Social Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Prevent Improper Benefit Payments under Social Security Protection Act
Published: 2006-04-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: New Restrictions Now Prevent Payment of Benefits to Noncitizens Unauthorized to Work in the United States
paragraphs: 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) 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. 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.  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.
section_title: Other Initiatives Are Intended to Reduce Unauthorized Work
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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 noncitzens  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.
section_title: SSA Has Tightened the Criteria for Issuing Nonwork SSNs
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: SSA Provided Guidance and Training to Its Staff to Implement Section 211, but Lacked Internal Controls for Assuring Proper Determinations
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: SSA Provided Guidance and Training to Assist Staff in Properly Applying Section 211
paragraphs: 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). 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. 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.
section_title: SSA Lacked Internal Controls to Detect Erroneously Decided Claims and Several Disapproval Letters Lacked Required Information
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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_title: Section 211 Has Impacted a Small but Potentially Growing Number of Claims, but May Not Restrict Benefits to Certain Temporary Noncitizen Workers
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Section 211 Has Not Yet Significantly Reduced the Number of Noncitizens Receiving Benefits
paragraphs: 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).
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.
section_title: Section 211 May Not Restrict Benefits to Certain Noncitizen Temporary Workers Who Engage in Unauthorized Work
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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 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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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 noncitzen  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.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: Examples of Temporary Visa Categories Issued SSNs
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Social Security Administration
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.