Newsletter: Two BIG stories for Caseworkers
Instead of a roundup of a lot of small articles today, we’re going to dive a little bit deeper into two big stories that have the potential to really impact casework in different ways, and one fun other project from our team where we’d love caseworker input.
Before we get there, though: we wanted to say that our thoughts are with Senator Sanders’ Burlington team after the disturbing arson attempt at their office last week. We’re thinking a lot about caseworker safety right now — if you have any insight or experiences you’d like to share, please reach out by replying to this email.
I am always here for questions, comments, suggestions, or just to chat about casework. Please feel free to reach out by replying to this email or shoot me a note at anne@popvox.org.
Anne Meeker
Deputy Director
POPVOX Foundation
SSA Overpayment Changes
What’s going on?
Previously, Social Security’s default policy to recoup an overpayment was to withhold 100% of a benefit until the overpayment was fully recouped. As many caseworkers experienced, this led to significant hardship for many beneficiaries, especially low-income beneficiaries on SSI and SSDI.
On March 20, in testimony to the Senate Special Committee on Aging and Senate Committee on Finance, SSA Commissioner Martin O’Malley announced that Social Security was taking four major steps to change how it recoups overpayments:
Starting March 25, defaulting to withholding only 10% (or $10, whichever is greater) of benefits to recoup an overpayment (previously, the default policy was to withhold 100%)
Shifting the burden of proof to Social Security in determining whether the beneficiary was at fault in causing the overpayment
Lowering barriers to beneficiaries working out a need-based repayment plan by accepting a verbal summary of the beneficiary’s income and expenses, and allowing more payment plans for 60 months, rather than 36
Making it easier for beneficiaries to request a waiver for overpayments
These changes apply to new overpayments, but people with existing repayment plans that withhold more than 10% of benefits are encouraged to call Social Security to discuss a lower withholding option. These changes do not apply to all cases, notably cases where the overpayment was the result of fraud.
What do Congressional caseworkers need to do?
This is a huge development that in the long term has the potential to dramatically decrease the number of Social Security-related cases that come to Congressional offices.
However, in the short term, there are a few things casework teams may want to consider preparing for:
Make sure your constituents know about these big changes! Consider making some public service announcements on your social media channels explaining what’s happening and how it will affect beneficiaries
Understand that the training and technical changes to make these changes will take some time: make sure your constituents know that your team is there to be helpful if they experience challenges related to these new policies that they are unable to resolve through normal customer service channels
As always, work with your local networks of community providers like senior center benefits counselors, low-income legal clinics, and disability rights advocates to make sure that they are also aware of these changes and know that your team can help on intractable cases.
Casework at the Supreme Court
What’s going on?
Last week, 35 Members of Congress stood up for casework as a “core function” of the First Branch in an Amicus brief filed in State Dept. v. Muñoz.
The Muñoz case was active casework under two different Congressional offices (Rep. Judy Chu’s team started the case, and then transferred it to Rep. Linda Sanchez when the constituent moved). The case hinges on the principle of “nonreviewability,” or agency decisions with no course for the constituent to get more information or appeal.
Importantly for casework, though, the brief also gets into the questions of separation of powers that animate casework. If casework is a “core function” of Congressional activities, then agencies refusing to provide information to Congress regarding constituent casework is an obstruction of Congress’s role.
The brief lays out one of the few articulations of the way casework in Congress should work:
“[I]nformation that congressmembers gain from constituent work often serves as a warning signal for problems that Congress might not otherwise discover through other channels. Constituent complaints often lead directly to formal oversight and, when necessary, remedial legislation…Crucial legislation often emanates from constituent complaints...
When one political branch fails to provide information to the other, and then disclaims review from the apolitical judiciary, the result is a total concentration of power in the executive. This concentration violates the separation of powers[.]”
While this may be far from the reality on a day-to-day basis, it’s still an important articulation that can lay groundwork for strengthening casework in the future.
What do caseworkers need to know?
Nothing urgent for right now: oral arguments in this case are scheduled for April 23, and experts are not predicting an especially dramatic decision in this case.
However, the case raises a few things that casework teams may want to keep in mind:
Amicus briefs are a tool in the casework toolkit! In this case, the teams involved worked with an advocacy group, committee staff, and a law firm with experience arguing before the Supreme Court to craft this brief. For especially egregious cases that end up in the courts, caseworkers may want to discuss this as a possibility with legislative counterparts. This is truly a way to demonstrate to constituents that an office has done everything possible on their behalf.
Congress can act to change how agencies provide casework information: as we discussed in our report on Afghanistan casework, a huge part of the challenge of casework is that Congress has never used its authority to tell agencies how they should respond to casework requests on behalf of constituents — meaning that it’s a patchwork of inconsistent practices and standards (or lack thereof) for responses. We have recommended that Congress act to set minimum baseline standards for agency responses, including standard timeframes for responsiveness and response quality. As this case highlights, this question gets into the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches of government, but for Congress to uphold its authority and be effective on behalf of constituents, we think it’s worth looking into.
We may have more information on this soon - stay tuned!
Congress 2076
Last but not least — this is the fun one!
Congress 2076, hosted in collaboration by POPVOX Foundation and Democracy 2076, is a forward-looking initiative designed to reimagine the United States Congress on the occasion of its 300th anniversary in 2076.
The first Democracy 2076 convening of state and local organizers for democracy kept returning to one insight: for many democracy reforms to be possible, Congress will need to become more responsive and representative. The Congress 2076 project builds on this insight by inviting Congressional reformers, advocates, scholars, and practitioners to submit the big ideas that Congress will need to function as a representative, responsive, and effective institution in fifty years.
Let’s be real: we welcome perspectives and ideas for folks who spend their time in DC…but we’re really excited about ideas from caseworkers and other staff who are on the ground working with constituents every day.
Ideas will be presented and discussed at an interactive workshop on Capitol Hill on May 13, and will inform the second Democracy 2076 convening in June. Participants who may not be ready to submit an original idea are also invited to provide feedback on previously-submitted ideas through the Congress 2076 Expert Survey. Deadline for ideas and feedback is April 22. Reach out to anne@popvox.org with any questions.
