The Social Security Administration (SSA) oversees two disability programs, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Adults with mental impairments represent a very large component of the programs. Policy makers and SSA are concerned about the accuracy of disability determination and also about low levels of labor force participation among individuals with disabilities. Adults with mental impairments are challenging to assess for work-related functional limitations. They are also a challenge to return to labor force participation. SSA has sponsored several demonstration research programs focusing on improving the accuracy of disability determination and on interventions in supported employment to return individuals with mental impairments to competitive employment. This article reviews the demonstration research focused on both entry into the disability system (at the “front door”) and potential exit from it (through the “back door”). All of the research holds promise to “right-size” the SSA disability program.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Arnone W, Veghte B. 2017. Disability Protection IS Part of Social Security Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Soc. Insurance [Google Scholar]
  2. Bond G, Drake RE. 2014. Making the case for IPS supported employment. Adm. Policy Ment. Health 41:69–73Provides strong evidence for the effectiveness of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model for supported employment. [Google Scholar]
  3. Drake R, Bond G, Frey W, Goldman H, Salkever D. et al. 2013. Assisting Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiaries with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression in returning to work. Am. J. Psychiatry 170:121433–41Shows how the Social Security Administration's Mental Health Treatment Study demonstrates increases in competitive work. [Google Scholar]
  4. Fraker T, Mamun A, Honeycutt T, Thompkins A, Valentine E. 2014. Final report on the Youth Transition Demonstration Evaluation Soc. Sec. Admin. Rep., Cent. Stud. Disabil. Policy, Mathematica Policy Res Washington, DC: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Final_Repot_on_the_Youth_Transition_Demonstration_Evaluation.pdf [Google Scholar]
  5. Frey W, Drake R, Bond G, Miller A, Goldman H. et al. 2011. Mental Health Treatment Study: final report Soc. Secur. Admin. Rep., Westat Rockville, MD:Presents details and complete results of the Social Security Administration's Mental Health Treatment Study. [Google Scholar]
  6. Goldman HH. 2013. Commentary on measuring disability. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 94:91687–89Reviews five studies presenting evidence for the reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment Battery. [Google Scholar]
  7. Goldman HH, Gattozzi AA. 1988.a Balance of powers: Social Security and the mentally disabled. Milbank Q 66:3531–51Shows how all three branches of government play a role in Social Security policy for mentally disabled people. [Google Scholar]
  8. Goldman HH, Gattozzi AA. 1988.b Murder in the cathedral revisited: President Reagan and the mentally disabled. Hosp. Community Psychiatry 39:3505–9Shows how overreaction to President Reagan's wish to reduce entitlement spending led to hardship for mentally disabled Social Security beneficiaries. [Google Scholar]
  9. Grob GN, Goldman HH. 2006. The Dilemma of Federal Mental Health Policy New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  10. Gubits D, Lin W, Bell S, Judkins D. 2014. BOND implementation and evaluation: first- and second-year snapshot of earnings and benefit impacts for Stage 2 Soc. Secur. Admin. Rep., Abt Assoc Cambridge, MA:Provides early findings from the Social Security Administration Benefit Offset National Demonstration. [Google Scholar]
  11. Livermore GA, Goodman N, Wright D. 2007. Social Security disability beneficiaries: characteristics, work activity, and use of services. J. Vocat. Rehabil. 27:85–93Discusses employment and service use by beneficiaries of the Social Security Administration disability program. [Google Scholar]
  12. MacDonald-Wilson KL, Rogers ES, Ellison ML, Lyass A. 2003. A study of the Social Security work incentives and their relation to perceived barriers to work among persons with psychiatric disability. Rehabil. Psychol. 48:301–9 [Google Scholar]
  13. Marfeo E, Haley S, Jette A, Eisen S, Ni P. et al. 2013.a Conceptual foundation for measures of physical function and behavioral health function for Social Security work disability evaluation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 94:91645–52 [Google Scholar]
  14. Marfeo E, Ni P, Haley S, Bogusz K, Meterko M. et al. 2013.b Scale refinement and initial evaluation of a behavioral health function measurement tool for work disability evaluation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 94:91679–86 [Google Scholar]
  15. Marfeo E, Ni P, Haley S, Jette A, Bogusz K. et al. 2013.c Development of an instrument to measure behavioral health function for work disability: item pool construction and factor analysis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 94:91670–78 [Google Scholar]
  16. McDonough C, Jette A, Bogusz K, Marfeo E, Brandt D. et al. 2013. Development of a self-report physical function instrument for disability assessment: item pool construction and factor analysis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 94:91653–60 [Google Scholar]
  17. McQuilken M, Zahniser JH, Novak J, Starks RD, Olmos A, Bond G. 2003. The Work Project Survey: consumer perspectives on work. J. Vocat. Rehabil. 18:59–68 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ni P, McDonough C, Jette A, Bogusz K, Marfeo E. et al. 2013. Development of a computer-adaptive physical function instrument for Social Security Administration disability determination. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 94:91661–69 [Google Scholar]
  19. O'Day B, Killeen M. 2002. Does U.S. Federal policy support employment and recovery for people with psychiatric disabilities. Behav. Sci. Law 20:559–83 [Google Scholar]
  20. Office of Management and Budget 2017. Budget of the U.S. Government: A New Foundation for American Greatness. Fiscal Year 2018 Washington, DC: OMB [Google Scholar]
  21. Rubenstein LS, Gattozzi AA, Goldman HH. 1988. Protecting the entitlements of the mentally disabled: the SSDI/SSI legal battles of the 1980s. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 11:269–78 [Google Scholar]
  22. Social Security Administration (SSA) 2017. Disability Evaluation Under Social Security. 12.0 Mental DisordersAdult Washington, DC: Soc. Secur. Admin [Google Scholar]
  23. Social Security Advisory Board 2013. The case for terminating the Benefit Offset National Demonstration. Social Security Advisory Board Aug. 28. http://www.ssab.gov/Details-Page/ArticleID/721/The-Case-for-Terminating-the-Benefit-Offset-National-Demonstration-August-2013 [Google Scholar]
  24. Stapleton D, Liu S, Phelps D, Prenovitz S. 2010. Work activity and use of employment supports under the original Ticket to Work regulations: longitudinal statistics for new Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiaries, final report Soc. Secur. Admin. Rep., Cent. Stud. Disabil. Policy, Mathematica Policy Res Washington, DC:Provides longitudinal data from the Social Security Administration's Ticket-to-Work demonstration of employment supports. [Google Scholar]
  25. Surgeon General 1999. Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General Washington, DC: U.S. Public Health Serv [Google Scholar]
  26. Wittenburg D, Mann D, Stapleton D, Gubits D, Judkins D, McGuirk A. 2015. BOND implementation and evaluation: third-year snapshot of earnings and benefit impacts for Stage 1 Soc. Secur. Admin. Rep., Abt Assoc Cambridge, MA:Discusses earnings and benefit impacts from the Social Security Administration's Benefit Offset National Demonstration evaluation. [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error