Home > 2013 > Personal Finance

Are Fees, Fraud Eating Away at Your Social Security?

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 0 Comments

The U.S. Treasury Department has come under fire recently for a cost-cutting initiative to eliminate paper checks in disbursement of federal benefit payments. Recipients of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income have been required to switch to direct deposit or prepaid debit cards, rather than receiving a printed check mailed to each household, at a cost of $1.05 per check.

But while the Treasury Department is saving money, the prepaid debit cards have been increasing costs for recipients in the form of service fees for use, and the direct deposit option has led to an alarming rise in stolen benefits. Beneficiaries of these programs are predominantly senior citizens, veterans and other vulnerable populations who received an average of $1,023.59 per month in 2010, according to the American Bankers Association.

The Shift Away From Paper Checks

The initiative began in 1996, when the Debt Collection Improvement Act required that most funds be disbursed through an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) program, with limited exceptions. By 2010, 85% of payments were electronic, and the Treasury Department published a final rule in December 2010 to eliminate checks entirely for the remaining 11 million citizens still receiving benefits by mail (7 million of whom had active bank accounts).

Two main reasons cited for the push were safety concerns, eliminating lost or stolen checks, and a savings of $1 billion in taxpayer money over 10 years. The final rule stated that starting in May 2011, newly eligible recipients enrolling in the system would not be able to select paper checks as a payment method, and that all existing participants must make the switch by March 2013.

According to a report by Daniel Wagner at the Center for Public Integrity, the initiative included an aggressive marketing campaign with handouts and fliers stating that beneficiaries that didn’t switch risked being “out of compliance with the law,” and call center employees were trained to strongly encourage callers to enroll in EFT or Direct Express, even if they called to request a waiver.

By the March 2013 deadline, the number of paper checks had been reduced to 3.5 million, but the electronic payments had already seen trouble. Between October 2011 and June 2013, the Social Security Administration Inspector General’s office received more than 37,000 reports involving “questionable or attempted direct deposit changes,” according to a press release from the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging.

Traps for Social Security Benefits

These incidents typically involved thieves contacting recipients and deceiving them into revealing personal details like their Social Security number and banking information (often claiming they had won a large sum of money and would receive it upon providing the necessary information). The swindler then contacts the bank or Social Security Administration and requests that funds be redirected to a new account. In other cases, thieves stole the prepaid Debit Express cards that served as an alternative to EFT. AARP recently found that scams like these resulted in $28 million in stolen payments between October 2011 and June 2013.

Even beyond outright stealing of payments, the Debit Express cards, furnished by Dallas-based Comerica Bank as part of a government contract, have proven costly for beneficiaries. Online bill payments, ATM withdrawals and money transfers all carry fees that eat away at recipients’ fixed income.

Comerica Bank profits not only from these charges, but through its deal with the U.S. Treasury Department, who, in a re-negotiation of its original contract, agreed to pay the bank an additional $5 per card to cover costs of operating call centers and assisting users.

These issues were all brought up in a Senate Special Committee on Aging recently, in an attempt to discern what steps the SSA and Treasury are doing both to assist victims of fraud as well as prevent further theft of benefits.

The Inspector General of the SSA urges that all those receiving direct deposit payments be aware of phishing and lottery scams, and never provide personal information during unsolicited phone calls. If you receive a call from someone claiming to be with the SSA, contact your local SSA office to confirm before revealing any information. Never agree to accept prepaid debit cards or credit cards in another person’s name, and if you suspect fraudulent activity, report it to the Social Security Fraud Hotline, or by phone at 1-800-269-0271.

Image: iStockphoto

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team