 |
|
(Revised 6/1/07 ML #3090)
North Dakota policy is that the county agency responsible for a child in care who is or becomes an SSI/SSDS recipient shall apply to the Social Security Administration (SSA) to become the Representative payee for the child’s SSI/SSDS payments during the time the child is in placement. SSI/SSDS payments for the child are then received by the county agency and applied to the cost of the child’s care; including irregular care costs; any amounts not expended for such care are to be placed in trust for the child. Upon the child’s return home, a representative payee who is no longer serving as a payee must turn over any conserved benefits, savings, or other investments and any interest earned on the benefits to SSA. SSA will reissue the returned benefits to either a new representative payee or to a beneficiary currently receiving direct payment. The Social Security Administration requires periodic reports of such Representative Payee stewardship.
In the case of children who are both SSI and IV-E eligible, an important part of this agency stewardship is determining which federal funding source to elect for the foster care income maintenance costs. The point of electing IV-E payments over SSI is that the net federal return from Title IV-E may in some cases be substantially higher than from SSI, or vice versa. Such an election is possible because, on request of the Representative Payee, the Social Security Administration will suspend SSI payments temporarily and reinstate them on request of the agency.
NOTE that if SSI payments are suspended past the annual SSI review/renewal date, resumption of SSI payments may require a redetermination or review.
NOTE also that suspended SSI payments are permanently lost to the child or agency, not merely delayed or “banked.”
The first and primary concern of the Representative Payee in this decision must always be the interests of the child. SSI should not be suspended if (a) the SSI payments are significantly greater than the cost of the child’s foster care and the child’s appropriate access to the difference would be impaired; (b) the foster care placement is expected to be very short term and reinstating SSI payments would disrupt the child’s support; or (c) for any reason it is known that suspending SSI payments would jeopardize future eligibility for such benefits by the child.
However, when the costs of the child’s care are substantially higher than the SSI payment amount, the child’s SSI payments would be fully absorbed by the care anyhow. In such cases, the agency should also consider the fiscal interest of the state in electing IV-E in lieu of SSI payments, i.e., suspending the SSI payments and claiming IV-E. As a rule of thumb, whenever the cost of care is double the child’s monthly SSI payment, it will always be in the State’s fiscal interest to suspend SSI and claim IV-E. (In 1999, the IV-E income maintenance federal share is about 70%, so that it is currently in the state’s fiscal interest to claim IV-E whenever the cost of care equals more than 170% of the SSI payment.)
EXAMPLE 1: A disabled child in residential care receives monthly SSI of $552. The cost of care for this child is $1500 per month, which the state partially offsets with the $552 SSI received as Representative Payee. It is in the fiscal interest of the state to suspend the SSI and claim IV-E income maintenance instead, which will bring $1500 x 70% = $1050 per month federal to the state – twice as much as the $552 SSI.
EXAMPLE 2: A disabled child in foster care receives monthly SSI of $552. The child’s therapeutic foster care costs the state $600 per month. It is in the state’s interest to retain the $552 SSI, since IV-E would bring less: $600 x 70% = $420.
EXAMPLE 3: A disabled child in foster care receives monthly SSI of $552.00. The child’s family foster care costs the state $357.74 per month. The cost of care is less than the SSI, therefore, we would want to continue the SSI for the child. The agency would need to apply to become the payee for the SSI and each month submit the care cost of $357.74 to the state. The remaining balance of $194.26 would then be put into an established savings account for the child. In this same instance, $100.00 child care costs are also being paid for as an irregular expense. $100.00 would be sent into the state for reimbursement of this expense and the remaining balance of $94.26 would be deposited into the child’s savings account.
Even where the federal claim is only marginally above the SSI amount, the IV-E election may be wise. Placements of disabled children are more frequently longer-term than others, and the cumulative state costs of making the “wrong” IV-E versus SSI election can be enormous over time. Given the potential fiscal consequences, county staff should seek supervisory or state office guidance where judgments on this election seem particularly difficult.
NOTE that regardless whether SSI or IV-E is claimed for the foster care cost, IV-E administration will be claimed for this case. This is accomplished by counting such a case either as a IV-E reimbursable case (FM), or as one which is IV-E eligible but not IV-E reimbursable (FN) for the months in which SSI is claimed.