David A. Weaver
Former executive
Social Security Administration and Congressional Budget Office

Just-released data indicate that about 25 percent of children in Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota, have lost a parent or sibling to death. 

The childhood bereavement picture is very different in Union County, South Dakota, where about 2 percent of children have lost a parent or sibling to death. Ninety-three percent of individuals in Oglala Lakota County are American Indian (alone) and 94 percent of individuals in Union County are White.

South Dakota is not an isolated example. In western states, childhood bereavement is far more likely in tribal areas. 

Nationally, about 4.5 percent of children are bereaved, but in Big Horn County, Montana, which contains part of the Crow Indian Reservation, the figure is about 17 percent. A similar percentage of children are bereaved in McKinley County, New Mexico, which includes parts of the Zuni and Navajo lands. The bereavement rate in Rolette County, North Dakota, which is home to the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation, is 14 percent. 

A general lack of federal support for tribal areas is the root cause of much of the income and health disparities in tribal areas. The failure to provide adequate resources has been exacerbated by the federal government shutdown that began in October. Further, one of the few federal safety nets designed specifically for bereaved children is beginning to fray.

Parents who work and pay Social Security taxes earn benefits for their children in the event of death. The benefit amounts are substantial, averaging $1,100 per month per child or $13,200 annually. 

Unfortunately, a lack of awareness about these benefits and administrative errors by the Social Security Administration have left many bereaved children behind. Nationally, about 45 percent of bereaved children are missing out on Social Security survivor benefits.

Many families are simply unaware that bereaved children may be eligible for Social Security benefits. This, in turn, is because the Social Security Administration has scaled back its communication efforts. 

For example, the agency no longer mails the Social Security statement to households each year. The statement provided detailed information on all types of Social Security benefits, including child benefits.

The Social Security Administration is legally required to send these mailings but, in an act of legal defiance, chooses not to mail them, citing cost concerns. A report on service-delivery challenges in tribal areas noted that members of tribal communities relied heavily on the mailed statements to understand Social Security benefits.

The agency has also walked back efforts to conduct outreach and assistance to Native American communities. 

In 2022, the Social Security Administration announced a new tribal office that would report directly to the commissioner of Social Security. The office launched several initiatives to improve service to Native Americans in 2023 and 2024 but there has been no communication to tribal leaders since January of 2025. Indeed, it is possible that the Social Security Administration has simply abolished the Office of Native American Partnerships or moved it out of the commissioner’s office in recent reorganizations.

Communication failures by the federal government are not the only issue, however. A shocking report by the Social Security Administration’s Inspector General found the Social Security Administration routinely denies applications for child benefits even though the child is, in fact, eligible. Among children denied benefits, the Social Security Administration was correct only 39 percent of the time.

One case was particularly egregious. A child whose mother was murdered was denied survivor benefits. The child, in fact, was eligible for Social Security and should have been paid benefits. The Social Security Administration mistake, the inspector general concluded, will cause the child to miss $94,000 in benefits over 10 years.

The issue of improving access to child benefits from Social Security should be a bipartisan concern. Indeed, the independent and bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board recently issued a report outlining several practical steps that can be taken to ensure bereaved children receive their benefits.

The economic effects of missed benefits can be substantial in areas with large Native American populations. Bereaved children in McKinley County, New Mexico, for example, miss out on about $19 million in Social Security benefits every year.

What can be done? 

The first step is for political leaders to simply engage. South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Republican, should formally request a meeting with Commissioner of Social Security Frank Bisignano. The agenda items for the meeting should include:

  • Why is the Social Security Administration’s child benefit program so error prone?
  • What has happened to the Social Security Administration’s partnership programs with tribal leaders?
  • Can the agency and Congress work together to implement the Social Security Advisory Board’s recommendations to improve access to child benefits?
  • Can the Social Security Administration restart the mailing of statements for those living in tribal areas?

As the Senate Majority Leader, Thune has the clout to get the Social Security Administration’s attention and to improve access to benefits for bereaved children.

Majority Leader Thune may wish to work with other senators in western states. 

For example, childhood bereavement is, unfortunately, very high among Alaska Natives. Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski is an influential member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, which oversees the Social Security Administration’s operational budget. The commissioner of Social Security is very likely to be responsive to the concerns of her constituents.

Greater partnership between the Social Security Administration and tribal leaders will not only help bereaved children. The Social Security Administration administers several different types of Social Security benefits, all of which are important to Native American communities. It also administers a program for low-income disabled and elderly persons known as Supplemental Security Income, which can mitigate hardship in areas with high levels of poverty.

Social Security and Supplemental Security Income cannot address all the economic and health disparities in tribal areas. That will require a greater federal commitment on many fronts. But, taking some practical steps to improve access to these programs is a good place to start.

David A. Weaver is a former executive at the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office. He currently teaches statistics at the University of South Carolina. His views do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization.

This opinion-editorial essay does not reflect the views of ICT; voices in our opinion section represent a variety of reader points of view. If you would like to contribute an essay to ICT, email opinion@ictnews.org and jourdan@ictnews.org.