Melanie Page

A research paper for:
American Sign Language and Interpreting Department, Bethel University
ASL 312: Advanced Deaf Studies
Professor Edwin Carrington
Submitted April 11, 2024 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a government sponsored program that aims to lift Americans out of poverty through temporary financial assistance. It was established in 1972 as a way of supporting disabled individuals in need of resources. The money comes from “general funds from the U.S. treasury” and are dispersed based on specific criteria: an individual with a physical or mental disability that prevents them from working for at least one year and has U.S. citizenship or legal residency (Walter and Clarcq, 2000, p. 78). Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) was established 1956 for people who worked but were then disabled. The funding is ensured through taxes collected from workers and businesses as part of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). To qualify, the types of work the individual used to do can no longer be performed for at least one year due to disability. The individual must have worked in the past and contributed to the FICA fund (Walter and Clarcq, 2000). According to the Social Security Administration annual report on SSI payments, about 7.5 million people received SSI payments in December 2022. On average, recipients were sent $622 monthly, totaling $56 billion dollars nationwide. 56% of recipients were of working age (18-64). 85% of those who received payments were disabled; however, 5% of disabled individuals worked in addition to SSI payments (Research, Statistics & Policy Analysis, 2023). 

Due to increased cost of living, SSI payments were increased in 2024 by 3.2%. Currently, an individual eligible for SSI will receive $943 monthly. A married couple is eligible for $1,415 (SSI Federal Payment Amounts For 2024, 2024). If recipients of SSI have another income but are still living below the poverty level, their SSI payment subtracts the amount of income they receive from other sources, such as monetary gifts from friends or family, free or reduced shelter, discounted food, employment, and unemployment checks, for example (Understanding Supplemental Security Income SSI Income, 2024). Bowe (2003) cautioned that receiving SSI does not allow a person or family to live comfortably: “. . . recall that ‘supplemental’ means that SSI is designed to supplement other income to bring the individual’s total income up to the poverty level” (p. 492). Also, an individual with a disability receiving SSI must participate in vocational rehabilitation services (Clarcq and Walter, 2019). Thus, it is incorrect to assume that deaf and hard-of-hearing recipients of SSI “do nothing” in exchange for money; there are entities working with participants to get them to earn income. 

I acknowledge there are some limitations to this paper: no recognition of Deaf Culture, and limited data from the last five years. While deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals may qualify for SSI or SSDI, there is no readily available current data for how many individuals actually use it. Also, most research has examined deaf and hard-of-hearing people using SSI, so while this paper will mention SSDI, data mostly emphasizes SSI enrollment. Also, for the purpose of this paper, I am intentionally not acknowledging Deaf Culture or using “capital D” deaf. All research used in this paper examined quantifiable data—how many, how much, how often—regarding age, race, sex, employment, education, and deafness as determined medically. Deaf Culture was not a factor measured by data. Thus, deafness is often referred to as a disability. This is not to disparage Deaf Culture; instead, deafness is viewed as a disability that grants poverty-stricken adults and children eligibility for SSI. To reduce dependence on SSI benefits, deaf teens need support in transitioning to adulthood, including access to higher education or work-related education, but even still, the costs of ADA accommodations and racial and gender bias suggest employers continue to discriminate against qualified deaf workers, which may lead them to choose SSI instead. 

Firstly, SSI is not just for adults. Children with disabilities that prevent them from doing what non-disabled children do also qualify for SSI (Clarcq and Walter, 2019). A 2009 report stated that 23% of individuals aged 16 to 18 and designated “hearing impaired” had SSI benefits (Appleman et al., 2012). Altogether, around 1 million children under 18 received SSI in 2005, three times as high as fifteen years prior. Most children who received SSI would continue the program for life. They were less likely to continue their education after high school compared to people without hearing loss (Weathers et al., 2007). Non-white deaf children were slightly more likely to be enrolled in SSI (52.8%), and they were less likely to graduate from college. Therefore, it is possible that applying for SSI as a minor was not a significant indicator of adult dependence on SSI; being deaf and a racial or ethnic minority may have been the culprit. In addition, the isolation non-white deaf students experienced was exacerbated when went to college. They felt less connected to their school and peers. However, data has not confirmed whether juveniles who get SSI become dependent on it as adults due to racial factors or because they used SSI as minors (Weathers et al., 2007). However, data did suggest a need for support in transitioning out of high school. Statistics presented in a 2007 report showed that deaf and hard of hearing children who received SSI had a higher risk of not graduating from the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) compared to deaf children who did not use SSI, suggesting more effort needed to be made in supporting children using SSI to transition into post-high school education programs (Weathers et al., 2007).  

When deaf teens turn eighteen, they are eligible for SSI as individuals instead of dependents. As a result, “Many college and vocational/trade/technical school students with disabilities rely upon SSI checks to pay daily living expenses while they continue their education. In addition, SSI eligibility usually brings with it coverage by Medicaid, the federal-state medical insurance program for people who are poor” (Bowe, 2003, p. 491). At first, students in a study of NTID tended to stay on SSI until age 23, which represented the typical time during which they would be attending college. After age 23, there was a sharp decline in using SSI compared to other groups, and graduates, by age 29, left the SSI program at a rate of about 66% (Weathers et al., 2007). Plus, they earned more money, an increase of 49% by age 30. They were less likely that those who did not attend NTID to rejoin the SSI program later, and they tended to drop SSI nineteen months earlier. Hence, children who received SSI were not an indication of life-long dependency on the program even when accounting for a sluggish labor market (Weathers et al., 2007). Instead, SSI and SSDI are used to support deaf and hard-of-hearing young adults through their time in higher education. If deaf young adults used SSI as minors and later finished college, prognostications for independence would be good. 

The stigma that SSI and SSDI are ways to abuse “the system” means taxpayers may demand evidence that SSI and SSDI uplift families that temporarily need financial assistance. Hearing loss is viewed as a costly disability. The 2010 U.S. Census reported 1.1 million Americans were deaf or could not hear a conversation (Benito et al., 2016). Research from 2015 claimed around 3.9 million Americans aged 18-64 (working age) had a hearing disability, though the number may have been higher due to surveys in English not reaching individuals who used ASL as their first language (Perkins-Dock et al., 2015). If an individual was born deaf, the cost of only lost productivity (meaning not including the costs of special education, assistive devices, or vocational rehabilitation) over a lifetime was $433,400. If a person became deaf between ages 3 and 17, lost productivity cost taxpayers $444,300. For those deafened aged 18-44, the cost of lost productivity to society was $382,900. People 45 to 65 cost society $220,300, and aged 65 or older cost $24,600 due to lost productivity over a lifetime. However, researchers noted that their results only achieved a 95% degree of certainty, meaning the dollar amounts could range greatly (Mohr et al., 2000). And then, the cost varied based on how much hearing loss a person had, and when it happened: “Severe to profound hearing loss is expected to cost society $297,000 over the lifetime of an individual. Most of these losses (67%) are due to reduced work productivity, although the use of special education resources among children contributes to an additional 21%. Lifetime costs for those with prelingual onset exceed $1 million” (Mohr et al., 2000, p. 1,120). Publicly funded programs to assist people with disabilities, like hearing loss, need to prove to the public that taxes are being used reasonably, and with a return on investment. For example, NTID must keep records of how they are using government funds to support deaf students and reduce their dependence on SSI and SSDI (Walter and Clarcq, 2000). In general, supporting a person with a disability is costly to Americans. 

Still, some taxpayers are concerned about SSI abuse. SSI is meant to aid individuals in getting back on their feet, economically. SSI is not intended for long-term support; thus, the program incentivizes working by protecting the right to cash payments and access to Medicaid or Medicare (Clarcq and Walter, 2019). However, public perception, even that of the rehabilitation specialists employed by the government to serve deaf and hard-of-hearing SSI and SSDI recipients, was not consistent with available data. One study reported, “Professionals working in the rehabilitation and education of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons have, for a long time, indicated that many individuals are made dependent by their reliance on funds available through Federal SSI and SSDI. Yet there is no research to indicate whether such dependence exists and what variables impact receipt of payments” (Walter and Clarcq, 2000, p. 76). As a result, Americans could argue that it is expensive to support citizens with tax dollars, but individual feelings about dependency on “the system” is not supported by facts. 

Although it is easy to assume SSI and SSDI are seductive in that a person only needs to have a disability and not look for work in earnest, data does not show that people are taking advantage of the system. Instead, families may need to balance what they lose in benefits if they make too much money to remain on SSI. For example, deaf and hard-of-hearing women who need medical benefits associated with SSI may opt out of working low-paying jobs that do not have medical insurance benefits, lest they earn too much and lose Medicaid (Clarcq and Walter, 2019). For these women, medical benefits are more important to them and their children than making slightly above the poverty level and having no medical benefits. In the current system, options are limited. These are challenging decisions, especially when children are involved, or health deteriorates because they had no medical insurance, all for the sake of avoiding the label of “welfare recipient.”  

Discrimination against women and racial and ethnic minorities caused a disparity in who was employed, which could cause a deaf person to choose SSI over working. Much like deaf women, a 2016 study revealed lower percentages of African American and Native American deaf people joined the workforce. Veterans and deaf+ individuals were also likely to opt out of employment. Granted, the report confirmed more research is needed to explain why these subgroups within the deaf community opted out of employment (Garberoglio, C.L., Cawthon, S., & Bond, M., 2016). Although race and gender may have prevented deaf people from being hired, those who were employed were also victims of pay discrimination. The data on medium earnings by race, ethnicity, and gender demonstrated white deaf men earned the most, while multiracial deaf women earned the least. Looking at the same statistics for hearing people, Asian men earned the most, and Hispanic women earned the least (Garberoglio, Palmer, et al., 2019). Some have blamed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): “Dr Lawrence Fleischer, chair of the Department of Deaf Studies at California State University, Northridge, expressed the view that the ADA hurt workers who are deaf. Fleischer signed, ‘Workers who are deaf used to be underemployed, now they are unemployed’” (as cited in Houston et al., 2010, p. 9). Some deaf people surveyed felt similarly. 44% of deaf people felt that the passing of the ADA led to a reduction of employment for those deaf individuals without post-secondary education. However, for those who already had jobs, over 50% felt that the ADA helped their workplace conditions (Houston et al., 2010).  

The ADA was not the only thing to change in America in 1990. At the same time, SSI and SSDI benefits increased, potentially enticing deaf workers to quit (Houston et al., 2010). Ultimately, data showed that SSI and SSDI changing eligibility benefits to be more flexible did not lead deaf people to opt out of employment. Instead, the advent of the ADA was met with resistance by larger companies now legally required to accommodate people who need assistance. There were greater declines in employment at large companies that had to meet the ADA requirements versus smaller companies that did not (Houston et al., 2010). When deaf jobseekers could not find a job because large companies would not hire them, there was a reason to choose SSI payments. Even if they were employed, one survey showed that deaf people felt a lack of promotions discouraged them in the workplace. When they could not earn a promotion, SSI and SSDI started to look attractive, leading to a reduction of work hours that would keep the individual just under the required wages to stay on SSI or SSDI (Houston et al., 2010). Overall, decisions had to be weighed: whether to accept discrimination in the hearing world at work and not be granted equal promotions, work part-time and have SSI and health insurance, or to work low-wage, full-time jobs and give up medical benefits, deaf families had a lot to consider, which did not mean they were abusing SSI or SSDI. 

Let’s clarify what it means to be unemployed. Each state has its own report of how deaf and hard-of-hearing citizens fare compared to hearing workers in employment. A 2017 report of deaf individuals in Indiana found that 43% were not in the labor force and 52% were employed. In comparison, 21% of hearing Hoosiers were not in the labor force and 74% were employed. Both hearing and deaf Hoosiers had a 5% unemployment rate (i.e., looking for work). The national statistics on unemployment were similar at 6% for deaf job seekers and 5% for hearing job seekers (Garberoglio, C.L., Cawthon, S., & Sales, A., 2017). Researchers reminded readers in their final reports that when they look at data describing the number of people unemployed, those are individuals looking for work. Anyone not looking for work, e.g., college students, stay-at-home parents, retired individuals, etc., would not count as “unemployed.” In 2017 across the nation, 53.3% of deaf people had jobs, while 3.8% were unemployed. The rest were not seeking employment. Between 2008 and 2017, the rate of employment for the deaf community did not increase (Garberoglio, Palmer, et al., 2019). And then, by 2019, deaf people across America looked for employment at much higher rates than hearing Americans (Garberoglio, Palmer, et al., 2019). 

Deaf and hearing people nationally have worked in similar fields. Research revealed it depended on the sector in which each group was employed. In 2016, deaf individuals who graduated from college worked mostly in “military technologies, architecture, journalism, and electrical biology.” Those who struggled with employment majored in “fine arts, foreign languages, physical fitness, and the physical sciences” (Garberoglio, C.L., Cawthon, S., & Bond, M., 2016, p. 6). Most commonly, hearing people worked in the medical field (13.8%) followed by manufacturing (12.4%), while most deaf people worked in manufacturing (15.7%) followed by medical (11.2%). However, the most common occupation for deaf and hearing people in 2017 was manager (Garberoglio, Palmer, et al., 2019). Overall, there were interesting similarities in career fields when comparing deaf and hearing employees. 

Some data confirmed deaf and hearing people earned similar incomes, but not all researchers agreed. In terms of income earned, in 2016 both deaf and hearing individuals earned about the same ($52,650 and $52,980, respectively). In comparison, 1994 and 1995 surveys suggested that deaf people were much poorer than the average hearing American, with an annual income for one family at $25,000 (Walter & Dirmyer, 2013). Both groups were employed full-time at about 70% and part-time around 30%. However, about half of the deaf population was not in the labor force, compared to 23% of the hearing population (Garberoglio, C.L., Cawthon, S., & Bond, M., 2016). These findings suggest that when deaf people did work, they achieved similar income and full- or part-time employment as hearing people. Other research found discrepancies between hearing and deaf works of the same background. For example, a hearing 33-year-old high school graduate who is unmarried earned 8% more than his deaf counterpart. However, if the same man had a bachelor’s degree, he would earn 11% more than his deaf counterpart (Benito, et al. 2016). Data implied that deafness still prevented a man with equal personal characteristics from earing as much as a hearing man, and education did not change that. In addition, once a hearing person turns thirty-six, he/she will experience higher employment rates until age fifty-five. On the other hand, deaf individuals of the same age range experience a flat line of employment (Garberoglio, C.L., Cawthon, S., & Bond, M., 2016). 

It is true, there was a gap in earnings between hearing and deaf employees, but why? 40% of the gap could be explained by education (ranging from no high school diploma to a PhD), but the other 60% was attributed to communication skills, segregating deaf and hearing coworkers, and discrimination and stigma against deafness (Benito, et al. 2016). Overall, in the 2010 U.S. census, those with a hearing disability earned $1,943 per month. Compare this to workers without a disability, who earned $2,724 monthly (Benito, et al. 2016). A later studied from 2017 gave promising news: when deaf people were employed full time, their annual earnings were similar to hearing people’s—about $49,000 to $50,000 yearly (Garberoglio, Palmer, et al., 2019). More research is needed to prove what factors are increasing wages and employment in the deaf community, but the research we have suggested things are improving. 

One great economic bolsterer is higher education. A significant indicator of career success is the highest level attained in education for both hearing and deaf and hard-of-hearing adults. Deaf individuals who 1) only graduated from high school, 2) those who finished with a special certificate, and 3) those who did not graduate had similarly low rates of employment (Perkins-Dock et al., 2015). For instance, deaf people without a high school diploma were employed at 35.9%, much lower than hearing people without a high school diploma, who were employed at 62.3% (Walter & Dirmyer, 2013). While education helps, there are still some discrepancies between deaf and hearing employment rates. Walter and Dirmyer (2013) used the 2010 American Community Survey, part of the U.S. Census, to gauge who much money deaf Americans were making and who was employed. Deaf people with a graduate degree were employed at 77% compared to 88% of hearing people with a graduate degree. However, the hearing group with graduate degrees earned more—$71,575 compared to the deaf group at $56,082. That is a massive difference if the goal is to reduce SSI and SSDI dependency.  

However, there is good news. Between 1972 and 2010, levels of education for deaf and hard-of-hearing people mostly increased. While 53.3% of deaf people surveyed in 1972 did not have a high school diploma, by 2010 that number reduced to 20.1%, meaning more deaf people were finishing school. The number of deaf people with a college degree increased from 6.4% in 1972 to 23.3% in 2010 (Walter & Dirmyer, 2013). The positive trend may be thanks to transition services that provided support and education, free of charge, to families whose child was eligible according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). After discussing options with a counselor, the deaf student may prepare for college or look at career and vocational possibilities. In addition, students learned about their civil rights, budgeting, how to get a driver’s license, and built social skills that help them successfully navigate interviews (Bowe, 2003).  

Then again, not all data came to the same conclusions. A different study from 2003 found after analyzing two residential schools for the deaf that only about 22% of deaf and hard-of-hearing students seventeen and older had earned a high school diploma. About one-fourth were “low-functioning deaf,” meaning their reading abilities did not surpass second-grade levels (Appleman et al., 2012). This is a problem because when students leave high school, they are not prepared to be competitive in the workforce. Firstly, there is a specific definition for “leaving” high school: students dropped out, earned a certificate of completion (which is not a diploma), died, moved, or aged out. About 25% received that label of low-functioning deaf label. Around 45% attended a trade school despite low levels of literacy. Another 30% went on to community colleges that had low standards for admittance (Bowe, 2003). Understand that it is important to be cautious when reading data about deaf and hard-of-hearing rates of education because the study group may be limited to one or two schools, or it may include nation-wide rates. 

Deaf people had a lot of input on how their education affected their careers. It’s true, deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals responding to a survey felt that obtaining higher education led to more job opportunities, better pay, and more benefits (Houston et al., 2010). Plus, college completion demonstrated favorable effects on income; most people were promoted, participated in the labor force, and earned more money (Perkins-Dock et al., 2015). Moreover, deaf people with post-secondary education were more likely to stay with the same job compared to deaf people without post-secondary education. And thanks to the ADA, they experienced more opportunities and stayed in the workforce (Houston et al., 2010). Specifically, deaf people with Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) degrees earned the most—around $75,000 to $93,500 annually—while those with degrees in “art, education, psychology, literature, and languages” earned the least, $50,000 to $56,000 (Garberoglio, Palmer, et al., 2019, p. 13). College degrees improved job opportunities, but some careers are more lucrative than others. 

But once a deaf person starts college, they must follow through to completion. A 1995 study found that starting college and dropping out had almost no effect on reducing dependency on SSI. In fact, deaf and hard of hearing individuals who never attended college relied on SSI at the same rate as dropouts (Clarcq and Walter, 2019). Looking back at that study of children who were enrolled in SSI and then attended college, researchers found individuals who graduated from NTID and had received SSI as a minor spent about 95 months using SSI. Those who were not accepted to NTID and used SSI as a minor spent almost two more years using SSI (Weathers et al., 2007). But understand, while data suggested college was the best way to increase income, whether deaf or hearing, college is not for everyone, and in practicality, education is not synonymous with college. When schools emphasized college as the ticket to income and independence, many deaf students who would benefit from other avenues were left behind academically (Bowe, 2003). Basically, trades, life skills, entry-level certification, and discipline-specific boot camps are beneficial to people who opt out of college and do not want to apply for SSI. 

Policies implemented by the government, schools, or companies, can affect the success of deaf and hard-of-hearing employees and job candidates and reduce dependency on SSI and SSDI. But are newer policies really improving the lives of deaf workers? There have been growing pains. In the 1960s, deaf high school students received information about independent adult living, and schools focused on vocational occupations, which included on-the-job training. Thus, according to Bowe (2003), students in the 1960s were possibly better prepared for the workforce than deaf students in the twenty-first century. Researchers Walter and Dirmyer (2013) agree. In the 1990s, employment changed for deaf people. According to research from 1959 to 1991, deaf and hearing people had about the same rate of employment. In fact, a 1974 study demonstrated that more deaf and hard-of-hearing people were employed than hearing people. More recent data showed deaf people felt the top barriers to employment were communication difficulties, conflicts related to Deaf Culture, lack of interpreters, too much pressure, discrimination, and low morale (Perkins-Dock et al., 2015). The spread of Deaf Culture could be the catalyst for growing dissatisfaction. Before 1990, interpreters were not required by law. Now, deaf people may demand their rights are met because they know employers cannot discriminate against them. Before Deaf Culture was studied and discussed widely, deaf people may have struggled with self-identification. Now, through personal empowerment, deaf people see the mistreatment they face in the workplace and demand better because they know they are assets to their employers. 

Could company-wide policies, training in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), or even an addendum to the ADA tear down these barriers? Respondents gave suggestions, including employers advocating for deaf employees, having better awareness of the ADA, training managers to exercise patience, providing opportunities for promotions in position and salary, and improving communication—touching the deaf employee to get their attention, interpreters at staff meetings, encouraging relationships between employees, and hosting sign language classes for employees (Perkins-Dock et al., 2015). Two places that need improvement bolstered by strict policies are 1) workplace discrimination and 2) education. In the workplace, deaf employees could be supported by company policies that promote professional development and teach them how to negotiate salaries. Currently, studies show that deaf employees often do not know how to file discrimination claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Also, before deaf high school students graduate, a variety of educational opportunities, such as internships and challenging after-school activities, could improve outcomes for deaf young adults (Benito, et al. 2016). Reported in 2007, the number of individuals under age 18 using SSI is fast increasing, suggesting a need for resources to help children transition into adulthood and the workforce (Weathers et al., 2007). 

In conclusion, the way SSI functioned, with rules about limiting income if deaf people wanted to use SSI, caused deaf people to make tough choices when they were looking for work or underemployed. Sometimes, a cost-benefit analysis was necessary to figure out if living just above the poverty line without health benefits was worth it for a family that could suffer long-term medical harm for the sake of avoiding SSI. Education did improve financial security for deaf people, but only if they finished, be it a trade-focused program or four-year degree. To reduce dependence on SSI benefits, deaf teens need support in transitioning to adulthood, including access to higher education or work-related education, but even still, the costs of ADA accommodations and racial and gender bias suggest employers continue to discriminate against qualified deaf workers, which may lead them to choose SSI instead. Lastly, it is important to remember that SSI is used by both deaf and hearing citizens. In February 2024 alone, almost 5 million Americans were SSI beneficiaries (Research, Statistics & Policy Analysis, 2024). Do not let that number scare you; 5 million beneficiaries are only 1% of all Americans. In general, people may have qualms about recipients of SSI, but we know from experience that it is easy to find ourselves in a position of financial strife. In the past fifteen years alone, Americans have navigated the 2008 economic crisis and COVID-19 related economic devastation, both good reasons for supporting safety nets to keep families out of poverty. 

References 

Appelman, K.I., Callaham, J.O., Mayer, M.H., Luetke, B.S., & Stryker, D.S. (2012). Education, employment, and independent living of young adults who are deaf and hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(3), 264-275. 

Benito, S.G., Glassman, T.S., & Hiedemann, B.G. (2016). Disability and labor market earnings: Hearing earnings gaps in the United States. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27(3), 178-188. 

Bowe, F.G. (2003). Transition for deaf and hard-of-hearing students: A blueprint for change. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(4), 485-493. 

Clarcq, J.R. & Walter, G.G. (2019). Supplemental security income payments made to young adults who are deaf and hard of hearing. JADARA, 31(2). 

Garberoglio, C.L., Cawthon, S., & Bond, M. (2016). Deaf people and employment in the United States: 2016. National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes. https://nationaldeafcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Deaf-Employment-Report_final.pdf 

Garberoglio, C.L., Cawthon, S., & Sales, A. (2017). Postsecondary Achievement of deaf people in Indiana: 2017. National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes. https://nationaldeafcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Indiana.pdf 

Garberoglio, C.L., Palmer, J.L., Cawthon, S. & Sales, A. (2019). Deaf people and employment in the United States: 2019. National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes. https://nationaldeafcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Deaf-People-and-Employment-in-the-United-States_-2019-7.26.19ENGLISHWEB.pdf 

Houston, K., Lammers, H.B., & Svorny, S. (2010). Perceptions of the effect of public policy on employment opportunities for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(9), 9-21. 

Mohr, P. E., Feldman, J. J., Dunbar, J. L., McConkey-Robbins, A., Niparko, J. K., Rittenhouse, R. K., & Skinner, M. W. (2000). The societal costs of severe to profound hearing loss in the United States. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 16(4), 1120–1135. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462300103162 

Perkins-Dock, R.E., Battle, T.R., & McNeill, J.N. (2015). A survey of barriers to employment for individuals who are deaf. JADARA, 49(2), 66-78. 

Research, Statistics & Policy Analysis. (2023). SSI annual statistical report, 2022. Social Security Administration. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/index.html 

SSI Federal Payment Amounts For 2024. (2024). Social Security Administration. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSI.html. 

Understanding Supplemental Security Income SSI Income. (2024). Supplemental security income (SSI) income. Social Security Administration. https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-income-ussi.htm 

Walter, G.G. & Clarcq, J.R. (2000). Effect of postsecondary education on reducing SSI and SSDI payments to deaf and hard of hearing college graduates. In Jursik, K.B. (Ed.)  PEPNet 2000 innovation in education conference proceedings (pp. 75-84). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456621.pdf 

Walter, G.G. and Dirmyer, R. (2013). The effect of education on the occupational status of deaf and hard of hearing 26-to-64-year-olds. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(1), 41-49. 

Weathers, R.R., II, Walter, G., Schley, S., Hennessey, J. Hemmeter, J., & Burkhauser, R.V. (2007). How postsecondary education improves adult outcomes for supplemental security income children with severe hearing impairments. Social Security Bulletin, 67(2), 101-131.