SSI PERC Calls for Incarcerated Claimants: A Problem that SSA Can Fix

SSA requires calls that it won’t make: a PERC call with an SSI claimant who is incarcerated. It is long past time that SSA should amend the POMS so that local offices are clearly instructed to arrange PERC calls with incarcerated claimants through the correctional facility.

A Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claimant can win a disability hearing and still not receive disability benefits. Even though the claimant has been found disabled, they still need to prove they meet the income and asset requirements for SSI, which SSA usually verifies through a “PERC” interview. Although these calls are a formality for some claimants, for others, the PERC interview creates major difficulties. Because SSA accomplishes PERC interviews through calls—everyone in the industry just calls them “PERC calls”—difficulties most often beset people without phones.

We have encountered the most significant problems when a client is incarcerated. Social Security Administration (SSA) local offices insist on speaking with the claimant directly in order to assess the person’s income and resources, but SSA local offices will not arrange a call with correctional facilities. Unwilling to speak to the incarcerated individual, local offices will not—they believe cannot, but see POMS SI 00515.001D.3—accept any alternatives, either, such as sworn statements. 

These perverse, Kafkaesque rules leave the claimant responsible for arranging a conversation that only SSA can initiate.

While we understand that SSA local offices believe themselves limited by existing Program Operations Manual System (POMS) instructions, SSA regularly changes POMS quickly. And it should fix this catch-22 immediately. 

What is a PERC Call?

PERC stands for preeffectuation review contact. After a favorable disability decision, SSA uses this process to update and document the remaining eligibility issues. For SSI, those requirements include income, resources, and living arrangements. Disability, by itself, is not enough to establish eligibility for SSI payment. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.202.

After a favorable disability decision in an SSI claim, the SSA local office is responsible for completing the claim and initiating the PERC. This is part of carrying out the disability determination that the claimant already received. 

The difficulty arises when SSA requires an interview without providing a realistic way for an incarcerated person to participate.

Incarceration and SSI Benefits

SSI generally is not payable for any month in which a claimant spends the full calendar month in jail or prison. Federal law also prevents SSA from releasing otherwise owed back pay (i.e., for months prior to incarceration) while the person is incarcerated. See 42 U.S.C. § 1383(b)(8); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1325. It makes sense that SSI is not paid for the months that someone is incarcerated: SSI is a need-based program, and while someone is incarcerated, they have their basic needs provided for. As much as I have gripes with the procedural shortcomings of SSA, it makes sense that prisoners should not receive monthly government benefits.

But incarceration does not make someone ineligible for any prior disability pay; the person is still owed SSI for eligible months before incarceration. During those months the person may have accrued debts due to their disability. And sadly, it is not uncommon that an SSI applicant—often homeless and penniless—will end up incarcerated during the lengthy disability process. We work closely with homeless shelters and have seen this repeatedly when our homeless clients commit petty crimes. Sometimes, whether right or wrong, those clients tell us they intentionally sought incarceration to have stable housing and medication. 

In practice, then, the disabled person can receive their back pay only after release. The prisoner-payment restriction postpones payment of that money until the person is released, but it does not erase those earlier eligible months. 

In normal processing, SSA must adjudicate how much back pay someone will receive after release while they remain incarcerated. SSA must establish any required deductions, see POMS SI 02101.002A, and release the funds after the person leaves incarceration. SSA's own instructions address this situation directly. When a pending claim or appeal receives a favorable decision, staff must “process the claim or appeal to completion,” including recording the proper period of incarceration-related nonpayment. See POMS GN 02607.705E.5.b.

The SSI back pay matters for the person and for society. The money may help the person obtain housing, transportation, or other necessities when they return to the community. We all benefit when the released disabled person—who may have severe mental health problems—has the support that helps keep them from committing further crimes. 

A New Application Is Not a Solution

Some local offices have proposed a simple, but ultimately ineffective, solution: the claimant can just file a new claim. Under prerelease procedures, incarcerated people can file disability claims shortly before release in hopes of securing approval for benefits prior to their release.

But a new SSI application does not ordinarily recover benefits for the months before its filing date. Abandoning the earlier claim can therefore put its back pay at risk. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.335.

There is another problem: a person who remains incarcerated may not qualify yet on the new application, either. SSA has a prerelease process, but it has timing requirements. Its instructions expressly direct staff to deny applications received too early for that process. For disability claims in nonfederal institutions, the timing depends on the expected release date and estimated time for a medical decision; federal Bureau of Prisons claims generally use a 120-day window. See POMS SI 00520.920A.5.

In other words, when a local office tells someone to file a new claim, at best, the person forgoes the back pay to which they are entitled. At worst, the person abandons the back pay and is not even eligible to file a new application yet. Congress has specifically required, in fact, that SSA warns people that when they reapply, they might forgo back pay. See 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(1)(B)(ii).

SSA Must Assist Claimants, Including the Incarcerated

SSA must assist claimants who need to complete PERC calls. SSA’s POMS manual directs employees to help claimants obtain necessary information, seek evidence from other sources when appropriate, and allow additional time when circumstances warrant. Before denying an initial claim for failure to cooperate, staff must pursue available leads and document their efforts. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.203(a); POMS SI 00601.100B–C; SI 00601.110B.2–5. 

SSA instructions, as currently written, might even authorize local offices to find that incarcerated people meet income and eligibility requirements. When it’s apparent that someone will meet the requirements based upon the record, but evidence cannot be reasonably obtained and the person has acted in good faith, SSA can make eligibility findings. See POMS SI 00601.100. For the chronically homeless who are spending a short time in jail, that seems appropriate.

There are also POMS provisions that allow local offices to accept written proof of certain income-and-asset eligibility requirements. See POMS SI 00603.036B; POMS SI 00515.001D.3. But, frankly, we have never seen a local office follow this procedure, even when we submit affidavits, medical records of living situations, etc. Local offices simply prefer their usual method of calling claimants for PERC calls. 

Those instructions should mean something when SSA knows the claimant is incarcerated. A person who needs the institution to arrange telephone access should not be treated as though they simply declined to answer.

The problem is insisting on direct contact while providing no way to make it happen.

What Attorneys Can Do

We have not found an easy solution to this problem, except for appealing the non-cooperation denials and hoping the person is released before the appeal timeframe expires. We have developed a potential strategy, and we share this post in hopes that other attorneys can also help their claimants.

Eventually, a representative can get SSA to speak to the incarcerated claimant. Even denials for failing to complete a PERC call will eventually reach a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1407; 20 C.F.R. § 416.1429. There is a practical reason to pursue a hearing: SSA's hearing procedures expressly provide for video appearances by incarcerated claimants, with audio appearances generally available when video is unavailable. See HALLEX HA 01230.010B.2; 20 C.F.R. § 416.1436(d)(3). There is also a legal reason: we found one federal court case implying that the claimant must continue through this process to maintain eligibility for their back pay, or else the claimant has failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

It may seem silly, but the only way that SSA will speak to an incarcerated person for a PERC call is to appeal such that the person speaks to a federal judge. That judge, then, is presumably responsible for asking a bevy of questions of the incarcerated person—Do you make a significant wage? Do you have a life insurance policy? Do you own a boat? It is a laughable and inefficient solution (and ALJs generally have little patience for the hearings that result from local offices not completing the required work), but it is the only process that SSA’s lack of effort permits. 

Hearing testimony, notably, does not automatically complete every remaining PERC requirement, but it might satisfy the requirement that SSA speak directly to the claimant. We cannot find any authority that says the ALJ cannot rule on the income and resource eligibility requirements. To the contrary, it seems squarely within their authority. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1446; POMS SI 04030.010B.5; POMS HA 01250.062.

Perhaps this is a solution, but there is no reason to force this time-consuming, expensive process. 

SSA Can Fix This Overnight

SSA should revise POMS to give local offices a specific procedure for incarcerated claimants: identify a contact at the facility, coordinate an approved interview, document attempts to arrange it, and escalate unresolved barriers before denying the claim. SSA already uses institutional contacts and coordinated interviews in its prerelease procedures. See POMS SI 00520.910C.9–10.

When a live interview cannot reasonably be arranged, the instructions should permit a documented written alternative, with signed claimant responses, supporting records, and the necessary identity checks and financial authorizations. Staff could then identify and follow up on any unanswered questions.

SSA can easily make procedural changes through its operating instructions without much procedure—and often does. And let us be clear: SSA regularly changes its rules to claimants’ detriment. When attorneys succeeded on too many appeals because the agency’s process regarding vocational testimony is sorely lacking, it issued SSR 24-3p to declare (in effect) that any vocational testimony, however hogwash, is fine enough. Earlier this year, we submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information about staffing levels that SSA probably didn’t want released—we noticed the POMS change a couple weeks later to limit the release of that information. 

SSA has been aware of this problem. In 2024, the Social Security Advisory Board discussed a similar problem: some incarcerated people apply for benefits a few months before release, are approved too quickly, and then denied because they remain incarcerated. Supplemental Security Income and Incarceration (Dec. 18, 2024).

SSA can easily accomplish the necessary calls. In 2015, the Office of Inspector General documented problems when SSA tries to contact institutions. Some progress has seemingly followed. See POMS SI 00520.910. Certainly, many jails and prisons—or at least particular officers thereat—create unnecessary headaches with contacting incarcerated people. But hearing offices make these contacts regularly and generally without issue. And, most notably: SSA already works with incarcerated people who apply through the prerelease process (as opposed to people who become incarcerated during their claim’s pendency). And SSA already has procedures to establish contact with penal institutions. See POMS SI 00520.910C.9–10.

SSA should give its employees a clear way to finish these claims, so that disabled people get the help they need. It should not take an entirely new federal hearing—and the substantial associated cost—to arrange a phone call that SSA itself requires.

Written by: Zachary P. Lutz, Social Security Disability Attorney. An honors graduate of Harvard Law School, he previously served as a judicial law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and a judicial intern for the United States Supreme Court. He represents SSI and SSDI claimants and writes about Social Security disability law, policy, and administrative practices.

Review: Marilyn R. Donoff, Social Security Disability Attorney. Marilyn has represented Ohio disability claimants for nearly 50 years, handling more than 9,000 disability hearings and representing more than 14,000 claimants.

Last reviewed: October 18, 2026

Sources: This article draws on Donoff & Lutz, LLC’s experience representing SSI claimants, including incarcerated individuals, and primary legal authorities, including the Social Security Act, federal regulations, and SSA’s Program Operations Manual System (POMS). Specific authorities are cited throughout the article.

Contact: Donoff & Lutz, LLC | 100 W. First St., Dayton, OH 45402 | (937) 223-4400 | disability@donofflutz.com

Photo: Boardhead / Phil Harvey, KingstonPenVisiting.JPG, Wikimedia Commons. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. 

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice specific to your situation, please speak directly with a Social Security disability lawyer.