unfamiliarity with the new requirements. In addition, GAO found that
letters sent to claimants informing them of disapproval decisions did
not always contain all required information.
Because Section 211 does not apply to noncitizens who were assigned
SSNs before 2004, few noncitizens have been affected by the law thus
far. As shown below, only 41 (less than 1 percent) of the approximately
72,000 noncitizen-related claims SSA disapproved during 2004 and 2005
were due to Section 211. It is likely that the number of disapprovals
based on the law will grow as more unauthorized workers file for
benefits in coming years. However, opportunities may exist for certain
noncitizens who receive their SSNs after 2003 to collect benefits
without current work authorization. For example, noncitizens who are
issued SSNs under temporary work visas may be able to engage in work
not authorized under their visas and subsequently claim benefits based
on that work. Although SSA officials told GAO the likelihood of this
occurring was low, the SSA Inspector General reported in 2005 that a
significant number of temporary visa holders overstayed their visas.
Figure: Claims Decided by SSA for Claims Based on Noncitizen Workers:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Workers earn work credits based on the amount of their earnings
while employed in jobs covered by Social Security.
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To improve its processing of claims covered by Section 211, GAO
recommends that SSA: (1) establish a control to identify claims that
may have been erroneously decided, (2) provide staff with enhanced
training to assist them in properly deciding such claims, and (3)
provide staff with a standardized format for preparing disapproval
letters. In commenting on a draft of this report, SSA agreed with GAO’s
recommendations and has begun taking action to address them.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-196].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barbara Bovbjerg at (202)
512-7215 or bovbjergbj@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
SSA Provided Guidance and Training to Its Staff to Implement Section
211, but Lacked Internal Controls for Assuring Proper Determinations:
Section 211 Has Impacted a Small but Potentially Growing Number of
Claims, but May Not Restrict Benefits to Certain Temporary Noncitizen
Workers:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Examples of Temporary Visa Categories Issued SSNs:
Appendix III: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Number of Claims Based on Noncitizen Workers That SSA Decided
during 2004 and 2005 by Claim Type:
Figures:
Figure 1: Claims Decided by SSA for Claims Based on Noncitizen Workers:
Figure 2: Number and Type of SSNs Assigned to Noncitizen Workers for
Claims Approved during 2004 and 2005:
Figure 3: Total Number of Work Authorized SSNs Assigned to Noncitizens
Issued Temporary Work Visas:
Abbreviations:
CRS: Congressional Research Service:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
ESF: Earning Suspense File:
OIG: SSA Office of Inspector General:
POMS: Program Operations Manual System:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
SSPA: Social Security Protection Act:
SSN: Social Security Number:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 28, 2006:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Chairman:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In fiscal 2005, the Social Security Administration (SSA) paid out
approximately $514 billion in benefits through its two largest programs
(Old Age Survivors and Disability Programs), with payments to some 48
million beneficiaries monthly. These beneficiaries included both
citizens and noncitizens. However, continued high levels of
unauthorized immigrant workers have fostered concerns about whether
they should be eligible for Social Security benefits, despite the fact
that some pay Social Security taxes. Noncitizens cannot legally work in
the United States unless they are specifically authorized. According to
a June 2005 Pew Hispanic Center Report, more than 10 million of the
approximately 24 million noncitizens living in the United States in
2004 were authorized to work. About 6.3 million workers, however, were
estimated to lack such authorization. Until recently, the lack of such
work authorization did not prevent noncitizens from receiving Social
Security benefits. To prevent payment of Social Security benefits in
the future to certain noncitizens not authorized to work, Congress
passed the Social Security Protection Act of 2004, which under Section
211 requires that noncitizen workers assigned a Social Security Number
(SSN) after 2003 have work authorization to qualify for benefits.
Because of your interest in SSA's implementation of Section 211 and
whether the law has prevented unauthorized workers from collecting
benefits, you asked us to determine: (1) what steps SSA has taken to
implement Section 211 and how effective are SSA's policies and
procedures in preventing improper benefit decisions and (2) how Section
211 has affected the payment of Social Security benefits to noncitizens
for unauthorized work.
To complete our work, we reviewed and discussed with SSA headquarters
officials the guidance that they issued to implement Section 211, the
training provided to field office staff to assist them in properly
processing claims, and the circumstances under which noncitizens could
receive benefits based on periods of unauthorized work. To ascertain
whether SSA made proper decisions for claims covered by Section 211, we
reviewed all 19 of the claims that SSA had approved for benefits
between January 2004 and December 2005 that involved a primary worker
who was a noncitizen (hereafter referred to as "noncitizen workers" or
"workers"), and had been assigned an SSN after 2003, but lacked work
authorization. We also reviewed all 41 of the claims that SSA had
disapproved as of December 2005 as a result of Section 211. To assess
the overall impact that Section 211 had on the payment of benefits to
noncitizens, we reviewed data on all approved and disapproved claims
involving noncitizen workers that SSA had processed from January 2004
to December 2005. In addition, we discussed with SSA officials various
circumstances under which noncitizens could receive benefits based on
unauthorized work. We conducted our work at SSA headquarters in
Baltimore, Maryland, and at four SSA field offices--the Williamsburg
District Office in Brooklyn, New York, and three branch offices in
California--Culver City, Redlands, and Porterville. We selected these
SSA offices because of the geographic proximity of multiple offices in
a single state and because they had processed, individually or
collectively within their region, a large number of Social Security
benefit applications that had been disapproved under Section 211 at
that time. We also met with officials at the Internal Revenue Service
and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to discuss their policies
regarding noncitizens issued temporary work visas. We conducted our
work between February 2005 and January 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I discusses
our scope and methodology in further detail.
Results in Brief:
SSA has issued guidance and provided training to assist staff in
processing benefit claims under Section 211, but we found that staff
improperly processed some of these claims and that the agency lacked
certain internal controls for detecting such errors. Section 211
requires that claims based on a noncitizen worker who was assigned an
SSN after 2003 show that the worker was either authorized to work in
the United States or had a record of prior entry into the United States
for certain work purposes. In August 2004, SSA issued detailed guidance
to its staff to implement the new law. SSA also offered Section 211
training to its field office staff in September 2004, and some of the
field offices we visited had supplemented this training with more
specific training and peer group discussions. Although the agency's
policies and procedures were fairly detailed, we found that they were
not always employed correctly in deciding applicants' benefits
eligibility under Section 211 for the claims we reviewed. In
particular, we found that SSA improperly approved 17 of the 19 claims
involving noncitizen workers with SSNs assigned after 2003 but lacked
work authorization. In addition, among the 41 claims that SSA had
disapproved as a result of Section 211, we found one decision that was
improper. SSA officials agreed with our determinations and said that
they were due to staff's lack of familiarity with Section 211
requirements. However, SSA lacked internal control mechanisms for
detecting such errors. Further, we found that letters sent to claimants
to inform them of disapproval decisions did not always provide required
information, such as their right to appeal. According to staff we
interviewed, such inconsistencies occurred because they lacked a
standardized format for such letters.
Because Section 211 does not apply to claims involving noncitizen
workers whose SSNs were issued before 2004, it has not yet
significantly reduced the number of noncitizens allowed benefits for
unauthorized work. It is likely, however, that the number of
disapproved claims will increase as more unauthorized workers file for
benefits in the coming years. Of the approximately 72,000 claims
disapproved by SSA as of December 2005, only 41 were due to Section
211. As more unauthorized workers file for retirement or disability
benefits, the law's impact will presumably grow over time. However,
opportunities may still exist for certain noncitizens to collect
benefits without current work authorization. These noncitizens include,
among others, college students, camp counselors, and international
dignitaries. With such an SSN, these noncitizens could engage in work
that is not authorized under their visas and potentially accrue enough
work credits to qualify for benefits by continuing to work in the
United States after their visas have expired. Although SSA officials
told us the likelihood of this occurring was low, in 2005, the SSA
Inspector General reported that a significant number of temporary visa
holders overstayed their visas.
We are recommending that SSA adopt additional measures to help ensure
the proper application of Section 211 to benefit decisions. In response
to a draft of this report, SSA agreed with our recommendations and
discussed various actions it is taking to address them.
Background:
SSA pays retirement and disability benefits to both citizen and
noncitizen workers who pay Social Security taxes and meet certain
entitlement requirements. SSA also pays benefits to dependents of
living workers and survivors of deceased workers who are entitled to
benefits. Retirement, disability, and survivor benefits are known as
Title II Social Security benefits.[Footnote 1] Historically, SSA paid
benefits to noncitizens regardless of their work authorization status
and/or lawful presence. SSA records earnings information for workers,
regardless of their citizenship status, from earnings reports (IRS Form
W-2, Wage and Tax Statement) submitted by employers and self-employed
individuals. Workers in Social Security covered employment ("covered
employment") contribute to Social Security either through payroll taxes
or self-employment taxes.[Footnote 2] The earnings from these jobs are
reported under a worker's SSN, if the individual has been assigned one.
In cases where SSA is unable to match a worker's earnings report with a
valid SSN, SSA records the worker's earnings in its Earning Suspense
File (ESF), which electronically tracks such earnings. If workers later
receive work authorization and SSNs, SSA will credit previous unmatched
earnings to them, if they can show that such earnings in the ESF belong
to them. SSA later determines whether a worker accrues enough work
credits to receive benefits (also referred to as "quarters of
coverage"). In addition to this, workers must meet certain age
requirements and, in the case of disability benefits, have medical
certification of their disability. An individual typically needs to
work at least 10 years (which is equivalent to 40 work credits) and be
at least 62 years old to qualify for retirement benefits. Fewer work
credits are needed for disability benefits. In general, these
applicants must also show recent employment history and that they have
worked for a certain number of years prior to their disability, both of
which vary with the worker's age. Dependents and survivors of workers
may also qualify for benefits based on the workers' entitlement.
However, noncitizen workers and their dependents or survivors applying
for benefits after 1996 must also prove that they meet certain lawful
presence requirements to receive benefit payments.
New Restrictions Now Prevent Payment of Benefits to Noncitizens
Unauthorized to Work in the United States:
While SSA previously paid benefits to all individuals who met Social
Security entitlement requirements, without regard to their work
authorization status, the Social Security Protection Act
(SSPA)[Footnote 3] now prevents payment of benefits to noncitizens who
lack authorization. According to a June 2005 Pew Hispanic Center
report, about 6.3 million workers of the approximately 24 million
noncitizens living in the United States in 2004 lacked such
authorization.[Footnote 4] To qualify for benefits, Section 211 of the
SSPA requires that claims based on a noncitizen worker assigned an SSN
after 2003 prove that the worker meets one of the following
requirements:
* has authorization to work in the United States or:
* was temporarily admitted into the United States at any time as a
business visitor or as a crewman under specified provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
Congress passed the SSPA in March 2004, but made its provisions
retroactive to benefit applications based on SSNs issued on or after
January 1, 2004. Although the provisions of Section 211 apply directly
to noncitizen workers, they can also affect the entitlement of any
person applying for a benefit on the worker's record. For example, if a
noncitizen worker is ineligible for benefits under Section 211, a child
claiming benefits on the worker's record would also be disallowed,
regardless of the child's citizenship or immigration status.
Noncitizens assigned SSNs before January 1, 2004, are not affected by
Section 211 restrictions. For noncitizens who meet the conditions of
Section 211 or are exempt from its requirements, SSA counts all
earnings from covered employment--including those from periods of
unauthorized employment--toward their Social Security benefit. However,
unauthorized workers no longer qualify for benefits if they were
assigned an SSN on or after January 1, 2004, and do not meet the
additional eligibility requirements under Section 211. In addition,
since 1996, noncitizens and their noncitizen dependents or survivors
must be lawfully present in the United States to receive
benefits.[Footnote 5] If such noncitizens are entitled to benefits, but
do not meet the lawful presence requirement, SSA approves their benefit
application, but places their benefits in a suspended status, until
they establish lawful presence. However, a noncitizen living outside of
the United States may receive benefits under certain conditions. For
example, a noncitizen may receive benefits outside of the United States
if he/she is a citizen of certain countries that have agreements with
the United States permitting such payments.
Other Initiatives Are Intended to Reduce Unauthorized Work:
In addition to Section 211, there are other initiatives to reduce
unauthorized work activity by noncitizens. Employers are required under
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 to review certain
documents and certify whether their workers are authorized to work in
the United States, making it illegal for employers to knowingly hire
unauthorized workers.[Footnote 6] To assist employers with this effort,
SSA and DHS are offering services to help them verify whether a
noncitizen is authorized to work in the United States. For example, SSA
and DHS jointly operate an employee verification service called the
Basic Pilot Program, which assists employers in verifying employment
eligibility of newly hired workers, based on DHS and SSA
records.[Footnote 7]
In addition, Congress has recently passed the REAL ID Act of 2005,
which could make it more difficult for noncitizens to engage in
unauthorized employment by placing restrictions on state issuance of
driver's licenses and personal identification cards.[Footnote 8] Under
the law, beginning in May 2008, federal agencies may not accept for any
official purpose driver's licenses or identification cards issued by a
state unless the state meets certain minimum standards. These standards
must include requirements that the state (1) receives proof and
verifies, among other things, the person's SSN, or verifies that the
person is not eligible for one, and (2) receives valid documentary
evidence that the person is in the United States legally. Also, the law
requires that driver's licenses and identification cards issued to
certain noncitizens must expire when the individual's authorized stay
in the United States ends or, if there is no definite authorized period
of stay, after 1 year.
Despite these initiatives, however, there is evidence that many
noncitizens are able to engage in unauthorized employment. For example,
in an August 2005 study, the SSA Office of Inspector General found 85
cases involving noncitizens who were not authorized to work in the
United States from its review of 100 randomly selected cases of 1,382
records involving individuals who had earnings posted to their Social
Security earnings records from work done prior to receiving their SSN
in 2000.[Footnote 9]
SSA Has Tightened the Criteria for Issuing Nonwork SSNs:
SSNs were originally created to record workers' earnings; however, SSA
has assigned them to individuals over the years for various nonwork
purposes (called "nonwork SSNs"), such as general identification. In
recent years, SSA has tightened the criteria for assigning such SSNs.
SSA also assigns SSNs to noncitizens who are authorized to work in the
United States, which are known as work-authorized SSNs. In fiscal year
2005, SSA issued 1.1 million original SSNs to noncitizens, fewer than
15,000 of which were nonwork SSNs. As of 2003, SSA had assigned some 7
million nonwork SSNs. SSA started tightening the requirements for
assigning nonwork SSNs in 1996 when the Internal Revenue Service began
assigning taxpayer identification numbers to assist individuals who did
not qualify for a SSN in filing their taxes. SSA further tightened the
requirements for assigning nonwork SSNs, primarily due to the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, limiting them only to noncitizens when
(1) a federal statute or regulation requires that they be assigned an
SSN to receive a particular benefit or service to which they are
entitled or (2) a state or local law requires that they be assigned an
SSN to receive entitled public assistance benefits.
SSA Provided Guidance and Training to Its Staff to Implement Section
211, but Lacked Internal Controls for Assuring Proper Determinations:
SSA has issued guidance and provided training to assist staff in
processing benefit claims covered by Section 211; however, we found
some improper determinations by staff and a lack of internal controls
for detecting such errors. The claims with improper determinations
consisted of 17 claims involving workers who were assigned nonwork SSNs
after 2003, which should not have been approved, and 1 claim that was
improperly disapproved. SSA agreed with our assessment and attributed
the errors to staff's lack of familiarity with the new Section 211
requirements. Additionally, we found that letters sent to claimants to
inform them of disapproval decisions did not always provide them with
information on their right to appeal the decision and other required
information.
SSA Provided Guidance and Training to Assist Staff in Properly Applying
Section 211:
SSA has provided guidance and training to assist staff in reaching
proper determinations for claims covered by Section 211. With the
SSPA's passage in March 2004 and retroactive effective date of January
1, 2004, SSA acted quickly to provide guidance to its field offices by
issuing an emergency message on Section 211 in April 2004. This message
explained the various provisions of the new law and instructed staff to
hold all noncitizen claims that could have a potential Section 211
issue until detailed guidance could be developed. In August 2004, SSA
issued detailed guidance through its Program Operations Manual System
(POMS).[Footnote 10] The guidance explained the new requirements for
approving claims under Section 211 and provided several hypothetical
scenarios to illustrate how the guidance should be applied. Some SSA
regional offices provided additional written guidance on Section 211.
For example, one regional office provided staff with guidance that
compared claims processing procedures in effect before the passage of
the SSPA with those required under Section 211.
Although SSA's benefit application process is the same for citizens and
noncitizens, Section 211 imposes additional requirements for claims
based on a noncitizen worker assigned an SSN after 2003. For such
claims, SSA's guidance on Section 211 directs field office staff to
determine if the worker has work authorization or a record of prior
entry into the United States for certain work purposes. This
determination is in addition to the existing requirement that
noncitizens residing in the United States who file for benefits are
lawfully present to receive benefit payments or meet other conditions
to receive benefit payments outside of the United States. To process
applications for benefits, SSA field office staff meet with applicants
to explain the benefits for which they might qualify and review the
evidence supporting the claim. After a claims representative makes the
initial determination, a field office supervisor or an experienced
colleague reviews the claim for the appropriateness of the
decision.[Footnote 11] Once a claims determination is made, SSA
requires that field office staff send applicants a letter notifying
them of the decision. For those claims disallowed as a result of
Section 211 in which the primary worker lacked an SSN, SSA guidance
requires field office staff to send a copy of the disallowance letter
to agency headquarters. SSA headquarters uses this information to
monitor the number of such cases, because there is currently no way to
track this information in SSA's system without an SSN.
SSA also provided training to field office staff to assist them in
properly applying Section 211. In September 2004, SSA headquarters
provided interactive video training on the SSPA, as part of its monthly
training for newly issued transmittals, which included a general
discussion of the requirements of Section 211, among other topics. SSA
later circulated a written summary of the broadcast to field offices
for training purposes. In November 2004, SSA headquarters issued a
transmittal to its 800-number call centers to assist staff in
addressing inquiries about Section 211. Additionally, managers at three
of the four field offices we visited told us they used peer group
discussions and more specific training to supplement the headquarters
training. One field office manager developed and administered a test to
assess staff's understanding of the Section 211 requirements.
SSA Lacked Internal Controls to Detect Erroneously Decided Claims and
Several Disapproval Letters Lacked Required Information:
As part of our review, SSA provided us with records on all of the
approximately 177,000 approved and disapproved claims that involved
noncitizen workers--and therefore possibly covered by Section 211--that
had been decided from January 2004 to December 2005. (See table 1.)
These records included information on the type of claim, when the SSN
was assigned, and whether the claimants were lawfully present. The
majority of these claims were for retirement or disability benefits,
which made up roughly 94 percent of all claims.
Table 1: Number of Claims Based on Noncitizen Workers That SSA Decided
during 2004 and 2005 by Claim Type:
Type of Claim: Retirement;
Approved: 69,883;
Percent: 80%;
Disapproved: 17,511;
Percent: 20%;
Total: 87,394.
Type of claim: Retirement: Disability[A];
Approved: 26,499;
Percent: 33%;
Disapproved: 53,012;
Percent: 67%;
Total: 79,511.
Type of claim: Retirement: Survivor;
Approved: 8,232;
Percent: 90%;
Disapproved: 944;
Percent: 10%;
Total: 9,176.
Type of claim: Retirement: End stage renal disease;
Approved: 442;
Percent: 33%;
Disapproved: 885;
Percent: 67%;
Total: 1,327.
Type of claim: Retirement: Total;
Approved: 105,056;
Percent: 59%;
Disapproved: 72,352;
Percent: 41%;
Total: 177,408.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
Note: SSA decided an additional 49 claims that do not appear in this
table because the claim type was not specified.
[A] These claims only include disability claims that SSA disapproved
due to lack of work credits.
[End of table]
In assessing SSA's claims determinations we found that 18 were
erroneous. These 18 were;
* 17 approved claims based on noncitizen workers who had been assigned
a nonwork SSN after 2003; and:
* 1 disapproved claim in which SSA erroneously applied Section 211 to a
survivor's parent who was not the primary worker.[Footnote 12]
In 17 of the 19 approved cases we reviewed in which the primary workers
had been assigned a nonwork SSN after 2003, we found that the
determinations were erroneous because the workers lacked the work
authorization or past qualifying work experience required under Section
211. Our review of SSA's records for the 17 erroneously decided claims
showed that SSA paid benefits for 13 of the claims. In total, over the
period of 2004 and 2005, SSA paid out approximately $110,000 for these
claims, almost all of which was in the form of recurring monthly
payments. For the remaining four claims, SSA never began benefit
payments due to beneficiaries' lack of lawful presence or other
reasons. In discussing the erroneously approved cases with SSA
officials, they agreed that the cases had been improperly decided and
said that the errors possibly resulted from some claims
representatives' lack of familiarity with the new requirements of
Section 211. Also, in an earlier discussion with SSA officials, we
asked whether they had considered installing an automated systems
control to identify potentially erroneous claims. The officials told us
that although the agency indeed considered such a control, SSA
management decided that it was not needed due to the low number of
claims involving Section 211 that had been processed overall.
For the 41 claims disapproved as a result of Section 211, we found that
proper determinations had been made in all but one case. In assessing
these cases, we reviewed all of the case file documentation. The
documentation in some cases included only the letter notifying the
claimant(s) of the disapproval decision, and in other cases this letter
and a combination of other documents such as wage and earnings
statements and immigration documentation. SSA disapproved 38 of the 41
claims because the primary worker lacked work authorization and had
never been issued an SSN. Although the workers for the remaining three
claims had been assigned SSNs after 2003, their claims were disapproved
because they lacked work authorization. In several of the cases, it
appeared that that the primary workers had been employed in the United
States and had paid Social Security taxes as documented by wage and
earnings statements and other tax information included in the files. In
some instances, the claimants said that the SSN that the worker had
used had been made up or belonged to someone else. For the one claim
that was incorrectly decided, SSA based its decision on a survivor's
claim for a child on the widow's lack of an SSN, instead of the primary
worker who had been assigned an SSN prior to 2004. After further review
of this claim, SSA officials agreed that the claim had been improperly
disapproved based on Section 211, but stated that the claim would
remain in a disapproved status pending additional evidence supporting
the child's relationship to the deceased worker.
In reviewing the 41 letters sent to claimants to inform them of
disapproval decisions based on Section 211, we found that SSA staff did
not always provide the claimants with information on their appeals
rights and other required information. For example, in most cases, the
letters did not inform claimants of their right to representation for
appeals or refer them to a pamphlet explaining their right to question
the decision as required by SSA's guidance. Also, in several cases, the
letters did not apprise claimants of their right to appeal the decision
or provide instructions on how to file an appeal. SSA field managers
and staff told us that these inconsistencies occur because they lack a
standardized format for preparing such disapproval letters. They
suggested that automating the letters would help ensure that they
provide all required information to claimants. When claimants do not
receive such information, they could fail to file an appeal or secure
representation on their behalf. As a result, claimants who might be
found eligible for benefits upon appeal would not receive benefits to
which they may be entitled.
Section 211 Has Impacted a Small but Potentially Growing Number of
Claims, but May Not Restrict Benefits to Certain Temporary Noncitizen
Workers:
Though its impact may grow over time, Section 211 has not yet
significantly reduced benefits to noncitizens; the law's restrictions,
however, may not prevent benefits for certain temporary noncitizen
workers who could engage in work not authorized by their visas. As of
December 2005, SSA had disapproved only 41 claims of some 72,000
disapproved noncitizen-related claims due to Section 211 because SSA
determined that the workers involved in the claims lacked necessary
work authorization. While the number of disapproved claims could
increase as more noncitizens file for retirement or disability claims
in the coming years, there are still certain temporary workers who,
upon receiving an SSN, could engage in employment not authorized by
their visas. If these noncitizens remain in the country long enough
after their visas expire, they could potentially earn enough work
credits in such employment to eventually qualify for benefits.
Section 211 Has Not Yet Significantly Reduced the Number of Noncitizens
Receiving Benefits:
Because Section 211 does not apply to claims based on noncitizen
workers assigned SSNs prior to 2004, the law has not significantly
reduced the number of noncitizens receiving benefits. However, the
number of disapproved claims will likely increase as unauthorized
workers file for benefits in the coming years. During 2004 and 2005,
SSA disallowed roughly 72,000 of some 177,000 claims involving
noncitizen workers, of which only 41 were disallowed because they
lacked the necessary work authorization required under Section 211. In
addition to the Section 211 exemptions, according to SSA officials, the
minimal impact of the law to date may also be a result of unauthorized
workers not applying for benefits after concluding that they would not
be eligible.
As of December 2005, SSA approved roughly 60 percent of the
approximately 177,000 claims, almost all of which involved noncitizens
who were assigned a work-authorized SSN prior to 2004. Our review also
showed that SSA disallowed roughly 72,000 benefit claims involving a
noncitizen worker, almost always due to reasons other than Section 211.
Almost 54,000 (74 percent) were disapproved because the primary worker
upon whom the claim was based did not have sufficient work credits to
qualify for disability benefits, which requires fewer than the 40 work
credits generally required for retirement benefits. In addition,
approximately 19,000 (26 percent) claims were disapproved because the:
primary worker did not have sufficient work credits to qualify the
claimant(s) for retirement or survivor benefits (fig. 1).
Figure 1: Claims Decided by SSA for Claims Based on Noncitizen Workers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Although SSA has disallowed only 41 claims as a result of Section 211
requirements, the number will increase in future years as more
unauthorized workers reach retirement age or become disabled. While the
41 disallowed claims affected workers who had applied for retirement or
disability benefits, they predominantly affected claimants applying for
survivor benefits. In fact, 31 of the 41 claims were for survivor
benefits. These claims in several cases involved survivors who were
U.S. citizens. In some of these cases, survivors of deceased workers
were denied benefits because the worker did not meet the requirements
of Section 211, even though the worker had enough work credits to
qualify the claimants for survivor benefits.
While SSA data for the approximately 105,000 claims approved during
2004 and 2005 shows that 97 percent of the workers assigned SSNs before
2004 had work authorized SSNs, there are millions of noncitizens
assigned nonwork SSNs before 2004 who may qualify for benefits in the
coming years because Section 211 does not affect them. As figure 2
shows 3,130 claims were made based on noncitizen workers issued nonwork
SSNs before 2004.
Figure 2: Number and Type of SSNs Assigned to Noncitizen Workers for
Claims Approved during 2004 and 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Section 211 May Not Restrict Benefits to Certain Noncitizen Temporary
Workers Who Engage in Unauthorized Work:
Even with Section 211 restrictions, opportunities may still exist for
certain noncitizens assigned SSNs after 2003 to collect benefits
without current work authorization. For example, some temporary
workers--often referred to as nonimmigrants--legally admitted into the
United States may receive benefits based on work not authorized by
their visas.[Footnote 13] Currently, the Social Security Act directs
SSA to take steps to issue SSNs to certain noncitizen visa holders
granted permission to work in the United States by DHS under certain
temporary visas. Such noncitizens include, among others, college
students, camp counselors, and international dignitaries. (We selected
certain visa categories under which noncitizens temporarily in the
United States were most likely to receive a work authorized SSN based
on information received from SSA. See app. II for a detailed
description of the nonimmigrant classifications we used.) Between 2000
and 2004, SSA issued approximately 1 million SSNs to these noncitizens,
and as shown in figure 3, the number of these SSNs substantially
increased after 2001. By using their work authorized SSN, these workers
could engage in employment covered by Social Security, but not
authorized by their visa (which is considered illegal employment). If
these workers accumulate enough work credits by overstaying their visas
and meet age and other entitlement requirements, they would qualify for
benefits based on the work authorized designation of their SSN. SSA's
Office of the Inspector General estimated that out of the approximately
795,000 temporary visa holders that had received an SSN regardless of
their visa type during fiscal year 2000 alone, some 32,000 had either
continued working after their immigration status expired or may have
allowed someone else to use their SSN to work after they left the
United States.[Footnote 14]
Figure 3: Total Number of Work Authorized SSNs Assigned to Noncitizens
Issued Temporary Work Visas:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
SSA officials acknowledged that it was possible for these temporary
workers to obtain benefits by using their SSN to engage in employment
not authorized under their visa. However, they said that the likelihood
of this occurring was low, because such individuals would probably not
stay in the country long enough to accrue sufficient work credits or
meet lawful presence requirements. As demonstrated by the Office of the
Inspector General report, however, temporary visa holders do, in many
instances, continue working after their visas expire. Also, if
temporary visa holders accrue sufficient work credits and meet other
eligibility requirements, they may be able receive benefits without
meeting the lawful presence requirement under certain conditions. For
example, such temporary visa holders could receive benefits if they
apply for benefits outside of the United States if they are citizens of
certain countries that have agreements with the United States
permitting such payments. Should such instances occur, SSA would be
limited in its ability to detect them because it does not have the
mechanisms to distinguish between individuals' authorized and
unauthorized employment.
Conclusions:
Section 211 has imposed new restrictions on the payment of Social
Security benefits to noncitizens who work without authorization, but,
not surprisingly, few have been denied benefits thus far. Under the
law, noncitizens may continue to have earnings from unauthorized
employment credited toward their benefits entitlement if they received
their SSN in 2003 or earlier, or if their nonwork SSN was assigned
after 2003 and they later obtain work authorization. Over time,
however, this provision of the law will likely exert a greater impact
on benefits paid based on unauthorized work. Although Section 211 will
not prevent all such benefit payments, as in the instance regarding
certain temporary visa holders, the new law is making a small but
potentially growing difference. It will be important for SSA to
continue to monitor the law's impact and, to the extent practicable,
identify the remaining situations permitting benefit payments based on
unauthorized work if they prove significant and measurable.
Meanwhile, SSA needs to take actions to ensure that Section 211 is
properly administered. Our findings show that, in implementing Section
211, SSA has taken steps to prevent the payment of benefits for claims
involving workers who lack work authorization, but additional actions
are needed to ensure that claims are properly decided and that all
claimants receive necessary information concerning the decision.
Because we identified 17 claims that had been approved in error,
developing an internal control to identify potentially erroneous claims
decisions could reduce future errors. Additionally, it is important
that SSA staff receive additional training on the proper application of
Section 211 for claims approved after 2004 in which workers lack work
authorization. Without such measures, benefits may be paid to those who
are not entitled to them and denied to those who are. Given the fact
that over time the number of unauthorized workers reaching retirement
age or becoming disabled will likely increase and therefore be subject
to Section 211, these measures could help SSA ensure the integrity of
the Social Security program and avoid erroneous payments. Also, with
regard to disapproved claims, SSA has not developed a way to ensure
that all unsuccessful applicants receive information on both their
right to appeal the decision and information regarding whom to contact
for questions about the decision--as required by its own policy. As a
result, applicants who do not receive such information may not
understand that they can appeal the decision, the process for filing an
appeal, and the time frame within which such action must be taken.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To assure proper benefit eligibility determinations and appeals
processes, we recommend that the Commissioner of Social Security:
* establish a control to identify potentially erroneous claims
decisions for unauthorized workers assigned SSNs after 2003, such as an
electronic edit check to identify such claims;
* provide enhanced training to staff to assist them in properly
processing claims covered by Section 211; and:
* develop a standardized format for disapproval letters to ensure that
staff provide applicants with all required information regarding the
disapproval decision.
Agency Comments:
We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from the
Commissioner of SSA. SSA's comments are reproduced in appendix III. SSA
also provided additional technical comments, which have been included
in the report as appropriate.
SSA agreed with our recommendations and discussed various actions it is
taking to address them. In response to our first recommendation, SSA
stated that it had implemented a new edit check into its Disability
Insured Status Calculator Online program to screen for whether
individuals meet the disability insured status rules. To assist staff
in making proper claims determinations, SSA stated that the edit check
generates an alert when an individual's SSN issue date is January 1,
2004, or later, and provides staff with a copy of the claims processing
procedures relating to Section 211. While we commend SSA for its swift
implementation of this action, we believe that this improvement still
leaves room for erroneous claims determinations to go undetected. One
reason for this is that SSA's action only provides such alerts for
disability claims, potentially leaving thousands of retirement,
dependent, and survivor claims susceptible to error. Also, this action
still relies only on SSA staff to make proper determinations. However,
as our review demonstrated, this step alone is not sufficient to detect
claims that were improperly decided. Therefore, we believe that SSA
should install an automated systems edit to identify potentially
erroneous claims decisions as we recommended.
In response to our second recommendation, SSA stated that it was
updating its claims processing procedures relating to Section 211 of
the SSPA and would provide staff with training on the new update when
it is completed.
Regarding our third recommendation, SSA stated that it would require
staff to use a notice that provides standardized appeals language and
information on the disapproval decision, as part of its update to the
Section 211 guidance. This notice is located in SSA's Distributed
Online Correspondence System, which is separate from the Program
Operations Manual System that contains Section 211 guidance. While
existing guidance on Section 211 instructs staff to include appeals
language and other required information in letters explaining
disapproval decisions, it does not provide the exact language that
staff are to include in the letters. Consequently, staff must use their
discretion in determining what language should be included. As our
review found, this resulted in several letters that did not provide
unsuccessful claimants with information on their right to appeal the
disapproval decision and other required information. While providing
staff with such standardized language is a step forward, it will
require SSA staff to combine language from the Section 211 guidance
explaining why the worker did not meet the requirements of Section 211
with the standardized language from the notice. We believe that having
staff prepare the letters using information from two different places
could increase the likelihood that all required information may not be
included. Thus, we still believe that a standardized letter containing
all of the required information regarding the disapproval decision is
needed.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Commissioner of SSA, the Secretary of DHS, and the Commissioner
of IRS, and other interested parties. Copies will also be made
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have questions concerning this report, please call me on (202)
512-7215. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and
Public Affairs, respectively, are Gloria Jarmon, who may be reached on
(202) 512-4470, and Paul Anderson, who may be reached on (202) 512-
4800.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Barbara D. Bovbjerg:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
In assessing the Social Security Administration's (SSA) implementation
of Section 211 and the adequacy of its policies and procedures, we
reviewed the law and discussed its legal interpretation with GAO and
SSA attorneys. We also reviewed prior GAO, SSA Office of Inspector
General (OIG), Congressional Research Service (CRS), and other reports
on the new law and related issues. We also reviewed various documents
detailing SSA's guidance on Section 211. In particular, we examined
relevant sections of SSA's Program Operations Manual System (POMS) that
explained the procedures for processing claims covered by Section 211.
We obtained information from officials in SSA headquarters in
Baltimore, Maryland, and the four field offices we visited
(Williamsburg Field Office in Brooklyn, New York, and the Culver City,
Redlands, and Porterville Field Offices in California) on the training
provided to staff. We selected the four field offices because of the
geographic proximity of multiple offices in a single state and because
the information that we had at the time of our visits showed that the
offices had individually or collectively--within their region--
processed a large number of claims that had been disapproved as a
result of Section 211 requirements.
To ascertain whether SSA made proper decisions for claims involving
primary workers who were noncitizens, we reviewed:
(1) all 19 approved claims in which SSA had assigned a nonwork SSN to
the noncitizen workers after 2003, and:
(2) all 41 disapproved claims in which SSA had reached its decision as
a result of the Section 211 requirements.
To identify claims possibly covered by Section 211, we obtained data on
claims that SSA had approved for benefit payments involving noncitizen
workers between January 2004 and December 2005. SSA provided
information on these claims from its electronic Master Beneficiary
Record file, which maintains data on all benefit claims. From these
files, we obtained data such as the filing date for the claim, the type
of SSN assigned to the primary worker, the date the SSN was assigned to
the worker, the type of claim, among other pieces of information. We
reviewed these data from the Master Beneficiary Record for the 19
approved claims and discussed each of the claims with SSA officials.
For the 41 claims that had been disapproved due to Section 211
requirements, we reviewed all of the available documentation associated
with each claim and discussed the claims with SSA officials. The file
documentation in some cases included only the letter notifying the
claimant(s) of the disapproval decision, and in other cases, a
combination of other documents such as earnings statements and
immigration documents. Additionally, we discussed with managers and
staff in the four SSA field offices we visited the claims that they had
disapproved based on Section 211. We did not review any approved cases
in the four field offices, because information on the approved cases
for the offices was not available at the time. To more generally assess
the extent to which Section 211 had impacted the payment of benefits
for claims that involved primary workers who were noncitizens--and
therefore possibly covered by Section 211--we obtained data on all such
claims that SSA had decided between January 2004 and December 2005.
This data showed that SSA had decided a total of approximately 177,000
claims, of which some 105,000 had been approved and 72,000 had been
disapproved. [Footnote 15]
To determine if there are circumstances under which certain noncitizens
could still receive benefits based on unauthorized employment, we
interviewed SSA headquarters officials and managers and staff in the
four field offices we visited. We also obtained data from SSA on
certain noncitizens issued temporary work visas that make them eligible
to receive work-authorized SSNs. SSA officials identified 23 temporary
visa categories that qualify individuals for such SSNs (app. II lists
the 23 visa categories). We obtained data from SSA on the number of
SSNs it had assigned to individuals for each of the visa types between
2000 and 2004. SSA's data showed that it had assigned almost 1 million
SSNs to these temporary workers. We compared SSA's data to the number
of temporary work visas that the Department of State had issued for the
23 visa types between 2000 and 2004 and found that SSA's overall
numbers were reasonable. We also discussed with officials at the
Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security their
policies regarding noncitizens issued temporary work visas.
We conducted our work between February 2005 and January 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Examples of Temporary Visa Categories Issued SSNs:
Visas: A-1;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Ambassador, public minister,
career, diplomatic or consular officer, and members of immediate
family.
Visas: A-2;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Other foreign government
official or employee, and members of immediate family.
Visas: A-3;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Attendant, servant, or
personal employee of A-1 and A-2, and members of immediate family.
Visas: Visitors:
Visas: C-2;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Alien in transit to UN
headquarters district under Section 11.(3), (4), or (5) of the
Headquarters Agreement.
Visas: C-3;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Foreign government official,
members of immediate family, attendant, servant, or personal employee,
in transit.
Visas: Academic Students:
Visas: F-1;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Academic Student.
Visas: Foreign Government Officials to International Organizations.
Visas: G-1;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Principal resident
representative of recognized foreign member government to international
organization, and members of immediate family.
Visas: G-2;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Other representative of
recognized foreign member government to international organization, and
members of immediate family.
Visas: G-3;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Representative of non-
recognized or nonmember government to international organization, and
members of immediate family.
Visas: G-4;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: International organization
officer or employee, and members of immediate family.
Visas: G-5;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Attendant, servant, or
personal employee of G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, or members of immediate
family.
Visas: Temporary Workers:
Visas: H-1B;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Specialty Occupations,
fashion models.
Visas: H-2A;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Temporary Agricultural
Worker.
Visas: Exchange Visitors:
Visas: J-1;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Exchange Visitors;
visitor categories can include camp counselors, students, government
visitors, physicians, professors, short-term scholars, and trainees.
Visas: Vocational and Language Students:
Visas: M-1;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Vocational student or other
nonacademic student.
Visas: North Atlantic Treaty Organization:
Visas: NATO-1;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Principal Permanent
Representative of Member State to NATO and resident members of official
staff or immediate family.
Visas: NATO-2;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Other representatives of
member State;
Dependents of Member of a Force entering in accordance with the
provisions of NATO Status-of-Forces agreement;
Members of such a Force if issued visas.
Visas: NATO-3;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Official clerical staff
accompanying Representative of Member State to NATO or immediate
family.
Visas: NATO-4;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Official of NATO other than
those qualified as NATO-1 and immediate family.
Visas: NATO-5;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Expert other than NATO
officials qualified under NATO-4, employed on behalf of NATO and
immediate family.
Visas: NATO-6;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Member of civilian component
who is either accompanying a Force entering in accordance with the
provisions of the NATO Status-of-Forces agreement;
attached to an Allied headquarters under the protocol on the Status of
International Military headquarters set up pursuant to the North
Atlantic Treaty;
and their dependents.
Visas: NATO-7;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: Servant or personal employee
of NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, NATO-6, or immediate family.
Visas: International Cultural Exchange Visitors:
Visas: Q-1;
Authorized Activity Under Temporary Visa: International cultural
exchange visitors;
the "Q-1" visa is for certain international cultural exchange programs
designed to provide practical training and employment, and sharing of
the history, culture, and traditions of participants home country in
the United States.
Source: DHS.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
Social Security:
The Commissioner:
April 14, 2006:
Ms. Barbara D. Bovbjerg:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Bovbjerg:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report, "Social
Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Prevent Improper
Benefit Payments Under Social Security Protection Act" (GAO-06-196).
Our comments are enclosed.
If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Ms. Candace
Skurnik, Director, Audit Management and Liaison Staff, at (410) 965-
4636.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Anne B. Barnhart:
Enclosure:
Social Security Administration Baltimore Md 21235-0001:
Comments Of The Social Security Administration (SSA) On The Government
Accountability Office (Gao) Draft Report, "Social Security
Administration: Additional Actions Needed To Prevent Improper Benefit
Payments Under Social Security Protection Act" (Gao-06-196):
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on this
GAO draft report. The report notes that SSA has issued guidance and
provided training to assist SSA staff in processing benefit claims
under Section 211 of the Social Security Protection Act (SSPA). We
believe the actions cited below in response to GAO's recommendations
strengthen our controls over our processing of such claims.
Recommendation 1:
Establish a control to identify potentially erroneous claims decisions
for unauthorized workers assigned Social Security numbers (SSN) after
2003, such as an electronic edit check to identify such claims.
SSA Comments:
We agree. We have implemented a new edit check into the Disability
Insured Status Calculator Online (DISCO) program, an automated
screening tool used by our Claims Representatives, Service
Representatives and Teleservice Representatives to screen for whether
an individual meets the disability insured status rules. An alert is
now generated when the SSN issue date is January 1. 2004, or later, on
the first iteration of the NUMIDENT record (original SSN). The alert
also generates a copy of our claims processing procedures relating to
Section 211 of the SSPA (Programs Operations Manual System (POMS)
section RS 00301. 102, "Additional Requirements for Alien Workers -
Social Security Protection Act of 2004"), for the adjudicator to review
and apply when processing the claim.
Recommendation 2:
Provide enhanced training to staff to assist them in properly
processing claims covered by section 211.
SSA Comments:
We agree. We are updating our claims processing procedures relating to
Section 211 of the S SPA (POMS section RS 00301.102. "Additional
Requirements for Alien Workers-Social Security Protection Act of
2004"). When we have completed the update of these procedures, we will
include information on processing benefit claims under Section 211 in
our monthly interactive video training that is provided to SSA field
offices.
Recommendation 3:
Develop a standardized format for disapproval letters to ensure that
staff provide applicants with all required information regarding the
disapproval decision.
SSA Comments:
We agree. In our update of procedures relating to Section 211 of the
SSPA, now underway (POMS section RS 003 01.102, "Additional
Requirements for Alien Workers - Social Security Protection Act of
2004"), we are including a directive requiring the SSA adjudicator to
use a notice titled "Disallowance - Title 11 Miscellaneous Reason"
found in our Distributed Online Correspondence System (DOCS). The
notice provides standardized appeals language and information on the
disapproval decision.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Barbara D. Bovbjerg (202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
The following team members made key contributions to this report: Blake
Ainsworth, Assistant Director, Susan Bernstein, Mary Crenshaw, Jason
Holsclaw, Kevin Jackson, Mimi Nguyen, Daniel Schwimer, Vanessa Taylor,
and Paul Wright.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Section 211 covers all Social Security benefits under Title II of
the Social Security Act. Section 211 does not, however, cover
Supplemental Security Income, which is a benefit under Title XVI of the
Social Security Act.
[2] These taxes are withheld under the Federal Insurance Contributions
Act (often referred to as FICA) and the Self-Employed Contributions Act
(SECA). The 2006 FICA tax rate for employees is 7.65 percent (limited
in part to established taxable earnings thresholds), which is matched
by employers. The 2006 SECA tax rate for self-employed persons is 15.3
percent.
[3] Pub. L. No. 108-203 (2004).
[4] Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics, Pew Hispanic
Center Report, June 14, 2005. The estimates are based on the Urban
Institute's data from the March 2004 U.S. Census Bureau's Current
Population Survey.
[5] The lawful presence requirement was established under the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Pub.L. No. 104-
193 (1996).
[6] Pub. L. No. 99-603 (1986).
[7] The Basic Pilot was established under the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208 (1996).
[8] Pub. L. No. 109-13 (2004).
[9] Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General,
Reported Earnings Prior to the Issuance of a Social Security Number, A-
03-04-14037 (August 2005).
[10] The guidance for Section 211 is found at POMS RS 00301.102,
"Additional Requirements for Alien Workers - Social Security Protection
Act of 2004," issued August 18, 2004.
[11] Although field office managers conduct monthly reviews of a random
sample of all claims, SSA headquarters and field officials told us that
due to the low number of Section 211-impacted claims, few if any have
been included in these reviews.
[12] The 72,000 disapproved claims did not include any claims that were
disapproved due to lack of evidence of a medical disability.
[13] In addition to earning work credits by staying beyond their period
of authorized admittance under their visas, a nonimmigrant could accrue
work credits in subsequent periods of authorized re-admittance.
[14] Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General,
Impact of Nonimmigrants Who Continue Working after their Immigration
Status Expires, A-08-05-15073 (September 2005).
[15] SSA data showed that it had disapproved approximately 72,000
claims between January 2004 and December 2005 for failure to meet
either work credit or Section 211 requirements; this total does not
include any claims that were disapproved due to lack of evidence of a
medical disability.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: