See where seniors face the longest travel times to get to their local Social Security offices
A new Social Security Administration policy will require nearly 2 million additional beneficiaries to visit the agency's offices each year to change their direct deposit information, according to agency estimates.
That's often not a quick trip: Nearly one-quarter of seniors live more than an hour away from their local Social Security field office, according to a new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meanwhile, half of seniors need to drive for at least 33 minutes without traffic to get to their Social Security office.
The policy change will lead to more than 1 million hours of travel per year, according to the nonpartisan policy and research institute.
The Social Security Administration said the new direct deposit requirements would curb fraud, which it said it's been working to root out in coordination with the Trump administration's so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
Since 2023, the agency has experienced a "marked increase" in allegations of direct deposit fraud, a Social Security Administration official said via email.
In March, SSA implemented enhanced fraud protection for direct deposit changes. Between March 29 and April 26, the enhanced fraud protection flagged more than 20,000 Social Security numbers where phone direct deposit requests failed security measures that check for multiple fraud indicators.
Of the direct deposit transactions flagged, 61% to 72% of individuals never resubmitted their requests, a "strong indicator" that many of those attempts may not have been legitimate, according to the SSA official.
The agency estimates $19.9 million in losses were avoided as a result of the enhanced safety measures.
However, advocates say the change is an overreaction, given the scale of such fraud. The Social Security Administration has said about 40% of direct deposit fraud comes from phone calls attempting to change direct deposit information.
In early 2024, anti-fraud officials at the agency told The New York Times that about 2,000 beneficiaries had their direct deposits redirected over the prior year. By those estimates, that would mean just 800 of those people experienced direct deposit fraud by phone, according to Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Yet the agency is now requiring about 2 million elderly and disabled individuals to visit its offices to prevent such fraud, she said.
More from Personal Finance:What the House GOP budget bill means for your moneyTrump tariffs create the 'perfect storm' for scamsSocial Security COLA for 2026 projected to be lowest in years
To help ensure benefit payments are not misdirected, the Social Security Administration has tightened beneficiaries' ability to change their bank information over the phone.
As of April 28, individuals who want to change their direct deposit information will need to log into or create a personal My Social Security online account and obtain a one-time code before they call the agency's 800 number.
Individuals who cannot use online or automatic enrollment services will need to visit a local field office to verify their identity in person. While the agency encourages those individuals to make an appointment, it is also possible to walk in for direct deposit changes.
Individuals who want to change their direct deposit information may also use automatic enrollment services through their bank. To do so, individuals need to contact their bank directly. Not all financial institutions participate in this process, according to SSA.
Because many seniors or disabled individuals do not have internet service, computers or smart phones — or if they do, may not know how to use those resources — many will likely have to make an in-person visit to their local Social Security office.
About 6 million seniors don't drive, while almost 8 million older Americans have a medical condition or disability that makes it difficult for them to travel, according to CBPP research.
In-person appointments may be burdensome for beneficiaries who face long travel times to get to their nearest Social Security office, according to the CBPP analysis.
In 31 states, more than 25% of seniors face travel times of more than an hour to get to their local field office.
In certain less-populated states, more than 40% of seniors would need to drive more than an hour. Those include Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.
In other states, around 25% to 39% of seniors would need to travel over an hour. That includes Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Virginia.
Residents of other states may also face a burden if they do not live near their closest Social Security field office.
The analysis is a conservative estimate to help assess how much time it may cost individuals who are affected by the policy, according to Devin O'Connor, senior fellow at the CBPP.
For example, it doesn't take into account the time spent getting an appointment to visit a Social Security office and the time spent waiting for the appointment, he said.
The CBPP's analysis was created with information from multiple sources including the 2022 National Household Travel Survey, SSA field office location data, the OpenTimes travel time database and the Census Bureau's 2023 American Community Survey.
The Social Security Administration has not independently validated the data, the agency said via email in response to a request for comment.
Notably, the new direct deposit requirements come as the Social Security Administration has moved to cut its work force by about 7,000 employees, reductions that have led some of the agency's field offices to be "understaffed," O'Connor said.
However, while it had been reported that DOGE planned to close Social Security field offices to help curb spending, thus far that has largely not happened, he said. The Social Security Administration has denied it plans to close local field offices.
Individuals who need to visit a Social Security field office will also be confronted by long wait times for appointments. Currently, just 43% of individuals are able to get a benefit appointment within 28 days, Social Security Administration data shows.
The agency's new policy to limit phone transactions has been scaled back. The agency had proposed limiting the ability to apply for benefits over the phone, but after it received pushback from organizations including the AARP, the agency changed that policy to limit only direct deposit transactions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO
(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is It Worth Delaying Claiming Social Security If It Means Withdrawing More From Your 401(k)?
One of the most common dilemmas people face as they near retirement is whether to start collecting Social Security or delay it for a higher monthly benefit. But delaying Social Security often means relying more heavily on other resources, like a 401(k) or other savings, to fill the gap. Is it worth it? Read More: Find Out: 'When it comes to decisions about money, it is a matter of feeling in control and not feeling anxious or stressed,' said Trevor Houston, CEO at ClearPath Wealth Strategies in Frisco, Texas. 'One of the most common questions is whether to wait for the Social Security payments or to take money out of the 401(k) plan early.' Here's what to consider before tapping your 401(k). Delaying your Social Security retirement benefits beyond full retirement age (FRA) results in a higher monthly benefit amount until age 70. 'If you delay taking Social Security, the monthly check will increase by about 8% each year until you reach age 70. That's equivalent to getting a salary increase every year,' Houston explained. 'Pretty nice, right? However, the strategy of waiting only makes sense if you have enough in savings, investments or your 401(k) to cover your bills while you are waiting.' Here are some important factors to consider: Life expectancy: Do you have any serious health conditions? Have your parents and grandparents lived long lives? If you're in good health, waiting could give you a bigger monthly check. On the other hand, Houston explained that if your health or family history suggests a shorter life expectancy, it may make sense to claim Social Security early and use the money while you can. Monthly living expenses: How much money do you need every month to pay your basic living expenses? 'If you start taking out your 401(k) too early, you could end up short later on, especially if the market declines,' Houston said. This is called sequence risk, which could disrupt your retirement plan. A 2024 Vanguard report found that the average 401(k) balance for those age 65 and older is $272,588. However, the average is often skewed by high earners, and the median balance is $88,488. Taxes: Money from your 401(k) is taxed as ordinary income. According to Houston, taking out large sums of money could push you into a higher tax bracket. Safety and security: A stable monthly income provides a feeling of safety and security. 'Some people like to have the Social Security check coming into their account each month. It feels like a regular paycheck, and that provides a great deal of peace of mind during retirement,' he pointed out. Discover More: To show when this strategy might work, Houston provided an example: Let's say David reaches age 66, is in good health, and his parents are in their 90s. His 401(k) balance is around $400,000, and he doesn't need Social Security to pay bills or meet other financial needs. David chooses to delay Social Security and withdrawal from his 401(k) instead. Also, because of his conservative risk tolerance, his 401(k) generates a 5% annual growth rate, less than the 8% annual increase he'd get by waiting on Social Security. 'At the end of the day, waiting for Social Security and using your 401(k) could be a smart strategy if you have enough savings, and you expect to live a long time. But everyone's situation is different,' Houston wrote. 'A financial professional should evaluate your personal goals to determine the best course of action for your specific situation.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on Is It Worth Delaying Claiming Social Security If It Means Withdrawing More From Your 401(k)? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
39 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press. Related Articles When Are July 2025 SNAP Payments Coming?Republicans Out Of Step With Voters On Medicaid FundingNew York State Facing Lawsuit Over SNAP BenefitsSNAP Recipients Get Extra Money This Month in California 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
