Few SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) beneficiaries in the United States ever increase earnings to the point of leaving SSDI, a source of growing concern both because of the costs of the program and because some beneficiaries can feel trapped in relative poverty by the need to retain SSDI benefits. One barrier to exit is the “cash cliff,” the abrupt loss of monthly benefits once earnings rise beyond the limits for eligibility. A four-state random assignment policy experiment was funded by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to explore implementation of a gradual reduction of cash benefits as earnings rise (i.e., the “benefit offset”). The project in Utah, one of the four states, found positive impacts of the policy on employment outcomes for certain groups of participants. More important, however, were the lessons learned in Utah for implementing policy initiatives with vulnerable populations such as those with disabilities. These lessons learned are in the areas of partnering among service agencies, enhancing communication, and implementing policy innovations in complex policy environments.
BoruchR. (2007). Encouraging the flight of error: Ethical standards, evidence standards, and randomized trials. In JulnesG.RogD. J. (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation, No. 113; pp. 33-73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
BurkhauserR. V.DalyM. C. (2002). United States disability policy in a changing environment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(1), 213-224.
3.
CaracelliV. J.GreeneJ. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation, No. 74; pp. 19-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
DattaL.- E. (2007). Looking at the evidence: What variations in practice might indicate. In JulnesG.RogD. J. (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation, No. 113; pp. 35-54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
GoldenT. P.O’MaraS.FerrellC.SheldonJ. R.Jr. (2000). A theoretical construct for benefits planning and assistance in the Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Improvement Act. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 14(3), 147.
6.
Government Accountability Office. (1994). Social Security disability rolls keep /growing, while explanations remain elusive (Document No. GAO/HEHS-94-34). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
7.
Government Accountability Office. (1996). SSA disability: Program redesign necessary to encourage return to work (Document No. GAO/HEHS-96-62). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
8.
Government Accountability Office. (1997). Social Security disability programs lag in promoting return to work (Document No. GAO/HEHS-97-46). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
9.
Government Accountability Office. (1998). Social Security disability insurance: Multiple factors affect beneficiaries’ ability to return to work (Document No. GAO/HEHS-98-39). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
10.
HallJ.FoxM. (2004). What providers and Medicaid policymakers need to know about barriers to employment for people with disabilities. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 19(3), 37-50.
11.
HronekC.BleichM. R. (2002). The less-than-perfect medication system: A systems approach to improvement. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 16(4), 17-22.
12.
JulnesG.MarkM. M. (1998). Evaluation as sensemaking: Knowledge construction in a realist world. In HenryG. T.JulnesG.MarkM. M. (Eds.), Realist evaluation: An emerging theory in support of practice (New Directions for Evaluation, No. 78; pp. 33-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
JulnesG.RogD. J. (2007). Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation, No. 113). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
KennedyJ.OlneyM. F. (2006). Factors associated with workforce participation among SSDI beneficiaries. Journal of Rehabilitation, 72(4), 23-30.
15.
MidgleyG. (2006). System thinking for evaluation. In WilliamsB.ImamI. (Eds.), System concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology (pp. 11-34). Point Reyes, CA: EdgePress/American Evaluation Association.
16.
OzawaM. N.YeoY. H. (2006). Work status and work performance of people with disabilities: An empirical study. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(3), 180-190.
17.
SchalockR. L. (2004). The concept of quality of life: What we know and do not know. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48(3), 205.
18.
SilversteinR.JulnesG.NolanR. (2005). What policymakers need and must demand from research regarding the employment rate of persons with disabilities. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 1-50.
StablefordS.MettgerW. (2007). Plain language: A strategic response to the health literacy challenge. Journal of Public Health Policy, 28, 71-93.
24.
StapletonD.O’DayB.LivermoreG.ImparatoA. (2006). Dismantling the poverty trap: Disability policy for the twenty-first century (Employment & Disability Institute Collection, Cornell University). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/1249/
25.
SulewskiJ. S.GilmoreD. S.FoleyS. M. (2006). Medicaid and employment of people with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(3), 158-165.
26.
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II Technical Assistance Manual (October, 1992). Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/taman2.html
27.
WehmanP.RevellG. (2005). Lessons learned from the provision and funding of employment services for the MR/DD population: Implications for assessing the adequacy of the SSA Ticket to Work (social security administration, mental retardation, developmental disabilities). Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16(2), 84-101.
28.
WoodringJ.FoleyS.Santoro RadoG.BrownK.HamnerD. (2006). Focus groups and methodological reflections: Conscientious flexibility in the field. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16, 248-258.
29.
YinR. K.DavisD. (2007). Adding new dimensions to case study evaluations: The case of evaluating comprehensive reforms. In JulnesG.RogD. J. (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation, No. 113; pp. 75-93). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
