PASS was part of the initial SSI legislation. The PASS provision, which consists of only a couple of lines in the Social Security Act, authorized the Secretary (now, the Commissioner) to approve a person's plan to become self-supporting and disregard any income and resources needed for the plan that are not otherwise excluded. In reporting the SSI legislation to the full House, the Committee on Ways and Means expressed the opinion that the PASS provision should be "liberally construed, if necessary, to accomplish [its] objectives."

The implementing regulations for PASS, which still are in effect, were published in 1974. One of the regulatory criteria made PASS a time-limited exclusion. Under the regulations, a PASS could continue for 3 years. If an extended educational or training program was involved, the PASS could last for 4 years.

In the late 1980's, the number of approved PASS cases began to increase. SSA's promotion of work incentives through public information campaigns and demonstration project grants, combined with the growth of supported employment programs and cuts in other funding sources, led to the increased numbers. Additionally, many organizations actively promoted PASS among SSI recipients who had the potential to work. Some of these organizations would charge a fee to help the person develop a PASS and monitor the person's PASS activities. In 1987, there were fewer than 800 PASS cases nationally. By 1995, the number surpassed 10,000.

The 1994 legislation that made SSA an independent agency also amended the PASS provision. This amendment required the Commissioner to establish regulations that considered the time the individual needed to achieve the employment goal and other appropriate factors. That amendment voided the existing regulatory time limits. The Conference report that accompanied the legislation asked the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to review PASS.

In the fall of 1994, the Commissioner convened an internal SSA workgroup to develop proposals to improve PASS. GAO representatives also participated. After preliminary discussions in 1994, the workgroup reconvened the following year after the conclusion of an internal study. (GAO no longer participated because the study's findings were restricted to SSA staff.) The workgroup issued its recommendations, a comprehensive package of proposals, to the Commissioner in the fall of 1995.

Meanwhile, advocacy groups and others throughout the disability community complained that the SSA took too long to review and approve PASS requests, and the delay caused applicants to lose job and educational opportunities.

GAO released its PASS study to Congress on February 28, 1996. The report cited SSA for poorly managing PASS cases and reported that inadequate internal controls compromised the PASS program's integrity. Additionally, GAO referred for consideration by Congress the matter of SSA allowing individuals, not otherwise eligible for SSI, to use PASS to exclude income and/or resources to become SSI eligible.

Specifically, GAO found that SSA:

• had no criteria for assessing the appropriateness of individual plans, or for measuring the success of the plan;

• lacked the basic data to measure the effectiveness of PASS;

• failed to adequately train, particularly with respect to vocational issues, the staff responsible for reviewing PASS; and

• lacked any adequate policy regarding third-party PASS preparers.

The day before the report's release, the Commissioner of SSA immediately implemented a number of the improvements for PASS that were recommended by the workgroup. To improve management of the program, SSA:

• gave decision-making authority for PASS to a group of specially trained employees, although the FOs continued to deal with the individuals directly and process the cases;

• developed a national PASS application form; and

• revised operating instructions to minimize abuse and improve cost-effectiveness by:

• requiring that the PASS must be expected to eliminate dependence on SSDI benefits and either reduce or eliminate dependence on SSI benefits;

• requiring the plan identify the steps (milestones) the person would be taking to reach the work goal along with the expected time frames for each step;

• requiring a business plan in addition to PASS application from those individuals looking to start a business;

• requiring that the work goal being pursued be feasible, taking into account the person's work history, training, and other factors;

• limiting work goals that could be pursued to entry-level employment positions, except in rare instances.

• Someone with a college degree usually would be considered already qualified for an entry-level position;

• limiting expenses to those costs needed by the person to get started in the job or business, not ongoing costs;

• limiting allowable expenses for major purchases, such as vehicles, to down payments;

• disallowing fees to third parties for simply monitoring PASS activities; and

• allowing decisions on expenses to be deferred pending the completion of those milestones, without which the expense would not be needed.

PASS specialists attended intensive training on the new policies. Today, these employees receive continuing education in such areas as vocational rehabilitation and the employment of persons with disabilities.

More Problems Arise: The 1996 PASS changes sparked complaints from consumers and stakeholders that the new requirements were onerous and complex, the process was still slow and SSA field personnel were not adequately trained to handle this workload.

SSA promised the complainants and members of Congress that it would take another look at PASS. SSA held public forums across the country and conducted numerous meetings with advocacy groups and VR professionals to obtain their views about the recent changes and about PASS in general. Based on these activities, SSA implemented several changes in December 1997:

• The restriction to entry-level positions was revised to restrict the work goal to be the point within the business, trade or profession of the person's choosing, that would generate sufficient earnings to cover the person's living, medical and work expenses;

• SSA would make a distinction as to whether there was a problem with the:

feasibility of the work goal (whether the person can reasonably expect to perform the work given the nature of the person's impairment and the limitations imposed by it); or

viability of the plan (whether the plan includes the steps required to reach the work goal, considering the person's impairment, prior work history, age, education/training, ability to pay non-PASS expenses, and overcome the limitations of the impairment;

• SSA would assume that a PASS that involves a vocational reflects a feasible work goal;

• Expenses for major purchases would no longer be limited to down payments;

• PASS specialists would contact the individual directly rather than through FO staff;

• PASS specialists were given additional tools to assist them with their work, such as toll-free telephone numbers, access to the internet, and a vocational software package;

• PASS specialists are encouraged to conduct training and outreach activities in order to insure that correct information is and being given to the public;

• SSA sent former PASS users a letter describing the changes and offering them the opportunity to submit a new PASS.

SSA will revise operating instructions once again to further the use of PASS as a tool for persons with disabilities who desire to work. The revised PASS instructions should be out before the Summer of 2000.