Policy Model
The purpose of a policy model is to ensure that systematic, complete, demystified and organized policy analysis is in concert with the thinking of the author of the model. In this case, Neil Gilbert and Paul Terrell” s policy analysis model is used to analyze the social security benefits for children in the US. The model is based on four dimensions of social welfare policy which focuses on who, what and where of the policy. It also has axes, which focus on the why of the policy (Ginsberg & Cribbs, 2005). The four dimensions are:
What is the basis of social allocation?
What are the types of social provisions to be allocated?
What are the strategies for delivering these provisions?
What are the methods of financing these provisions?
The three axes include values, alternatives and theories.
Background
The Social Security Act of 1935 initially concentrated on giving retirees retirement payments and survivor benefits to the families of employees who passed away. However, substantial changes were implemented in 1939 to transform the program into a social insurance system with family benefits. The Social Security Act’s 1939 Amendments were a crucial turning point for the program. The introduction of dependents’ benefits, including assistance for the families of retired or handicapped workers, was made possible by these revisions. This extension was justified by the necessity to meet the financial requirements of families if a parent retires, becomes incapacitated, or passes away. The program’s objectives were to partially offset the loss of income and offer a safety net for qualifying employees’ dependents (Font & Gershoff, 2020). These benefits were once only available to the wives and minor children of retired employees and the survivors of workers who had passed away.
In 1956 these same benefits became available to the families of disabled workers. When a parent or both parents are retired, deceased, or disabled, they can collect social security benefits. These benefits provide families with the necessities to help provide for their families and their children to have complete schooling. Children whose parents qualified for Social Security payments were among the recipients of these family benefits. Children became entitled to social security payments when one or both parents retired, got sick, or passed away. These advantages were essential in assisting families in meeting the fundamental needs of their kids, particularly their education. When a parent or both dies, their children can collect their parent’s social security benefits. There is a lengthy process for a child to become approved for these benefits. Therefore, the child must have an advocate to help them with this process.
However, in some cases, benefits can also be paid to stepchildren, grandchildren, step-grandchildren, or adopted children. If you are a parent, caregiver, grandparent, or the primary person that is receiving benefits because there is a child in your custody, the benefits ending date may be different from the child. If the child is disabled and you perform personal services, then benefits for that child will continue.
The Social Security funds carefully attended to the eligible children’s educational needs. These benefits may be available to children under 18 or between 18 and 19 who are full-time elementary or secondary school students. Children with disabilities who became handicapped before age 22 may also be eligible for payments when they are 18 or older (Font & Gershoff, 2020). A child must satisfy the eligibility requirements, which include being unmarried, having a parent or parents who qualify for Social Security benefits due to disability or adequate work history, and payment of Social Security taxes to be authorized for these payments.
There were special requirements to ensure the continuous eligibility of students receiving assistance. Children and caregivers were notified three months prior to the expiry of the benefits. However, benefits would continue until graduation or two months after turning 19, whichever comes first, provided the youngster is still in school (grade 12 or lower).
The Social Security Administration computes the benefits a family is eligible for according to a set of payment rules. Social Security benefits can be from 150% to 180% of the parent’s full benefits. However, if all family members’ benefits exceed this amount, it will be reduced. Each member’s benefits are reduced in proportion to the maximum amount allowed by social security. The parent benefits are not reduced because it is not part of the allowable maximum amount (Font & Gershoff, 2020). The Social Security numbers of the child and parents, as well as specific documentation depending on the type of benefit sought—such as a death certificate for the parents if seeking survivor benefits or a doctor’s certification of the child’s disability if seeking disability benefits—must be provided when making a Social Security benefits application.
Problems
Problem 1: Overpayments and Reporting Issues
The large number of overpayments in the program was the first significant issue with student benefits. A kid had to be enrolled full-time to be eligible for the benefits, and the payments should have ended if they became part-time students or dropped out. Sadly, the Social Security Administration (SSA) mainly depended on students’ or their parents’ self-reporting to keep track of such changes in their status as students (Glaberson, 2019). These adjustments were frequently not precisely or promptly recorded, which resulted in ongoing overpayments.
It was clear that the overpayment issue had grown to be a source of worry by the late 1970s. According to a late 1978 internal SSA assessment, the scheme may have overpaid beneficiaries by as much as $150 million yearly. Early in 1979, the General Accounting Office produced a separate assessment that predicted the amount would reach $300 million (Glaberson, 2019). Even though the government recovered a large percentage of the overpaid funds—roughly 75%—it nonetheless sustained financial losses due to the deficient reporting system.
Problem 2: The Social Security Program’s Financial Burden
The Social Security program had unfavourable economic conditions in the middle of the 1970s, which increased budgetary pressure and raised questions about its viability. Despite not being the leading cause of the program’s financial difficulties, student benefits nonetheless constituted a sizable burden, spending more than $2 billion yearly. Scaling down or eliminating student benefits became a potentially alluring option as lawmakers looked for ways to improve the program’s financial soundness (Gunnarsson et al., 2019). Policymakers began to think about cost-saving measures due to the program’s general financial burden and the substantial expenditure on student perks. Despite being well-liked by students and parents, this led to a strong case for decreasing or eliminating these advantages.
Problem 3: Shift in the Rationale for Student Benefits
At first, social insurance theories were used to support student benefits. It was assumed that full-time students under 22 were dependent children of Social Security recipients. These households required a larger share of the lost wages to be made up by Social Security payments. This justification was consistent with the fundamental tenets of social insurance. Over time, though, the general public’s perception of student advantages diverged from this premise (Gunnarsson et al., 2019). Benefits began to be perceived as a type of student help rather than solely as social insurance. The relevance and ongoing maintenance of these benefits within the Social Security program have come under scrutiny due to this change in perspective. Critics said this kind of benefit was unnecessary because there were already numerous and easily accessible options for student help. As a result, other factors became necessary, and the case for sustaining student benefits became less based on social insurance principles.
Underpinning Values
Social Insurance
The original Social Security program was built around the idea of social insurance. The goal was to provide a safety net for people and families against monetary risks and adversities, including old age, disability, and the loss of a primary wage earner. The program’s objective was to partially offset the loss of income and preserve the family’s financial stability by paying the dependents of retired, disabled, or deceased workers (Gunnarsson et al., 2019). The idea of social insurance acknowledged the interdependence of family members and the necessity of providing for dependents during difficult financial circumstances.
Support for Families
Social Security benefits were created to help families pay for the education of their dependent children. It was believed that full-time students under 22 still needed further financial assistance since they were considered financially reliant on their parents or guardians (Stuck et al., 2021). The benefits were designed to lessen the financial strain on families and give children money to access opportunities for education and personal development.
Education and Human Capital
The conviction in the value of education and the creation of human capital also served as a driving force behind the provision of student benefits. The initiative sought to promote the development of a knowledgeable and skilled future workforce by educating dependent children (Stuck et al., 2021). People with higher levels of education were viewed as valued members of society who might promote social and economic advancement.
Social Cohesion and Solidarity
Social Security plans are built on social cohesion and solidarity, in which people pool their resources to create a common fund and then distribute benefits according to need (Stuck et al., 2021). The addition of student benefits reflected the idea that all members of society, including children, share communal responsibility for their welfare. This spirit of cooperation aimed to ensure no kid was abandoned because of financial limitations.
Unintended Consequences
Financial Stress on Families
The removal of Social Security student payments put a heavy financial burden on families who relied on these benefits to pay for their children’s education. Many families had budgeted for their children’s schooling costs based on the help these incentives were supposed to provide. Parents unprepared to fill the funding gap faced issues in paying for tuition, textbooks, and other educational expenditures when this financial help was abruptly reduced or lost.
Reduced Access to Education
The discontinuation of student assistance may have discouraged some students from enrolling in college. Financial aid programs could not have fully met all students’ requirements despite being available. Due to the absence of suitable financial assistance, some prospective students from low-income households would have chosen not to pursue higher education, limiting their future chances and possibly contributing to the perpetuation of poverty cycles.
Impact on Educational Attainment
The phased-out student subsidies may have hampered students’ capacity to complete their studies (Trivedi, 2019). Reduced financial aid may have forced some students to take on part-time jobs or put in more hours at work to pay for their education, which might have affected their academic performance and ability to focus.
Change in Funding Responsibilities
As federal student aid was reduced, other organizations—such as state governments, educational institutions, and private sources—were now responsible for paying for education (Trivedi, 2019). Although these resources offered alternative financial aid, the amount and accessibility differed between states and institutions. This unequal allocation of resources may have disproportionately impacted students in certain areas or attending particular schools.
Concerns concerning Equity and Accessibility
The removal of student incentives generated issues with accessibility and equity to education. Some claimed that the modifications unfairly impacted students from lower-income households who would not have had access to other types of financial help (Trivedi, 2019). This could have widened educational gaps and reduced prospects for pupils from underprivileged families.
Monitoring and Oversight Challenges
Gradually eliminating student incentives and imposing cuts necessitated thorough monitoring and control. It was a difficult challenge to ensure that students no longer qualified for benefits were quickly recognized and removed from the program (Trivedi, 2019). With so much emphasis on self-reporting, it was difficult to determine eligibility and avoid overpaying.
Political and Social Consequences
The removal of student incentives sparked political and social discussion. Families, educators, and advocacy organizations offered different perspectives on the choice (Trivedi, 2019). The policy shift spurred debates on the relevance of social safety nets, the role of government in promoting education, and the long-term effects on the labour force and economy of the country.
Alternatives
Specific Financial Aid Initiatives
Implementing focused financial aid programs is an excellent alternative to entirely abolishing student benefits. In order to ensure that students with limited means may continue their education without entirely depending on Social Security payments, these programs would be specially created to accommodate the financial requirements of low-income families. Policymakers may improve the efficiency of assistance for post-secondary education students by customizing financial aid to individual needs.
Income-Related Loans
Another way to help students while assuring future contributions to the system is to implement income-contingent loan schemes (Harp & Bunting, 2020). According to this strategy, students would get financial aid for their education, with debt payback contingent upon future earning levels. This adaptable repayment plan can lessen the financial strain on students while in school and promote responsible payback after they start working.
Work-study initiatives
Work-study programs provide a valuable way for students to pay for their education while acquiring valuable job experience (Harp & Bunting, 2020). Work-study programs boost students’ future employability by allowing them to work part-time on campus or in related sectors, which helps with both financial assistance and skill development.
Public-Private Partnerships
The sources of financial help can be significantly diversified by working with private groups to develop scholarship funds and scholarships for students seeking higher education (Harp & Bunting, 2020). Public-private partnerships would ensure that students can access various funding choices while easing the pressure on the Social Security program.
Increasing the Reach of Current Educational Assistance Programs
To give students needing more comprehensive help, policymakers may consider extending current educational aid programs, such as Pell Grants or state-funded scholarships (Harp & Bunting, 2020). The government may demonstrate its dedication to improving access to education for all pupils by supporting these efforts.
Means-Tested Benefits
Using means-tested benefits helps guarantee that aid is given to those who need it most (Harp & Bunting, 2020). Government spending can be minimized by examining the resources and income of student beneficiaries and allocating help based on those factors.
Gradual Reductions
Policymakers could choose to reduce student benefits gradually over time as opposed to abruptly (Harp & Bunting, 2020). This strategy lessens the immediate impact on individuals who depend on the benefits by giving families and students some time to plan and adapt their budgets.
Financial Literacy Programs
The need for funding financial literacy programs cannot be overstated to solve issues with overpayments and eligibility reporting (Harp & Bunting, 2020). Greater accountability and decreased erroneous payments can be promoted by educating students and families about the value of correct reporting and the repercussions of overpayments.
Evaluation and Monitoring
Systems for improved monitoring and assessment effectively find overpayments and pinpoint areas that need work (Harp & Bunting, 2020). The government can guarantee the best use of resources by proactively recognizing and addressing problems.
Flexibility in Benefit Structure
By introducing flexibility, policymakers can adapt benefits structures in response to shifting economic conditions or unique circumstances (Harp & Bunting, 2020). A more flexible strategy can match student advantages with the changing demands of the educational system and the larger socioeconomic environment.
Recommendations
Overpayments are a problem since the Social Security Administration (SSA) relies on students’ or their parents’ self-reporting to assess their eligibility for student benefits. Numerous students neglect to inform the SSA when their enrollment status changes, resulting in payments being sent even after they are no longer eligible. The SSA should create a more effective reporting system that reduces the reliance on self-reporting to address the issue of overpayments. In order to guarantee timely information on students’ enrollment status, working with educational institutions might be extremely important. The system may quickly alert users to student status changes by establishing an automatic data-sharing procedure between the SSA and the schools (Gupta-Kagan, 2022).
Additionally, using technology-driven solutions, such as online portals, may make it simple for kids and parents to report information, assuring accurate and current data. The SSA should also launch awareness programs to inform beneficiaries of their need to submit information and the repercussions of non-compliance. This proactive strategy will decrease overpayments while also fostering accountability and openness within the program.
During economic distress, the Social Security program experienced fiscal strains in the middle of the 1970s. Student benefits were seen to be a viable area for cost-cutting or deletion to address solvency problems because they made up a sizeable amount of the program’s expenses (Gupta-Kagan, 2022). To lessen the financial strain on impacted families and students, a gradual decrease method should be used rather than a sudden withdrawal of student benefits. Before making any adjustments, policymakers should give top priority to a careful analysis of the impact and consequences of benefit reductions. Instead of lowering student payments, the SSA should look into other parts of the Social Security program for cost-saving opportunities. Policymakers may pinpoint inefficiencies, improve current procedures, and reallocate funding to maintain the program’s advantages for students without jeopardizing its overall efficacy by undertaking a thorough evaluation.
The first justification for student aid was based on social insurance principles, which saw full-time students under 22 as the dependent offspring of Social Security claimants and so deserving of more assistance. However, as attitudes evolved to seeing these advantages as student aid, maintaining their support became more difficult for various reasons. A thorough analysis of the long-term effects of education support should be done to confirm the justification for offering student benefits (Testa & Kelly, 2020). Data-driven research may show that investment in education produces beneficial societal results, including greater future incomes, decreased dependency on social welfare programs, and overall economic development, in addition to advantages for individual students and families. To conduct research and create a compelling argument for the social and economic advantages of assisting students in achieving their educational goals, policymakers should work with economists and education specialists (Gupta-Kagan, 2022). This data-driven strategy may strengthen the connection between student benefits and the more general social insurance principles, providing a solid case for their continued existence. Additionally, initiatives should be taken to educate the public about the advantages of student benefits and dispel misunderstandings about its intent. In order to retain or even increase student advantages, politicians can more easily win over the public by promoting a greater understanding of the program’s goals.
References
Font, S. A., & Gershoff, E. T. (2020). Foster care: How we can, and should, do more for maltreated children. Social policy report, 33(3), 1-40.
Glaberson, S. K. (2019). Coding over the cracks: Predictive analytics and child protection. Fordham Urb. LJ, 46, 307.
Gunnarsson, Å., Burman, M., & Wennberg, L. (2019). Economic dependence and self-support in family, tax and social law. In Nordic Equality at a Crossroads (pp. 135-166). Routledge.
Gupta-Kagan, J. (2022). Confronting indeterminacy and bias in child protection law. Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev., 33, 217.
Ginsberg, l., and Cribbs, J.M. (2005).Understanding Social Problems, Policies, and Programs (Social Problems and Social Issues). University of South Carolina Press.
Harp, K. L., & Bunting, A. M. (2020). The racialized nature of child welfare policies and the social control of Black bodies. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 27(2), 258-281.
Stuck, E. N., Small, R. W., & Ainsworth, F. (2021). Questioning the continuum of care: Toward a reconceptualization of child welfare services. In Family-Centered Services in Residential Treatment (pp. 79-92). Routledge.
Trivedi, S. (2019). The harm of child removal. NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change, 43, 523.
Testa, M. F., & Kelly, D. (2020). The evolution of federal child welfare policy through the Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018: Opportunities, barriers, and unintended consequences. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 692(1), 68-96.
write