As part of the larger SSI Study, we conducted detailed semistructured interviews with 156 respondents in four sites. They spoke at length about matters of legislative concern during the reform and subsequent abolition of the drug addiction and alcoholism (DA&A) program. Respondents were quite aware of the problems considered by Congress. Some acknowledged using SSI payments to buy alcohol and other drugs, and a few claimed to have squandered large retroactive payments. Most insisted that they spent their checks wisely, however, and discussed how they did so. With a remarkable degree of consensus, respondents favored the DA&A program's paternalistic features of representative payment and mandatory treatment, and while less in agreement about time limits, they approved in theory of benchmarks to measure progress. A substantial majority believed the DA&A program had been an unalloyed good, and only 12 judged it to have been wholly harmful.
Benefit Reforms for Individuals Disabled Based on Drug Addiction and Alcoholism; Interim Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. 8140–8153 (1995) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404 and 416).
2.
BrownJosephine C., Public Relief, 1929–1939 (New York: Henry Holt and Co.,1940).
3.
BurnsVirginia, “Individualized Services in the 1970s,”The Social Welfare Forum, 1972 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972), 162–175.
4.
CampbellKevin, BaumohlJim, and HuntSharon, “The Bottom Line: Employment and Barriers to Work Among Former SSI DA&A Beneficiaries,”Contemporary Drug Problems,30 (2003), 195–240.
5.
DavisMartha F., Brutal Need (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,1993).
6.
Exploring Means of Achieving Higher Rates of Treatment and Rehabilitation among Alcoholics and Drug Addicts Receiving Federal Disability Benefits.Hearings before the Subcommittee on Social Security and the Subcommittee on Human Resources, of the Committee on Ways and Means, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1994).
7.
General Accounting Office, Beneficiary Payment for Representative Payee Services (GAO/HRD-92-112) (Washington, DC: Author), June 1992.
8.
GordonLinda, Heroes of Their Own Lives (New York: Viking,1988).
9.
HasenfeldYeheskel and WeaverDale“Enforcement, Compliance, and Disputes in Welfare-to-Work Programs,”Social Service Review,70 (1996), 234–256.
10.
HerbstMark D., BatkiSteven L., ManfrediLuisa B., and JonesTracey, “Treatment Outcomes for Methadone Clients Receiving Lump-sum Payments at the Initiation of Disability Benefits.”Psychiatric Services,47 (1996), 119–120.
11.
HuntSharon R. and BaumohlJim, “Drink, Drugs and Disability: An Introduction to the Controversy,”Contemporary Drug Problems,30 (2003) 9–76.
KahnDorothy, “The Use of Cash, Orders for Goods, or Relief in Kind in a Mass Program,”Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work,1933, 273–275.
14.
LiebmanLance, “The Definition of Disability in Social Security and Supplemental Security Income: Drawing the Bounds of Social Welfare Estates,”Harvard Law Review,89 (1976), 833–867.
15.
LipskyMichael, Street-Level Bureaucracy (New York: Russell Sage,1980).
16.
MashawJerry L., Bureaucratic Justice (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,1983).
17.
Office of the Inspector General, Social Security Policies Concerning Drug Addicts and Alcoholics (OIE-02-90-00950) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), July 1991.
18.
Office of the Inspector General, Requirements for Drug Addicts and Alcoholics on SSI (OIE-02-94-00110) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), November 1994.
19.
OttenM., “Legislature Urges SSI Reforms, State Lawmakers Want to End Subsidies for Drug, Alcohol Abuse,”The Bakersfield Californian, August 30, 1992.
20.
PivenFrances Fox and ClowardRichard, Poor People's Movements (New York: Pantheon,1977).
21.
RankMark Robert, Living on the Edge (New York: Columbia University Press,1994).
22.
RiccioJames and HasenfeldYeheskel, “Enforcing a Participation Mandate in a Welfare-to-Work Program,”Social Service Review,70 (1996), 516–542.
23.
RosenheckRobert, LamJulie and RandolphFrances, “Impact of Representative Payees on Substance Use by Homeless Persons with Serious Mental Illness,”Psychiatric Services,48 (1997), 800–806.
24.
SatelSally, ReuterPeter, HartleDebra, RosenheckRobert and MintzJim, “Influence of Retroactive Disability Payments on Recipients’ Compliance with Substance Abuse Treatment,”Psychiatric Services,48 (1997), 8.
25.
SegalSteven P., BaumohlJim, and JohnsonElsie, “Falling Through the Cracks: Mental Disorder and Social Margin in a Young, Vagrant Population,”Social Problems,24 (1977), 387–400.
26.
ShanerA., RobertsL.J., EckmanT.A., TuckerD.E., TsuangJ.W., WilkinsJ.N., and MintzJ., “Monetary Reinforcement of Abstinence From Cocaine Among Mentally Ill Patients With Cocaine Dependence,”Psychiatric Services,48 (1997), 807–810.
27.
SossJoe, Unwanted Claims (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press,2000).
28.
StackCarol B., All Our Kin (New York: Harper & Row,1974).
29.
StoneDeborah, The Disabled State (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,1984).
30.
SwartzJames, TonkinPeggy, and BaumohlJim, “The Methodology of the Multi-Site Study of the Termination of Supplemental Security Income Benefits for Drug Addicts and Alcoholics.”Contemporary Drug Problems,30 (2003), 77–121.
31.
ThurowLester C., “Government Expenditures: Cash or In-Kind Aid?” In DworkinGerald, BermantGordon, and BrownPeter G., eds., Markets and Morals (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977), 85–106.
32.
WisemanJacqueline P., Stations of the Lost (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1970).
33.
ZelizerViviana A., The Social Meaning of Money (New York: Basic Books,1994).
