| Course | MSW 506 Policy I: Social Welfare and Social Policy |
|---|---|
| Week | 8 |
| Paper type | Policy reform proposal |
| Length | About 610 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 506 Week 8
Policy Reform Proposal for the SSI Resource Limit: The Problem as a Rule, a Drafted Change to Two Provisions, Who Administers It, Where the Money Comes From, Objections Answered and What the Reform Would Not Fix
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 506: Policy I: Social Welfare and Social Policy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Policy Reform Proposal for the SSI Resource Limit: The Problem as a Rule, a Drafted Change to Two Provisions, Who Administers It, Where the Money Comes From, Objections Answered and What the Reform Would Not Fix
The Problem, in Policy Terms
The problem is a rule: the SSI countable resource limit, $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a married pair, fixed in dollars since 1989 and never adjusted for prices (Social Security Administration, 2025). Because resources are counted at the first moment of each month, a single month above the line ends eligibility for that month and creates an overpayment.
The Reform, Specific Enough to Draft
First, raise the limit to $10,000 for one person and $20,000 for a couple and index both to consumer prices each year, as S. 1234 and H.R. 2540 would do (SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act, 2025). Second, add one provision the bill lacks: when a balance exceeds the limit for one month only and falls back the next month, the Social Security Administration would send a notice rather than suspend benefits.
Who Administers It
The Social Security Administration would apply both changes through its existing redetermination process. Field offices already count resources monthly, so the reform changes the numbers and adds a notice step rather than creating a new system.
Training for field staff would cover the grace notice and the new limits, and notices sent to recipients would explain the change in plain language and in the languages SSA already uses.
Where the Money Comes From
SSI is paid from general revenues. A higher limit would keep some people eligible who would otherwise lose benefits, which raises spending. The proposal asks for a formal cost estimate and names two offsets for Congress to weigh: savings from fewer overpayment cases to process and collect, and a smaller rise in emergency costs, such as shelter stays, when people are not forced to spend down savings. Neither offset is assumed to cover the full cost.
Objections, Answered
Objection: the program is for people with almost nothing. Answer: $10,000 is a modest cushion for a car repair or a security deposit, and the 1989 limit, adjusted for prices, would already be far higher than $2,000. Objection: ABLE accounts solve this. Answer: only people whose disability started young enough can open one, and most who could have not done so. Objection: administrative burden. Answer: the grace notice reduces work, since each overpayment now requires a notice, an appeal window and a collection plan. Moynihan et al. (2015) show that such burdens weigh most on those with the fewest resources to absorb them.
What the Reform Would Not Fix
It does not raise the monthly benefit, which remains below the poverty line. It does not change the income disregards of $20 general and $65 earned, unchanged since 1972, which also discourage work. It does not alter what counts as a resource. A.M., the client whose $2,310 balance began this term's analysis, would be able to save for the van, but would still live on less than $1,000 a month.
Reflection on the Term
The course began with the Poor Law's test of destitution and ends with a proposal to loosen one of its descendants. The work taught me to name the rule, not only the harm.
References
Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43-69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu009
Social Security Administration. (2025). Understanding Supplemental Security Income SSI resources. https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-resources-ussi.htm
SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act, S. 1234, 119th Cong. (2025). https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1234
Reading the MSW 506 Week 8 instructions
The final week usually brings the major paper, with a reflection beside it. Turn your analysis into an instrument. Name the problem in policy terms, such as an eligibility rule, benefit level, funding formula or administrative practice, because those are what can change. Make the reform specific enough to draft: which provision changes, to what and who administers it. Address cost and where the money comes from; a proposal without financing is a wish. Answer the likely objections inside the document. Say what the reform would not fix. Earlier assignments can be reused and built on, which is often the strongest route. A short reflection on the term may close the paper. Cite the rule, the bill and the evidence.
Inside the MSW 506 Week 8 example
The problem section names the resource limit and the first-of-the-month count that turns one high balance into an overpayment. The reform section adopts the indexed $10,000 and $20,000 limits in the pending bill and adds a grace provision: a single month over the limit triggers a notice instead of suspension. Administration stays with field offices. The cost section asks for a formal estimate and labels two offsets, fewer overpayment cases and fewer crisis costs, as partial. Objections about need, ABLE accounts and workload are answered, with Moynihan et al. (2015) on burden falling on those least able to bear it. The final sections list what stays unfixed: benefit levels, the $20 and $65 disregards and the resource definition.
Where the points sit in the MSW 506 Week 8 rubric
Reform proposals are graded first on specificity. A proposal that calls for more generous policy, without naming the provision and the new rule, earns little. The problem must be stated in policy terms. Faculty weigh the cost section heavily: proposals that avoid financing lose a large share, while honest partial offsets are credited. Objections answered in the document are expected. Naming what the reform would not fix is credited as judgment. Building on earlier assignments is encouraged when it shows a line of analysis across the term. Sources for the rule, bill and evidence should be cited in APA form.
Common MSW 506 Week 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Reform proposals commonly describe hardship at length and end with a call for change that no one could draft. Another frequent gap is a cost section that says the reform would pay for itself without evidence. Some proposals also claim to solve every problem the term raised. If your proposal concerns a different rule, such as a TANF time limit or a SNAP work requirement, send the rule and your earlier assignments; we would state the problem in policy terms, draft the change, assign administration, address cost honestly, answer objections and say what remains unfixed. If your section asks for a separate reflection, it would follow the proposal.
Get a MSW-506 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 8 instructions with the element list and your earlier analysis, and a custom example is written to those requirements and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Which reform is worth arguing for stays yours to choose and yours to defend.
More MSW 506 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 506 Week 1: Poor Law Feature Today Post
- MSW 506 Week 2: Social Security Act History Analysis
- MSW 506 Week 3: Welfare Reform Policy Analysis
- MSW 506 Week 4: SSI One Page Policy Brief
- MSW 506 Week 5: SSI Savings Bill Legislative Analysis
- MSW 506 Week 6: Senate Cosponsor Advocacy Letter
- MSW 506 Week 7: Cosponsorship Advocacy Plan
- MSW 505 Week 8: Practice Skills Reflection
- MSW 504 Week 8: Theory Integration Reflection
MSW 506 Week 8 questions, answered
How specific does the reform have to be?
Specific enough that somebody could draft language from it. A named provision, a stated change, an administering body and a timeline is the standard most rubrics point at. Proposals that say a benefit should be more adequate lose marks that proposals naming a figure and a formula do not, even when the underlying argument is identical.
Do I have to cost the proposal?
Address it, yes, though rarely to the precision of a fiscal analysis. Naming a scale, a funding source and the trade-off it implies is usually enough at this level. What loses marks is silence, because financing is the first question any real reader asks and a proposal that avoids it reads as one that has not been tested.
Can I reuse my earlier assignments?
Usually in compressed form, and your section will say whether your own prior work needs citing. The analysis from earlier weeks is the evidence base this proposal rests on, so it belongs here condensed rather than pasted. A proposal that reproduces an earlier paper at length arrives at the reform with no room left to specify it.
Where can I find a free MSW 506 Week 8 sample paper?
A complete MSW 506 Week 8 reform proposal for the SSI resource limit, with cost and objections addressed, is on this page.
What does the MSW 506 Week 8 sample add to the pending bill?
A grace provision under which a single month above the resource limit brings a notice rather than a suspension of benefits and an overpayment.