Social & Economic Factors Education Employment Income Family & Social Support Community Safety Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Increase Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program benefit amounts

Health Factors: Income
Decision Makers: Government - State, Government - Federal
Evidence Rating: Expert Opinion
Population Reach: 1-9% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: Likely to decrease disparities

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter for aged, blind or disabled people with little or no income. Benefits issued by the federal government can be supplemented with additional state contributions (SSA).

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Increased income

Evidence of Effectiveness

Social insurance programs such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are widely used by governments to increase the income of those unable to work, such as the elderly and individuals with disabilities severe enough to prevent gainful employment. Available evidence suggests that SSI receipt can increase total household income and reduce the likelihood of child poverty (Duggan 2007a). Loss of SSI benefits has been shown to increase the likelihood of hardships such as hunger, homelessness (Norris 2003), and unmet medical needs (Hemmeter 2011). Additional evidence is needed to confirm optimal program targeting and benefit amounts.

Implementation Examples

United States

Application for SSI disability benefits is a function of health but is also influenced by program rules and benefits. Six states do not pay SSI supplements: Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The federal SSA implements SSI supplements for fourteen states; other states implement their own (SSA-State assistance 2011).

Wisconsin

Wisconsin provides an SSI supplement for those who qualify for the federal program (WI DHS-SSI).  

Citations - Description

SSA - US Social Security Administration (SSA). What is supplemental security income? Accessed on March 24, 2013
Webpage: http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

Citations - Evidence

Duggan 2007a - Duggan MG, Kearney MS. The impact of child SSI enrollment on household outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2007;26(4):861-85. Accessed on June 25, 2012
Webpage: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.20289/abstract
Hemmeter 2011* - Hemmeter J. Health-related unmet needs of Supplemental Security Income youth after the age-18 redetermination. Health Services Research. 2011;46(4):1224-42. Accessed on June 25, 2012
Webpage: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01246.x/abstract
Norris 2003* - Norris J, Scott R, Speiglman R, Green R. Homelessness, hunger and material hardship among those who lost SSI. Contemporary Drug Problems. 2003;30:241-73. Accessed on June 25, 2012
Webpage: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/condp30&div=16&id=&page=

Citations - Implementation Examples

SSA-State assistance 2011 - US Social Security Administration (SSA). State assistance programs for SSI recipients, January 2011. Accessed on June 28, 2012
Webpage: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssi_st_asst/
WI DHS-SSI - Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS). Supplemental Security Income in Wisconsin. Accessed on June 25, 2012
Webpage: http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/ssi/

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities