Social Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Prevent Improper Benefit Payments under Social Security Protection Act (04/28/2006, GAO-06-196}

-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-196
    TITLE:   Social Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Prevent Improper Benefit Payments under Social Security Protection Act
     DATE:   04/28/2006



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 [email protected]. 

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 SSAï¿½s 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 SSAï¿½s 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 staffï¿½s 
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 GAOï¿½s 
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 [email protected]. 

[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 [email protected]: 

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: [email protected] 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

[email protected] 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: