Colgate University Assistant Professor of Economics Mike Levere discussed his recent research on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in a lecture on Thursday, April 23. SSI is a U.S. federal program that provides a minimum income for basic needs for those with limited income and resources.
Levere first explained what the SSI program is and its importance on a larger scale, hoping to inform the audience about why funding the program is so important.
“These sorts of programs, where they reach kids, and when they reach kids at an earlier age, are very effective at improving outcomes over the long term,” Levere said. “We see kids having better employment outcomes — they’re less likely to have engaged with a criminal justice system.”
Levere’s research shows that these programs are highly effective in the long term, noticeably improving outcomes for children with disabilities. When you put money into these things, he says, it will pay off over time.
According to Levere, there are two criteria a child must meet to receive benefits. The first is that they have to come from a sufficiently disadvantaged background, defined as having no more than $2,000 in a bank account and limited assets and earnings. The second is that the child must have a disability, defined as having a marked and severe functional limitation. If a child fits both of these criteria, they are eligible for a cash payment of up to $1,000 in addition to health insurance coverage through Medicaid.
Levere explained that the level of involvement in SSI has grown significantly since its establishment, but it has also undergone major changes over the years. One major change Levere emphasized was the 1990 Supreme Court case Sullivan v. Zebley. According to Levere, the case made it much easier for kids to qualify for benefits, particularly those with mental disorders.
He then shared a chart that told the story of the rise and fall of SSI participation over the years, explaining the gradual changes in relation to legislation and administrative changes. In his explanation of participation, he also noted that many individuals who qualified for benefits were not represented in the data. This was something Levere credited to “double disadvantage.”
“It might be particularly difficult to help this sub-population of people who are on SSI, who are potentially eligible for SSI, because not only are they coming from low-income, low-resource families, they also have a disability,” Levere said. “And so that double disadvantage may be particularly hard to overcome.”
He then explained several other factors that contribute to the discrepancy between children currently receiving benefits and those who are eligible but missing out.
“We think that about 500,000 children nationally are probably eligible for SSI, but not receiving benefits,” Levere said. “And so that implies that the take-up rate is about 70%. There are 1.1 million kids receiving benefits out of 1.6 million who we think are eligible.”
Levere hopes to help qualified individuals overcome this disadvantage by making the application process more accessible. He explained that the application forms can be extremely long, often more than 14 pages, and are difficult to get right. This, he said, could be off-putting for those who simply do not have the time or energy to fill out such lengthy forms.
To rectify access issues, Levere plans to test a method of auto-populating the forms for applicants, which will automatically fill in most of the patient’s information and, following a 15-minute online survey, deliver a fully completed disability report form. Levere hoped that this would reduce the administrative burden and make it easier for applicants to submit their applications.
In the final few minutes of his presentation, Levere discussed Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts and minimum wage laws, which could improve outcomes for disabled children as they enter adulthood. He started by mentioning the AbilityOne Program, one of the largest US federal initiatives dedicated to employing people with significant disabilities. According to Levere, by examining this employment and comparing data from the participating companies, he was able to observe what would happen if the minimum wage were increased.
“As the minimum wage goes up, we see employment basically staying the same, maybe very slightly increasing,” Levere said. “We don’t see any changes in how many hours people are working. And we see that, as a result of this minimum wage increase, they’re getting paid more. And so that may be helping these workers with disabilities.”
He further explained that raising the minimum wage would incentivize and make it easier for people to get into the labor force, which is an important issue, as those suffering from disabilities are often put at a disadvantage in the labor force.
Levere also discussed ABLE accounts, which he explained are accounts you can put money into and use for anything that benefits the person with a disability. These accounts are crucial because they expand the $2,000 resource limit mentioned earlier: the first $100,000 in the account is exempt from it.
Among the student attendees was first-year Page Fields, who heard about the event in this week’s Ciccone Commons Newsletter. She shared that the event was particularly important to her because of her family background.
“I found the lecture very intriguing, and having two cousins with disabilities, it was a topic I was interested in learning more about,” Fields said.
First-year Ava Gupta said she found the lecture very informative and engaging.
“This was a topic I knew little about previously, so I was interested to learn a little bit more about it,” Gupta said. “Professor Levere’s presentation was great. I found it very easy to follow, and I really feel like I have a better understanding of the SSI program now.”
Jonathan R • Jun 13, 2026 at 12:24 pm
One of my first jobs after Colgate was working for Social Security, and then afterwards on the other side helping people access benefits. In my opinion, SSI for children is one of the most heavily abused programs. In the sense that it functions as a sort of universal basic income for children, it supports Levere’s research into outcomes and is a net good.
In the sense that it functions as a program to support the children with disabilities most in need, it fails horribly. We may think of poor children with cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, and severe autism receiving payments and care through SSI — and they do — but the vast majority are for ADHD, learning disorders, and other developmental disorders that are easy to say on paper affect their functionality. In practice the children are not functionally limited other than by family poverty and their attendant ills. The medical treatments are quickly dispensed with by the time the first check comes in.
I interviewed many 18 year olds who’d been on benefits since they were toddlers — average academic students with average social skills and no physical disabilities who had not seen a doctor for more than an annual physical in years. They had no idea they were considered “disabled” at all until they got the letter in the mail that they would now be held by the different adult disability standard. I wonder if Professor Levere’s research takes into account this adverse selection.