[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SOCIAL SECURITY'S READINESS FOR THE IMPENDING WAVE OF BABY BOOMER
BENEFICIARIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 16, 2000
__________
Serial 106-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-455 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
BILL THOMAS, California FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Social Security
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida, Chairman
SAM JOHNSON, Texas ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
MAC COLLINS, Georgia SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
JERRY WELLER, Illinois BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of March 1, 2000, announcing the hearing................ 2
WITNESSES
Social Security Administration, Hon. Kenneth S. Apfel,
Commissioner of Social Security................................ 5
______
National Association of Disability Examiners, Terri Spurgeon..... 61
National Council of Social Security Administration Field
Operations Locals, American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO, Council 220, and AFGE-SSA National Partnership
Council, Witold Skwierczynski.................................. 54
National Council of Social Security Management Associations,
Inc., Steve Korn............................................... 74
National Senior Citizens Law Center, Gerald A. McIntyre.......... 49
National Treasury Employees Union, and Office of Hearings and
Appeals, Social Security Administration, Cleveland Heights,
Ohio, James A. Hill............................................ 66
SSI Coalition for a Responsible Safety Net, Sue Augustus......... 43
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Federation of Government Employees, Chicago, IL, Earl
Tucker, letter and attachment.................................. 96
Association of Attorney-Advisors, Knoxville, TN, James R.
Hitchcock, letter and attachment............................... 99
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Adapted Physical
Activity Council, American Association on Mental Retardation,
American Network of Community Options and Resources,
Association for Persons in Supported Employment, Brain Injury
Association, Inter-National Association of Business, Industry
and Rehabilitation, International Association of Psychosocial
Rehabilitation Services, National Association of Developmental
Disabilities Councils, National Mental Health Association,
National Organization of Social Security Claimants'
Representatives, NISH, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Research
Institute for Independence Living, The Arc of the United
States, Title II Community AIDS National Network, and United
Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc., joint statement............. 103
National Organization of Social Security Claimants'
Representatives, Nancy G. Shor, statement...................... 105
Wickham, Cristin J., statement and attachment.................... 106
SOCIAL SECURITY'S READINESS FOR THE IMPENDING WAVE OF BABY BOOMER
BENEFICIARIES
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Social Security,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. E. Clay Shaw,
Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
ADVISORY FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY
CONTACT: (202) 225-9263
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 1, 2000
No. SS-11
Shaw Announces Second Hearing in Series to
Examine Social Security's Readiness for the Impending Wave of Baby
Boomer Beneficiaries
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr., (R-FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced the
second in a series of hearings to examine Social Security's readiness
for the impending wave of Baby Boomer beneficiaries. This hearing will
focus on what Social Security is doing to prepare for current and
future service delivery challenges. The hearing will take place on
Thursday, March 16, 2000 , in the main Committee hearing room, 1100
Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Subsequent
hearings in the series will be announced at a later date.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (SSA), Social Security management and employee
representatives, and advocates for Social Security and Supplemental
Security Income recipients. However, any individual or organization not
scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for
consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record
of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The services that the Social Security Administration (SSA) provides
impact the lives of nearly all Americans. For example, in 1999 SSA paid
benefits to more than 45 million retired and disabled workers and their
families and to more than 6.6 million Supplemental Security Income
recipients, processed 250 million reports of earnings and more than 6
million initial claims for benefits, handled more than 26 million
visitors requesting services at 1,300 field offices, fielded 80 million
calls to the 800-number service, issued 16 million new and replacement
Social Security numbers, and provided 30 million Social Security
Statements to help individuals plan for their financial future.
As America enters the 21st Century, SSA will face increasing
challenges. SSA workloads are projected to begin increasing rapidly
within the next decade as the huge Baby Boom generation enters its peak
disability years prior to reaching early retirement age starting in the
year 2008. Social Security retirement and disability workloads are
projected to rise 16 percent and 47 percent, respectively, between now
and the year 2010. Claims under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
program, which is administered by SSA and provides cash benefits to
poor disabled and elderly individuals, are expected to grow 12 percent
between now and the year 2020. At the same time, Social Security
programs are becoming more complex, with initiatives to prevent fraud
and abuse, complete continuing disability reviews, provide increased
rehabilitation and employment services for the disabled, and perform
reviews to determine whether SSI beneficiaries continue to meet the
program's income and resource requirements. These factors, combined
with recent workforce downsizing and the coming retirement of large
numbers of SSA's aging workforce, will place tremendous pressures on
the Agency to meet the public's need for service in the 21st century.
The first hearing in the series on February 10, 2000, focused on
Social Security's service delivery practices, key service delivery
challenges, and strategies to address those challenges.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Shaw stated: ``At our first
hearing, we learned about the challenges Social Security will face in
years to come as its own workforce ages and the number of Americans
depending on Social Security skyrockets. This hearing will focus on how
SSA is preparing for those challenges, including what steps it plans to
take to provide world-class service as promised.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
This hearing will focus on SSA's service delivery practices, key
current and future service delivery challenges, and plans to overcome
those challenges and provide timely, high-quality, and cost-effective
customer service in the years ahead.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement
for the printed record of the hearing should submit six (6) single-
spaced copies of their statement, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch
diskette in WordPerfect or MS Word format, with their name, address,
and hearing date noted on a label, by the close of business, Thursday,
March 30, 2000 , to A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways
and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. If those filing written statements
wish to have their statements distributed to the press and interested
public at the hearing, they may deliver 200 additional copies for this
purpose to the Subcommittee on Social Security office, room B-316
Rayburn House Office Building, by close of business the day before the
hearing.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed,
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the
Committee.
1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must
be submitted on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect or
MS Word format, typed in single space and may not exceed a total of 10
pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee
will rely on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing
record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written
comments in response to a published request for comments by the
Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all
clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.
4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the
name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers where the witness or
the designated representative may be reached. This supplemental sheet
will not be included in the printed record.
The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being
submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary
material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press,
and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted
in other forms.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at ``http://waysandmeans.house.gov''
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.
Chairman Shaw. Good morning. Today, we are holding the
second hearing in a series about Social Security's current and
future service delivery challenges. On February 10, we heard
from the Social Security Advisory Board, among others, about
specific concerns they had with the way Social Security is
approaching its current and future service delivery challenges.
At the start of that hearing, I quoted from the Advisory
Board report which concluded, and I quote, ``There is a
significant gap between the level of services that the public
needs and that which the agency is providing. Moreover, this
gap should grow to far larger proportions in the long term if
it is not adequately addressed,'' end quote.
I don't think we have heard anything during the course of
our prior hearings to diminish our concerns. On the contrary,
we learned that the number of Social Security applicants will
rise rapidly in the next 10 years. At the same time, Social
Security's own workforce is headed toward retirement in record
numbers. Coupled with the already great challenges that SSA
faces in providing timely, efficient services today, these twin
challenges loom large on the horizon.
So last month's hearing posed lots of questions about what
Social Security is doing to prepare for the future. Today, we
hope to hear a lot of the answers. We are privileged to have
Social Security Commissioner, Commissioner Apfel, here with us,
along with a number of beneficiary and employee
representatives. We expect them to help us assess both what
needs to be done and whether Social Security is positioned to
take the right steps to efficiently and effectively deliver
services to the public into the 21st century.
Mr. Matsui?
Mr. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to
welcome Commissioner Apfel as well and submit my statement for
the record.
Chairman Shaw. Fine, thank you.
[The opening statement follows:]
Opening Statement of Hon. Robert T. Matsui, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend you on holding this important hearing.
Today is the second of two hearings on customer service
delivery at the Social Security Administration. I believe it is
extremely important that we take the opportunity now to address
the challenges that will face SSA in the future as that agency
copes with the retirement of the baby boomers.
As we learned from members of the Social Security Advisory
Board in our first hearing last month, the two major challenges
SSA will face in the years ahead will be growing workloads and
an aging workforce. Both of these trends are the direct result
of the impending retirement of the Baby Boom generation.
I am very pleased that Commissioner Apfel is with us today
to share his thoughts on how SSA plans to meet these two
challenges. I look forward to hearing his testimony.
I also think it is important to keep in mind that, while
there are problems that need to be addressed at the Social
Security Administration, the agency remains a leader among
government agencies in managing its resources and meeting the
needs of the public.
In fact, SSA outperforms most other government agencies in
terms of the quality of its management and its responsiveness
to customers. As I mentioned at the first hearing, the American
Customer Satisfaction Index surveyed customers of 29 different
federal agencies in December 1999 to assess their satisfaction
with federal government services. SSA scored an 82 out of a
possible 100 points, well above the aggregate score of 68.6 for
the federal government as a whole and even above the comparable
scores for private companies like GTE and Nike.
As we discuss growing Social Security workloads and an
aging workforce at SSA, we should remember that Congress has
consistently fallen short in meeting SSA's budget requests.
Since SSA became an independent agency in 1994, Congress has
not enacted a single appropriations bill that met SSA's request
for its administrative budget.
Just yesterday, the House Budget Committee reported out
this year's budget resolution that would reduce non-defense
discretionary spending by $107 billion over the next five years
relative to the current-services baseline. My understanding of
the effect of this budget resolution is that it would translate
into a $1.2 billion reduction from the President's FY 2001
request for SSA. Obviously this level of funding would deeply
damage SSA's ability to serve the public.
While it is incumbent upon the Congress to ensure that SSA
is utilizing its existing resources in the most efficient
manner possible, it is also incumbent upon the Congress to
provide SSA with the resources it needs. In light of the
testimony from two hearings on customer service, I hope that we
will not tolerate this short-sighted approach to budgeting when
we consider the agency's FY 2001 appropriation later this year.
Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today. I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shaw. With that, Commissioner, welcome back to
this committee again and again, and we look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Apfel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Matsui, and members
of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today
about the ways in which the Social Security Administration
serves the American public. It is an issue of paramount concern
to us.
One reason is the sheer magnitude of our service
responsibilities. We are committed to providing the right
benefit payment to the right person on time, and to do so for
50 million Social Security and SSI beneficiaries. On average,
each workday about 100,000 people visit one of our 1,300 field
offices and over 240,000 people call our 800 number. Each
workday, we process an average of 20,000 initial claims for
retirement, survivors, disability, or SSI benefits, and hold
2,400 hearings before administrative law judges. Each year, we
make certain that 250 million wage items are correctly credited
to workers' earnings records to ensure that future benefit
payments are accurate.
We have a long history at SSA of solid and reliable
customer service. In fact, in 1999, customer satisfaction was
at an all-time high, with 88 percent of customers rating our
services excellent, very good, or good. But we clearly
recognize that we face current and future challenges in our
ability to deliver timely, high-quality service to the public,
and that we need to formulate concrete strategies to deal with
these challenges.
I would like to briefly describe the four major service
delivery challenges we face and our plans to address them.
First, increasing workloads associated with the aging of
America are a central concern. Because the baby boom generation
is aging and a large segment are in their late 40s and early
50s, we estimate that over the next 10 years, our overall
claims will increase by 23 percent, roughly double the level of
increase in the 1990s.
Second, while our workload and service delivery challenges
before us are very real, our mission demands more than just
faster service on applications for benefits, easier access to
us by telephone, and shorter waiting times in our offices. We
must balance our service mission with the need to be good
stewards of the program that we administer.
Stronger program integrity activities come with a cost.
About one-quarter of our administrative budget, $1.7 billion,
is associated with program integrity. In the past four years,
staffing for our Inspector General has doubled, and an
additional 4,000 State DDS and SSA work-years are now devoted
to continuing disability reviews and redeterminations. While we
have been taking aggressive action to strengthen program
integrity, we have much further to go to address these areas.
Third, SSA is only able to achieve high-level service
through our greatest strength--a core of dedicated and
professional employees. Since 1985, SSA has seen a 22-percent
reduction in its workforce, with the vast majority of these
losses occurring prior to 1993. To meet growing workloads over
this time, we have reduced most SSA staff functions and put
more resources in areas that directly serve the public.
The challenge of serving the baby boomers will be affected
by SSA's own upcoming retirement wave. We expect about 27,000
SSA employees to retire by 2010, and an additional 8,000 to
leave via early-outs, disability retirements, resignations,
transfers, and deaths.
And, fourth, all of this is occurring in an era of
constrained Government resources. SSA's administrative budget
represents less than 2 percent of the value of the benefits
provided by the agency each year. Although we are proud of such
efficiency, it is clear that SSA needs additional resources in
the future. As I indicated in the 2000 SSA operating plan, some
workload processing goals have now been reduced from levels in
the 2000 budget plan, including service goals for the 800
number, retirement and disability claims, hearings, and SSI
redeterminations.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, last September the Social
Security Advisory Board issued a service delivery report. It
recommended that SSA develop a short-and long-term service
delivery plan, ensure that we have the human resources needed,
improve current service practices and strategies, and address
longstanding institutional problems. I would like to address
briefly the actions the agency is taking to deal with these
four broad areas.
First, while SSA has one of the best planning capabilities
in Government, I believe that we still can do more. We are
developing a vision that takes SSA out 10 years. The 2010
Vision is being developed with significant input from our
customers, employees, representatives of unions, management
associations, advisory groups, and experts in such fields as
technology and communications. The 2010 Vision will be about
the agency of the future, what work we will do and how we will
do it. Once completed, this Vision will drive all of our
budgeting and performance planning.
Secondly, I recently released a report on workforce
planning at SSA which provides an analysis of our most
significant near-and longer-term workforce issues, and
describes the strategies we plan to put in place to address
them. We are currently in the process of linking our plans for
responding to the pending retirement wave with our Strategic
Plan, and we are implementing GAO's human resource
recommendations. In addition, we are developing an integrated
work measurement system that will provide more comprehensive
information about the work we perform. The data from this
system will permit us to make better resource allocation
decisions and budget justifications.
Third, while our overall service remains very solid, there
are clearly areas where immediate improvement is needed. One
major area in need of improvement relates to the administration
of our disability program. We have already issued plans to
improve the management of the disability programs, including
plans to improve the initial claims process, the hearings
process, and the Appeals Council process. Our efforts to
strengthen the disability adjudication process are bearing real
fruit. For those who go through all of the adjudicative steps,
processing times have already dropped significantly, and
further progress will be made in the future.
Let me also briefly discuss emerging technologies. Over the
last few years, SSA has been successful in using technology to
improve the services we offer to the American public. In the
1990s, technology allowed us to offer nationwide 800 number
service, improve the timeliness and quality of the actions we
take, and provide better overall service.
As we move into the 21st century, Internet commerce has
become mainstream and Americans are increasingly asking the
public sector to provide electronic Government services. Today,
SSA's Web site is primarily informational, but to meet consumer
demand we will be developing a broader range of electronic
services consistent with our long-term service vision,
including secure authentication and privacy safeguards.
With regard to our 800 number and our field operations,
customer satisfaction levels for these services are high, and
we are committed to strengthening the services we provide. But
there are very real stresses. Consumer demands continue to
rise, especially for our 800 number service, and teleservice
center staff alone have not been able to handle the increasing
call volumes. Additional resources from other agency components
have been needed to assist with answering calls on busy days.
Our field offices, which number 1,300, have been the center
of our service delivery system since the creation of the
program, and I believe they will be the center of our delivery
system in the future. But there is stress in handling growing
workloads in our field offices, and customer waiting times,
particularly in our urban offices, are increasing.
We are responding by putting a majority of our newly hired
employees in our field offices and by seeking further
automation improvements to enhance our productivity. But it is
clear to me that our field workforce in the future will need
higher levels of skill to handle increasingly complex work
assignments such as return to work and program integrity
activities.
Finally, let me address the fourth area cited by the
Board--longstanding institutional problems. The Board said SSA
needed to find ways to promote more discussion of problems,
strengthen communication between our field offices and
headquarters, and promote better teamwork. These serious
concerns face any large organization in the 21st century, and
we need to do all we can to overcome barriers and increase
communication. I am taking steps to increase communication and
teamwork within the agency.
In conclusion, let me again say that SSA is experiencing
significant strains in our ability to continue to deliver the
quality of service that the public has come to expect. We will
be further challenged by the coming retirement wave not only of
the Nation's baby boomers, but of our own employees. We are
moving to meet these challenges, but resources are an important
part of the picture. We cannot do our job without adequate
resources, especially when more and more Americans will be
seeking our services.
Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has always supported us in
the past, and I look forward to your continued support in the
future. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may
have at this time.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Hon. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security,
Social Security Administration
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me today to testify about the ways
in which the Social Security Administration serves the American
public. I would like to thank this Committee for holding this
hearing on an issue that is of great importance to SSA and
commands a tremendous amount of our time and attention.
Mr. Chairman, it is hard to fully describe the magnitude of
our vast service responsibilities. But let me give you some
examples. We are committed to providing the right benefit
payment to the right person on time, and to do so over 600
million times a year, which represents 50 million monthly
payments to Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI)
and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients. On average,
each workday about 100,000 people visit one of our 1,300 field
offices and over 240,000 people call our 800 number. Each
workday we process an average of 20,000 initial claims for
retirement, survivors, disability or SSI benefits, and hold
2,400 hearings before Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). Each
year, we make certain that over 250 million earnings items are
correctly credited to workers' accounts to ensure that future
benefit payments are accurate.
We take these responsibilities very seriously, because
millions of Americans rely on us as they have for the past 65
years. I say in all candor that my greatest pride as
Commissioner is the spirit and commitment that our employees
demonstrate each and every day in serving the American people
and the high quality of service we provide.
We have a long history at SSA of solid and reliable
customer service. In fact, in 1999, customer satisfaction was
at an all time high with 88 percent of customers rating our
service as excellent, very good, or good. But we clearly
recognize that we face current and future challenges to our
ability to deliver timely, high-quality service to the public,
and that we need to formulate concrete strategies to deal with
these challenges. Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we have
an unwavering commitment throughout our agency to provide the
American public with superior customer service, and we intend
to translate that commitment into practice in every aspect of
our service delivery.
The Social Security Administration has been known for some
time as a Government-wide leader in management, planning, and
service to the American public. Just last year, the Maxwell
School of Citizenship and Public Affairs of Syracuse University
ranked SSA at the top of 15 Federal Government agencies in one
of the most comprehensive studies of management performance
ever conducted. But, in spite of these accolades, we, like all
other public institutions, face significant demands, changes
and challenges.
Given the growing workload demands that we face, rapid
changes in technology, expansion of our mission, continued
resource constraints, and the prospects for a loss of our
knowledge base as many employees become eligible for
retirement, it is clear that we are facing significant strains
on our ability to continue to deliver quality service to the
public. Clearly, we need to address today's challenges and we
need to plan better for the changes that confront us in the
future. While we are taking steps to address today's
challenges, we are also developing plans and establishing
processes that will prepare us for the additional work that we
will encounter later this decade as the ``baby boom''
generation begins facing disabling conditions or reaches
retirement age. I believe that the Social Security
Administration, with adequate resources, will meet these
challenges, as we have in the past.
Today, I would like first to discuss the challenges we face
and then lay out how SSA plans to align itself to meet them.
THE CHALLENGES WE FACE
We face a number of sizable challenges that I would like to
highlight for the Committee--increasing workloads, an increased
focus on program integrity, a smaller and aging SSA workforce,
and tight resource constraints.
1. Increasing Workloads
The Social Security Administration is experiencing
significant strains due to increased workloads, and the aging
of America will place even greater challenges on our ability to
continue to deliver the high quality of service that Americans
have come to expect from our agency.
SSA's main workloads can be broadly grouped as follows:
Processing of initial claims for retirement,
survivors, disability and SSI benefits including appeals;
Maintenance of beneficiary records for those on
the rolls. This workload, which we refer to as ``post-
entitlement'' actions, includes continuing disability reviews,
SSI redeterminations, and benefit recomputations;
Establishment and maintenance of Social Security
Number records; and,
Maintenance of individual earnings records.
Each of these categories reflects major workloads, but the
vast majority of SSA's and the Disability Determination
Services' (DDSs) workyears--more than two-thirds--are invested
in processing initial disability claims and appeals for both
Disability Insurance (DI) and SSI, and in various post-
entitlement actions for our disability programs.
A sizable shift in our workload took place in the late
1980's and early 1990's, with a dramatic increase in the number
of claims for DI and SSI disability benefits. These grew from
about 1.5 million claims processed in FY 1985 to about 2.6
million processed in FY 1995. With a large portion of denials
flowing into the appellate process, our hearing workload also
increased dramatically, from about 250,000 processed in FY
1985, to about 580,000 in FY 1996. On the heels of this
dramatic growth in our ongoing claims and appeals work came
significant legislative mandates and the large one-time welfare
reform-related workloads of the mid-1990s. These included drug
addiction and alcoholism reviews, childhood and noncitizen
reviews, and rereviews. With all these increases, the
corresponding backlog in disability claims dominated the
attention of the agency for some time. As I will make clear
later in my testimony, we had to make significant shifts in our
workforce to deal with these demands.
Because the baby boom generation is aging, and a large
number of people are in their late 40's and 50's, our current
estimates indicate that new claims for all types of benefits
will increase over the next 10 years by 23 percent, from 6.3
million to 7.8 million, roughly double the level of increase
experienced in the 1990's. Our initial retirement claims
workload will increase by roughly 21 percent by 2010, and our
initial disability claims workload will increase by roughly 25
percent by 2010.
The workload of post-entitlement actions has grown by
almost 25 percent over the past 10 years, from 80 million to
100 million. Increases in this area are due, in part, to a
growing focus on program integrity activities. For example,
representative payee actions increased by 2.2 million over this
period of time, and overpayment actions increased by 1.5
million. In addition, the number of Continuing Disability
Reviews (CDRs) we processed jumped from about 100,000 in FY
1994, to over 1.7 million in FY 1999. By 2010, the post-
entitlement workload is expected to grow by at least 16
million, in line with the projected growth in the numbers of
beneficiaries on the OASDI and SSI rolls.
In addition to the large volume of disability work we face,
most of which is performed in our field offices, DDSs and large
service centers, the work we perform in support of our national
800 number at our teleservice centers has also increased
dramatically over the last decade, from less than 30 million
calls served in FY 1989 to almost 60 million served in FY 1999.
The popularity of this service continues to grow, and we
continue to seek ways to improve it to assure that we meet
customer demand.
In addition to the work we perform today, we need to be
cognizant of the broader service missions that Social Security
Administration will face in the future. Two key examples of
challenges are service to our growing non-English speaking
clients and implementation of the recently passed ``Ticket to
Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act.''
The number of our non-English-speaking customers will
increase. The Census Bureau predicts that between 1995 and
2005, the Nation's population will increase by 72 million
people. Of these, 32 million will be Hispanics and 12 million
will be Asians. SSA must provide services to our customers even
if they cannot communicate with us in English. The change in
the population will require us to hire more bilingual employees
and to develop more written material in other languages.
In December 1999, the President signed Public Law 106-170,
``The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of
1999.'' This hallmark legislation, enacted with the strong
support of this Committee, addresses some of the most
significant barriers to employment of people with disabilities.
Its key features greatly expand access to employment, training
and rehabilitation service providers in the public and private
sectors and provide access to health care protection for
working people with disabilities.
This new mission will entail a much greater degree of
supportive services for a portion of our beneficiary population
than we have provided in the past. Those support services must
be delivered from our field offices and other settings, in
close collaboration with a new set of external service
providers.
Up to now SSA has met its increasing workload demands by
improvements in productivity through automation, movement of
staff to direct service positions, shifting workyears to
disability activities, increasing the use of temporary
employment for welfare reform workloads, and use of overtime.
But some of these actions have placed real strains on the
organization. Two areas of serious strain that I will cover in
more detail later in my testimony are as follows:
First, the growth in disability claims led to sizable
delays in service. Our efforts to improve service have placed
real strains on the agency.
Second, our field structure is under growing pressure to
cope with workload demands. In order to deal with growing
demands for our 800 number telephone service, we have had to
utilize a growing share of staff at our Program Service Centers
(PSCs) to help answer the calls, resulting in a backup of work
in the ``postentitlement'' area. In addition, because of the
growth in workloads coupled with downsizing through the 80's,
and the shift to more program integrity activities, our field
offices, particularly our urban offices, have become
overextended.
2. Enhanced Program Integrity
There is no doubt that the workload and service challenges
before us are very real, but our mission demands more than just
faster service on applications for benefits, easier access to
us by telephone, and shorter waiting times in our offices. We
must balance our service mission with our mission to be good
stewards of the program we administer. We also must protect the
trust funds and general revenues from losses associated with
payment errors. The programs we administer, which are designed
to meet critical needs for the public, can themselves be
threatened if the public perceives serious problems in program
integrity.
Together, Congress and the Administration have launched
several important initiatives directed at program integrity,
and we have seen major dividends from investments made for this
purpose. For example, Congress provided special funding
authority for us to dramatically expand our CDR program, and
the well-documented results of that effort have shown that it
is extremely cost effective. As detailed in our most recent
report to Congress on CDRs, SSA spent $462 million in FY 1998
to process 1.4 million CDRs. The present value of future
benefits saved from this effort was estimated to be $5.6
billion in the Social Security, SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid
programs.
I believe that accuracy in our decisions is a paramount
programmatic responsibility. Embedded in our commitment to
provide world class service to our customers are measurements
and enhancements that promote an accurate product outcome. For
the most part, our continued reviews indicate there is reason
for optimism. The accuracy of decisions in the Old Age and
Survivors Insurance program and the effect of any error on
dollar outlays have consistently been very good, exceeding 99
percent. In fact, the systematic fixes and improvements we have
made in postentitlement computations over the last few years
have eliminated hundreds of thousands of errors.
And, while we have an error rate of less than 1 percent, I
should point out that roughly 70 percent of Social Security
overpayments in the Old Age and Survivors program are due to
the earnings test. While there will be short-term costs to
implement the recent action by the House to repeal the earnings
test at the normal retirement age, in the long term it will
free up resources now spent on administering that provision and
collecting overpayments. Also, from a policy standpoint,
eliminating the earnings test at normal retirement age is the
right thing to do. As the baby boomers begin to retire, it is
more important than ever that older Americans who are willing
and able to work should not have their Social Security benefits
deferred when they do work.
Because the administration of the Disability programs is
more complex, there is more case error in the Disability
programs, but accuracy trends there are also positive. In fact,
during this past fiscal year, improvements were noted in every
level of disability decision making for both awards and
denials. A part of our plan for the long-term management of the
disability program includes engaging the services of an
independent consultant to assist us in assessing our quality
assurance requirements and developing options for improvement.
On another crucial front, I initiated a series of actions
to attack the problem of the accuracy rate in the SSI program.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has designated the SSI
program as ``high risk,'' and action was needed to turn around
a trend of declining accuracy and growing overpayment error. My
report on this issue, which was published in October 1998 (a
copy of which will be provided for the record), outlined a
series of actions we are pursuing to address this problem.
These included: 1) increased numbers of redeterminations, 2)
improved matching of our data with available records on wages,
nursing home admissions, and financial accounts, and 3) a
number of new anti-fraud and debt collection initiatives.
I very much appreciate the support of this Committee and
the Congress as a whole for supporting our SSI strategy. At the
end of the last Congress, the new legislative authorities that
we requested were provided. These included new penalties
against those who provide false or misleading information or
fail to report changes that affect benefit amounts, and new
debt collection tools such as the expansion of offset authority
for Title XVI to all Federal programs, as well as expanding
incentive payments to prisons and other institutions that
report inmates so SSA can suspend their Social Security
benefits while they are confined.
The actions outlined in the report are already showing
results. For example, the data matches performed in FY 1999,
the additional redeterminations and improvements in targeting
these redeterminations to the cases with the most payoff are
projected to ultimately save an estimated $600 million in
overpayment collection and prevention at an administrative cost
of well under $100 million.
It must be emphasized that stronger program integrity
activities come with a cost. In fact, $1.7 billion, or one
quarter of our administrative budget, is associated with
program integrity. Over the past few years, staffing aimed at
strengthening integrity activities has increased. The Inspector
General staff increased by more than 300 employees between FY
1996 and FY 2000, thereby doubling in size. In the same period,
an additional 4,000 DDS and SSA workyears have been devoted to
conduct CDRs and redeterminations. While we have been taking
aggressive action in the area of program integrity area, we
have much further to go to address overpayments and other
issues. We will be discussing this overall matter with you at a
hearing later this month.
3. Our Workforce: Smaller, Higher-Skilled, and Older
It takes well-trained employees to provide exemplary
customer service. That means cultivating an environment in
which our employees go one step beyond to meet the needs of our
customers. I am proud to lead an organization of high-caliber
professionals who make such a difference in the lives of all
Americans and have a long tradition of providing excellent
service.
Since fiscal year (FY) 1985, SSA has undergone a 22 percent
reduction in the size of its workforce, from a staff of
approximately 81,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in 1985 to
63,000 FTEs in 1999. The vast majority of these losses occurred
prior to 1993. The staff of the Disability Determination
Services in the States, on the other hand, has grown from
13,000 in 1985 to over 14,600 today, a 12 percent increase.
Most of these increases occurred since 1993.
The graph below depicts the areas where the changes in
staff occurred within SSA and the DDSs. A growing share of
staffing has been devoted to disability adjudication to meet
the sizable growth and complexity in our workloads in this
area.
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
The Social Security Administration since 1993 has been
largely spared from the recent downsizing that has taken place
throughout the Federal Government. From 1993-1999 the Social
Security workforce including the DDSs has declined by 2.2
percent in FTE terms. Excluding the DDS, the SSA workforce has
declined by 4.6 percent. During the same period, the total
Federal civilian employment that has declined by 17 percent and
total non-defense civilian employment declined by 9 percent.
To operate within the staffing constraints we have had
since 1993, we have focused on putting a growing share of our
resources in areas that directly serve the public. SSA's
priority was to preserve SSA's day to day operations. This has
been accomplished by reducing most SSA staff functions
(excluding the Office of Systems) by about 26% since FY 1993.
We changed the staffing mix in our field offices to put more
employees in direct service positions, and upgraded their
skills. And we placed more people in investigative and audit
functions, added more attorneys to deal with the litigation
workload in the disability area, and increased the number of
Administrative Law Judges and support staff to handle the
increasing appeals caseload. We were able to offset some of
these staff increases through reductions in clerical positions
and other streamlining made possible by expanded automation.
To further our goal of preserving direct service
operations, we reduced supervisory personnel. The effort
resulted in a 45 percent reduction in supervisors and an
increase in the supervisor-to-staff ratio from 1:7 in 1993 to
1:13 in 1999. Approximately 1,200 supervisors and managers left
SSA through retirement or special initiatives. Others moved
into nonsupervisory support positions that focus on process and
service delivery enhancements, such as program integrity and
automation activities. Reassessment of this configuration is
now necessary to insure that we have the right support
infrastructure for technical expertise and quality (in-line
review, feedback, and training). This year, we are restoring a
small number of supervisory positions and will assess whether
an optimal balance has been found, particularly in our large
urban offices. We are also looking at ways to provide
incentives for candidates to apply for management positions in
offices where we have difficulty recruiting.
The challenge of serving the baby boomers will be affected
by our own retirement wave. SSA will experience considerably
higher levels of employee retirement losses over the next
decade than previously experienced. The Agency predicts that
about 27,000 permanent SSA employees will retire between 2000
and 2010. These projected retirement losses include about
20,000 operations employees, 3,000 hearing positions, and 1,200
systems positions. Losses for 2000 through 2010 are projected
to total over 35,000 when all categories of attrition are
factored in, including early outs, disability retirements,
resignations, transfers, and deaths.
The diverse skills required of the workforce of the future
will be different than those of today's workers. SSA must
assess what skill mixes its future workers will need and ensure
that we have the kind of high-technology training programs in
place to permit lifelong learning.
4. Constrained Resources
SSA's administrative budget represents less than 2 percent
of the value of the benefits provided by the agency each year.
Although we are proud of such efficiency, it is clear that SSA
needs additional resources in the future.
I understand that hard decisions have to be made on the
distribution of finite resources. For example, the resources it
takes SSA to answer a phone call or process a disability claim
must be balanced against the resources needed for additional
teachers, medical research and other critical public needs.
SSA's administrative budget is primarily the cost of its
employees. Our employees, wherever they are located, need to be
reassured that adequate resources are available to them to do
their jobs completely. I believe there is no more dedicated
workforce than Social Security's. Their commitment to
delivering world-class service is well-known and has been
repeatedly affirmed by our customers and our employees
themselves. But our employees also tell us that the workload
stresses are taking their toll. I am committed to finding
solutions to employee concerns as reflected in the results of
recent employee surveys.
This year has been a particularly challenging one for SSA.
In November 1999, the Congress passed an appropriation bill
which would have reduced the President's request for SSA's
administrative costs by more than $200 million. I strongly
supported the President's veto of that legislation. Such a
substantial cut would have resulted in large disruptions in
service that would have harmed millions of elderly and disabled
Americans who depend on these critical programs for their
support.
For example, this large budget reduction would have
required SSA to impose an immediate and complete hiring freeze,
leaving 3000 positions vacant by the end of the year. This
would have resulted in millions of calls to our toll-free 800
number going unanswered and resulted in disability applicants
waiting up to twice as long for a decision on their initial
claims for benefits. And, waiting time for millions of
Americans who visit Social Security offices each year would
have increased significantly. Another effect of this budget cut
would have been a reduction in SSA's increased efforts to
ensure program integrity, ultimately costing the Government and
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
I was pleased that part of this reduction was restored, in
part by funding some unbudgeted cost increases with unspent
money from FY 1999. Still, when all was said and done, we wound
up about $75 million short of what was needed to meet our
promised service commitments. As I indicated in the FY 2000 SSA
Operating Plan recently transmitted to Congress, a number of
workload processing goals have now been reduced from the levels
reflected in the FY 2000 Budget Plan. These include our service
goals for the 800 number, retirement and disability claims,
hearings, and SSI redeterminations.
Mr. Chairman, to summarize, our four challenges are:
increasing workloads; a need to make further improvements to
program integrity; a changing workforce; and constrained
resources. Let me now turn to a presentation of our best
thinking about how we will align our processes, technologies,
and our workforce to meet these challenges. But before I do, I
let me note that despite of the volume of work we will face in
the future, the Social Security Administration, with adequate
resources, will meet these challenges as we have done in the
past. We will meet the needs of our customers through our
superior workforce and short and long term planning. And, we
will of course need the support of this Committee to help us.
MEETING THE SERVICE DELIVERY CHALLENGE
As you know, Mr. Chairman, in September 1999, the Social
Security Advisory Board issued a report on service delivery and
made recommendations on how SSA can improve service and better
prepare for the long term challenges we will face. The Board
recommended that SSA:
1. Develop a short and long term service delivery plan;
2. Ensure that it will have the human resources to carry
out the service delivery plans;
3. Make major improvements in a number of the agency's
service delivery practices and strategies; and
4. Address long-standing institutional problems.
I would like to thank the Social Security Advisory Board
for their work in this area. The Social Security Advisory Board
Report provides a helpful guide to ensuring that the service
that we provide will be strong in the future. The report's
recommendations represent a challenge for us to create new
strategies to satisfy our rapidly increasing customer
expectations.
I would like to present the Agency's approach to dealing
with these four broad areas.
1. Service Delivery Planning
The Social Security Advisory Board acknowledged SSA's
position among Federal agencies as a leader in planning for the
future. However, the Advisory Board concluded that SSA needs
``. . .to move quickly to deliver a service delivery plan
that accurately reflects the agency's anticipated workload
needs over the coming years and describes how the agency plans
to meet these needs, whether through increases in resources,
technological improvements, changes in the way the agency
processes its work, or a combination of these approaches.''
While SSA has one of the best planning capabilities in all
of Government, I believe that we can still do more. Indeed, I
view this as one of the highest priorities for SSA. Future
customer expectations, rapid change in information technology
coupled with the expected workload growth created by the baby
boomers, and, simultaneously, a maturing workforce and limited
resources, create the compelling need for the Agency to develop
a vision that looks beyond our current 5-year planning horizon.
We are developing a vision that takes SSA out 10 years. This
vision, called the ``2010 Vision,'' will allow us to make
better long-term investment decisions and to coordinate
strategies and efforts toward long-term service goals. We can
influence the direction of change only if we have a long-term
vision of where we want to go.
The ``2010 Vision'' will outline our view of service in the
future, what work we will do in 2010 and how we will do it. It
will describe how the Agency will respond to trends in our
external environment that signal continuing rapid changes in
society, particularly in the use of information technology. It
will provide enough detail to shape the Agency's strategic
plan, and drive our action plans and budgets to move us into
the future.
I see a real hunger within the Agency for a framework for
meeting future customer expectations and service demands. The
``2010 Vision'' is being developed with significant input from
our customers, employees in headquarters, the field, the State
agencies, and hearing offices, representatives of unions,
management associations, advisory groups, and experts in such
fields as technology and communications. The 2010 Vision will
be about the Agency of the future--what work we will do, and
how we will do it.
While the 2010 vision will be fully integrated with the
Agency Strategic Plan, it will be developed from the
perspective of service as it should be, given workload,
demographic and technology projections, and the expectations of
our customers. Once the ``2010 Vision'' is incorporated into
the Agency Strategic Plan and our overall direction is aligned
with it, more detailed service planning will flow, including
specific human resource and technology plans which will be
designed to restructure and transition SSA to the requirements
of 2010.
2. Adequate Human Resources
The Social Security Advisory Board emphasized the
importance of adequate human resources in carrying out our
service delivery plan and the need to align our human resources
with our service vision. They concluded that ``the agency
cannot sustain any further reductions, and in fact now faces
staffing shortages in key parts of the organization.'' Further,
the Social Security Advisory Board recommends that SSA's
administrative budget, like its program budget, should be
explicitly excluded from the statutory cap that imposes a limit
on the amount of discretionary Government spending.
To adequately staff our field offices, we need timely and
accurate information about all the work that needs to be
performed and how long it takes to do it right. We are
developing an integrated work measurement system to help us
achieve this objective. By ensuring that all of our work
measurement systems are fully integrated, not only will we be
able to make better field office resource allocation decisions,
we also enhance our ability to provide more detailed
justifications for budget requests, provide better information
to manage the flow of the agency's workloads, and expand our
opportunities to perform the role of steward for the trust
funds.
SSA is fortunate to have an experienced and dedicated
workforce that is highly committed to the Agency's mission and
values. Our workforce represents one of the Agency's greatest
strengths, but also represents one of our greatest challenges.
While the experience and dedication of our workforce is a
major strength, the approaching wave of retirements represents
a significant challenge for us and for all of Government. The
workforce challenges we now face grew out of the significant
downsizing in the l980's that I discussed earlier. While we
have been able to nearly stabilize staffing during the 1990's,
much remains to be done to assure that SSA's workforce of the
future is positioned to meet the workload challenges that lie
ahead.
Last month, I released a report on workforce planning at
the SSA. The report provides an analysis of our most
significant near-term and longer-term workforce issues, and
describes the strategies we plan to put in place to address
them. I have asked that a copy of the report be included in the
hearing record.
SSA's workforce planning efforts have been greatly enhanced
as a result of the Agency's ``Retirement Wave'' study. This was
a comprehensive study of attrition at SSA, focused on
predicting the ``who, where and when'' of retirement losses.
Based on our historical pattern, we developed a model for
projecting how many employees we actually expect to retire in
future years. The study predicts Agency retirements through
2020, and has been remarkably accurate so far. Retirements are
expected to peak in 2007 through 2009, when we expect to lose
4.6 percent of our staff each year. At the same time, SSA will
face unprecedented workloads as the baby-boom generation faces
disabling conditions and ages. To handle these workloads we
must have experienced employees in our key positions.
While we have a number of initiatives underway to enhance
our recruitment and training abilities, replacing staff now and
in the immediate years to come is critical to having an
experienced workforce on hand in 2007 and beyond.
We can mitigate the effect of the projected peak year
retirements by seeking to influence retirement behavior, in
effect ``flattening the wave.'' This means moving retirements
forward in time through early retirement programs and further
minimizing the effect of retirements by approaches such as
hiring Federal retirees to perform limited work. These ``early
outs'' also allow us to adjust imbalance between workload and
overhead functions to provide better customer service.
During the last four years, SSA has offered early
retirement to its employees. About 5 percent of those eligible
for early retirement took it; (524 in 1996, 825 in 1997/1998
and 1,381 in 1999).
These early retirements significantly raised the total
number of retirements and made up an increasing percentage of
the total retirements each year it was offered. In 1999, early
retirements accounted for 50.5 percent of all retirements.
Later this year, we will offer another early out opportunity
and by the close of the fiscal year we expect to hire 2,000 new
employees.
Adequate funding is critical not only to meeting current
workloads, but also to building the workforce of the future. By
accelerating our recruiting and training now we will ensure
that we have a sufficient, well-trained and experienced staff
to provide high-quality, timely service to the public.
As our workforce report indicates, to prepare for the
future we have put into place a number of training and
development initiatives as part of our succession planning
activities. We are also currently in the process of linking our
plans for responding to the pending retirement wave to our
Agency Strategic Plan, and are implementing GAO's human
resources recommendations.
After the release later this year of the 2010 Vision and
our next Agency Strategic Plan, we will produce human resource
plans consistent with our longer-term vision. We are already
beginning analyses and activities that will form the basis for
these plans. Americans can be confident that we have credible
plans for dealing with what's ahead, and that our 21st century
SSA workforce will be equal to the nation's highest
expectations.
3. Service Practices and Strategies
The third area the Board focused on was improvement in our
service delivery practices and strategy. Under our current
five-year strategic plan, one of our five major goals is to
deliver ``world-class'' service. I agree with the Board's
conclusion that we need to develop new strategies and practices
in order to better meet this goal. I consider this to be one of
our major challenges, and one that needs to be addressed
forthrightly.
We know that the first step in providing world-class
customer service is listening to customers--listening to them
tell us what they want and expect from our service, instead of
assuming we already know. While we have done a good job
listening in the past through use of focus groups and surveys,
we know we have some information gaps.
In 1998, we used the expertise and recommendations of an
outside consultant to formulate a new data collection program,
which we call our Market Measurement Program. The Market
Measurement Program establishes a coordinated and comprehensive
``state of the art'' program for collecting data on the needs,
expectations and satisfaction of all our major customer groups.
The Market Measurement Program also provides us with
information from other groups who play a major role in the
success of our service delivery-our employees and major
stakeholders.
Let me tell you some of the things we have learned from our
customers so far. One thing we know is that telephone access
and field office waiting times have a major influence on how
customers perceive satisfaction with all other aspects of
service, like courtesy and knowledge of employees. We also know
that customers are more satisfied if the business they conduct
with us is completed at the initial contact. And we know that
improving the clarity of our notices provides one of the
greatest opportunities for us to increase overall satisfaction.
Because we know these areas are important to customers, we have
Agency initiatives focused on all of them.
We have many initiatives in place and plan to enhance and
expand the way we gather feedback. These are described in a
report I released earlier this week. I have asked that a copy
of the report be included in the hearing record. Because we
recognize that we still can do more to improve, we plan to work
together with the Social Security Advisory Board on an effort
to learn from the private sector, how best to collect and use
customer service information to improve service delivery. We
will use what we learn to help us improve our service to the
public.
While our overall service remains very solid, there are
clearly areas where immediate improvement is needed. I would
like to highlight three areas the Social Security Advisory
Board identified and which I agree need more attention--
strengthening the operation of disability related services,
using new technologies in conducting our work, and
strengthening the 800 number and the field offices.
Disability Program
One major area in need of improvement relates to the
administration of our disability program. In March 1999, I
issued a report entitled, ``Social Security and Supplemental
Security Income Disability Programs: Managing for Today,
Planning for Tomorrow.'' This report is a comprehensive plan to
improve the management of the disability programs and includes
decisions on aspects of disability redesign, improvements in
the hearings process, and enhancing return to work. It also
addresses improving information technology, quality assurance
and integrity, and research and studies to build a knowledge
base for the future. I have asked that a copy of this report be
included in the hearing record.
Over the last few years, the Agency has embarked on an
ambitious series of initiatives to improve the administration
of the DI and SSI programs. In particular, SSA devoted
considerable time and energy to its Disability Redesign Plan.
The plan outlined a vision of a disability process designed to
be more accurate, timely, and ``user-friendly.'' Tests of
redesign concepts have shown the potential for improving
customer service by focusing more attention at the initial
claims level to improve quality, reduce hurdles and increase
customer interaction--all concepts that epitomize the
principles and goals of the National Partnership for
Reinventing Government (NPR). A major strategy of the NPR is to
achieve outcomes that balance business results, customer
satisfaction and employee satisfaction. SSA is committed to
that strategy, and in that spirit, the Disability Redesign
project has moved from ``proof of concept'' tests to prototypes
in 10 States.
SSA is prototyping changes that will improve the disability
process to ensure that decisions are made as accurately as
possible, that those who should be paid are paid as early as
possible, and that the adjudication process is consistent
throughout. Beginning in October 1999, disability claims filed
with SSA were decided using a new disability process in
prototype locations. Changes include improvements in
accountability for the decision making process and more
effective use of physician and non-physician resources,
requirements for DDS employees to explain how they made the
disability determinations, increased opportunities for
claimants to interact with the adjudicator and elimination of
the reconsideration step. These are dramatic changes to the way
we have been adjudicating initial disability claims, and to
date, we have been pleased with the outcomes. Nevertheless,
imperfections in the new process exist, and we continue to make
refinements and adjustments. Prototype evaluation results are
expected later this year.
We are also testing a Disability Claims Manager (DCM)
process in which we have combined the functions of the claims
representatives in the SSA field office with the functions of
the disability examiner in the DDS. The DCM provides a single
point of contact for the disability customer by conducting the
interview, developing the case and making the disability
determination.
While the focus on initial claims is on improving the
quality--of decisions, the focus of changes in the hearings and
appeals process is on processing times. The current hearing
process is based on a model developed years ago that served SSA
well as long as receipts were stable and SSA could add
resources if necessary. However, with a sharp increase in
appeals (over 100% from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s), SSA
found that the current process was not flexible enough to
handle the workload. The backlogs grew and processing times
climbed.
In August 1999, I issued a Hearing Process Improvement Plan
(HPI). The goals of HPI are to reduce processing times,
increase productivity and provide better overall service to the
public. The HPI process will also give us the flexibility we
need to handle the increase in receipts that are expected as
the baby boomers continue to age. As of January 2000, 37
hearing offices, generally corresponding to the 10 prototype
States, have been selected to process cases under the new
procedures. About half the remaining offices will implement HPI
beginning in October 2000, with the balance starting in January
2001. Our ultimate goal is to take Social Security hearing
processing times down from 365 days, the level in 1998, to 180
days in 2002. I am pleased to report that we are well on our
way toward addressing this goal. At the close of January of
this year our average processing time was just over 260 days.
The Appeals Council provides the final level of
administrative review for claims under the Social Security Act.
The Appeals Council is also responsible for overseeing the
preparation of the administrative record filed in Federal court
proceedings and for initiating further administrative actions
as required by those court proceedings. As a result of its
burgeoning workloads, processing times at the Appeals Council
have reached unacceptably high levels.
We have just released the Appeals Council Process
Improvement Plan (ACPI) which focuses on reducing pending
workloads and processing times in the near term and developing
an operational structure that can continue to deliver high-
quality, timely and efficient case processing for the long
term.
Our efforts to strengthen the disability adjudication
process are bearing real fruit. For those who go through all of
the adjudicative steps processing times have dropped
significantly, and further progress will be made in the future.
The following chart shows projected processing time before and
after implementation of the Disability Management plan,
including additional improvements projected from the ACPI.
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
Our actions in this area are clearly improving customer
service. But more improvements will be needed to meet the
challenges of the aging baby boomers. We will need to develop
further steps to improve the Disability adjudication process
once our ``2010 Vision'' is complete. The vision will guide us
toward a longer term approach to making the process the best it
can be.
Emerging Technologies
A second area of emphasis for improving service delivery is
the use of emerging technologies. Over the last few years, SSA
has been successful in using technology to improve the services
we offer to the American public. In the 1990s, technology
allowed us to offer enhanced nationwide 800 number service,
improve the timeliness and quality of the actions we take, and
provide better overall service to the public.
We are now nearing the completion of our Intelligent
Workstation Local Area Network (IWS/LAN) initiative that is
putting a networked personal computer on every front-line
employee's desk. We are currently planning to upgrade some
software applications that will result in significant
improvement in our service delivery. The Customer Help and
Information Program is a decision-support system that our
teleservice representatives use to ensure we give accurate
answers and take appropriate actions. Our Processing Centers
are beginning to use a new Paperless System that makes a
client's record available at the employee's fingertips and
eliminates the cumbersome routing and maintenance of paper
folders. And, we are piloting new uses for this IWS/LAN
platform that can significantly improve the services we offer
to our customers with disabilities.
As we move into the 21st century, the Internet has become a
central business channel for America. Internet commerce has
become mainstream and Americans are increasingly asking the
public sector to provide electronic Government services. In
response, SSA is in the planning stages of developing a full
range of Internet services for the general public and our
business partners. As electronic services expand, we are fully
committed to prudent authentication and security technologies
to protect the privacy of the information with which we are
entrusted.
At SSA, our award-winning Social Security Online Web site
has been in place since May 1994. Last year almost 10 million
customers visited our site, double from the year before. Today,
our web site is primarily informational, providing a variety of
forms, pamphlets, news, benefit information, research and
statistics. We will continue to add informational services.
Last month, we began issuing an electronic newsletter called E-
News that covers a variety of Social Security issues. However,
our online surveys show that our customers want a much broader
range of electronic services. To meet this demand, we will be
developing services that meet the needs of particular customer
segments. We are continuing to examine innovative ways to use
the Internet to improve service to the public.
At the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), we developed
and tested the use of video teleconferencing technology to
conduct hearings with claimants, representatives or expert
witnesses who are located somewhere other than a hearing
office. Video teleconference hearings not only reduce travel to
remote sites, they also make it possible to quickly shift
workload from one office to another to provide faster service.
There are numerous other applications we are exploring,
including claimant conferences and serving Native Americans on
reservations.
While we believe that we are making good use of current
technology we recognize that the future holds even greater
promises. As part of the development of our ``2010 Vision'' we
will be consulting with experts in the field who will help us
assess how emerging technologies can play a much stronger role
in our service delivery structure. Following publication of the
``Vision'' we will be developing information technology plans
consistent with our long-term service vision.
800 Number and Field Offices
The third area of focus for improving service delivery
relates to improvements in our field activities including our
field office, 800 number and processing centers. Overall, while
service is solid, there are real stresses in all three. In
1999, we handled nearly 60 million calls over our 800 number
and our access rate exceeded our goal of answering 95 percent
of the calls within 5 minutes. Perhaps even more important, 80
percent of customers we surveyed were satisfied overall with
the service that they received. Seventy-five percent of our
customers also told us that their transaction was competed on
the first call and 90 percent of our 800 number customers were
pleased with the level of courtesy they received. And finally,
our quality assessment reports show that our accuracy rate on
questions concerning payments is over 95 percent.
Although those numbers indicate good service overall,
customer expectations for service continue to rise. There is
clearly room for improvement and the Agency is taking steps to
improve service. For example, to improve ease of access, we are
increasing the number of people available to answer calls and
we are improving our technological infrastructure. On the
personnel side, we have increased the tour-of-duty for part-
time Teleservice Representatives, established call-answering
positions in the Program Service Centers, and established a
cadre of customer service technicians to answer calls in the
Wilkes-Barre Data Operations Center. On the infrastructure
side, we are procuring what is considered to be the most
sophisticated call routing software available in the industry.
We are also acquiring new call handling equipment and new
technology to assist with the accurate forecasting of calls to
increase the efficiency of our operations. We will need to
strengthen the training of our Teleservice Representatives to
maintain and improve their high level of knowledge and their
skill in responding to the public.
While public demand for telephone service has been
increasing, TSC staff alone have not been able to handle the
increasing call volumes, and additional resources from other
Agency components have been needed to assist with answering
national 800 number calls on busy days. For example, on days
when heavy call volumes are anticipated, Program Service Center
(PSC) and Office of Central Operations (OCO) personnel, known
as SPIKEs, are brought on the phones to supplement TSC call
answering resources. Currently, the national SPIKE cadre is
comprised of approximately 3,200 PSC and OCO employees. SPIKE
employees handled 24.6 percent of the National 800 Number
Network calls in FY 1999.
When SPIKE employees answer National 800 Number Network
calls, it affects PSC pending workloads. To reduce this impact,
a number of short-term initiatives have been developed to
expand the National 800 Number Network call answering capacity
in a manner that will provide PSC employees more time to work
on pending workloads, without sacrificing the level of service
provided to the public.
Because of constrained resources and the need to address
PSC backlogs we have had to lower our access goal from 95
percent of callers who reach us within five minutes to 92
percent. While additional resources would help significantly in
improving access, part of what we must do with the 800 number
involves working more efficiently and utilizing the best
industry practices. We will be consulting with the private
sector to determine whether our customer service standards
should be strengthened and how to make further improvements.
One issue we are considering is whether extending the hours of
service provided by the 800 number is economically feasible and
beneficial to our customers.
Our 1300 field offices have been the center of our service
delivery system since the creation of the program and I believe
they will be the center of our service delivery system in the
future. Most customer contacts as well as most of our Agency
integrity activities take place in our field offices.
While customer satisfaction in our field offices remain
high and the commitment of our workforce to customer service
goals remains high, the price of that service is also high. Our
employee surveys show that our field office employees are
experiencing increasing stress in handling the workloads.
Waiting times in offices, particularly in urban areas are
increasing. The sizable reduction in field office staff in the
1980's led to few new hires, and our field office workforce is
aging. Fifteen years ago, the average age of our field employee
was 39 years, while today the average age is 46.
To better meet the short-term challenges in our field
office, the agency has instituted a number of important steps.
The most important has been hiring new employees to ensure that
our workforce is strong in the future. A sizable majority of
new hires in FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001 have been and will
continue to be in our field offices. We are also exploring ways
to strengthen our urban offices, where waiting times are
longer. And our automation improvements have helped and will
continue to help relieve some administrative burdens. In
addition, the planned improvements in our workload measurement
system will help us make better resource allocations.
It is clear that some of the field office workloads,
particularly in the retirement programs, will be eased as
further automation and Internet improvements are implemented. A
key feature of the 2010 vision is to articulate the roles and
responsibilities of our field offices and our 800 number in the
new technological era. It is clear to me that our field
workforce in the future will need higher level of skills to
handle increasingly complex work assignments, such as return to
work and program integrity.
4. Longstanding Institutional Problems
The fourth area highlighted by the Social Security Advisory
Board relates to institutional improvements to improve the
Agency's public service. The Board concluded that it is
essential for the agency to find ways to promote more
discussion of problems, strengthen communication between SSA's
headquarters and operations in the field, and promote far
better teamwork.
Due to the inherent complexities and size of our programs,
we understand that over time barriers developed within our
organizational structure. While these issues are inherent in
any large organization, we need to do all we can overcome
barriers and increase communication. The agency needs to extend
its ongoing dialogue between management and employees,
headquarters and field offices, and our hearing offices and
State agencies. To this end we have established quarterly
workload meeting to talk through issues. And the development of
our ``2010 Vision'' involves representation throughout the
Agency.
Employee surveys also indicate that there is a need for
better communication between management in Headquarters and
employees who work in the field and throughout all of SSA. I am
committed to continue to work to strengthen lines of
communications and to focus on fostering open feedback for all
levels of the organization. I am encouraged by survey results,
which indicate that employees consider their work important to
SSA's mission. The survey results also make it clear that much
needs to be done to relieve everyday stresses that employees
feel as a result of the resource constraints we face.
We are also working in partnership and communicating well
with the unions that represent our employees. We have
established more than 60 Partnership Councils, at all levels of
the Agency, with the American Federation of Government
Employees (AFGE). The purpose of these partnership councils is
to help improve SSA's efficiency and effectiveness so that we
can better serve customer needs. Through partnership, we have
begun to shift the focus of the labor-management relationship
from adversarial to one of cooperation and mutual respect.
I also know that it is essential that our ``2010 Vision''
becomes part of the culture of SSA. The entire agency must be
aligned with the 2010 vision. To meet this goal, we must
communicate this vision throughout SSA, and put practices into
place to steer the agency toward it. This means integrating the
vision into our business processes, and our resource requests.
I realize that we face an enormous challenge in attempting to
achieve this alignment within such a large organization, but I
am aiming high. Our service delivery structure, our human
resources, our technology and our fiscal resources need to come
into alignment with the vision.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate Congress' lead in holding these
hearings focusing on our service delivery challenges. While the
Social Security Administration has a long history of solid and
reliable service delivery, we are experiencing significant
strains on our ability to continue to deliver the quality of
service that Americans have come to expect. We will be
challenged to meet the growing demands of the coming retirement
of the Baby Boom generation and many of our own employees, as
well as enhancing the program integrity and dealing with
constrained resources.
I am pleased to tell you we are moving on many fronts to
meet the challenges of the future. We are developing a long-
term service vision to take account of how our customers want
to receive service in light of changing needs and changing
technology. We are engaged in short and long term human
resource planning. We are reviewing and where necessary
revising our service practices and strategies and we are
addressing longstanding institutional problems. We recognize
that we need to continue to refine our plans through
consultations with Congress, the Advisory Board and experts
across the country.
It is clear to me that adequate resources are a critical
part of our ability to deal with the challenges we face. SSA
cannot do its job with fewer and fewer resources when at the
same time more and more Americans will be seeking our services.
Mr. Chairman, this Subcommittee has always supported us in the
past and I look forward to your continued support in the
future.
[Attachments are being retained in the Committee Files.]
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Matsui?
Mr. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The fiscal year 2000 budget, Mr. Apfel, if I recall
correctly here--your request for 2000 was $6.9 billion, and
that was actually some $200 million over the President's actual
recommendation. And then the Congress appropriated $6.5, some
$400 million below your original request and some $200 million
below the President's request. That is the fiscal year 2000
budget.
The fiscal year 2001 budget is pending obviously. My
understanding on the budget resolution is that it is probably
ready to go next week from the Budget Committee. And from what
I understand, there would be a reduction below the current
fiscal year 2001 of $1.2 billion. Is that correct?
Mr. Apfel. Well, I believe that there is an estimate of a
10-percent across-the-board cut from the President's request.
It would be $1.4 billion below the Commissioner's budget
request and $1.2 billion below the President's budget request
if it is assumed that the action taken in the end is a 10-
percent across-the-board cut.
Mr. Matsui. So it is based on a 10-percent across-the-board
cut?
Mr. Apfel. That is the assumption.
Mr. Matsui. Should that happen, what would be the situation
in terms of your actual work-years? Would there be a
significant reduction, and would you be required to furlough
some of the Social Security Administration employees?
Mr. Apfel. Mr. Matsui, if I could first address 2000 and
then 2001, when all was said and done, after all the actions
that were done, we did lose money. Our full requests were not
provided and we had to lower the service commitments that we
had made on a series of activities--the 800 number, our
redeterminations, several other areas. We had to actually lower
our performance requirements.
If the Social Security Administration did lose somewhere
between $1.2 and $1.4 billion, it would effect somewhere in the
vicinity of 16,000 of our work-years. It would mean an
immediate hiring freeze and probably a furlough of about 45
workdays. Now, that would have a sizable effect on all of our
work, every bit of our work.
There would probably be somewhere in the vicinity of 1,000
fewer work-years on our 800 number, which would lead to the
phones being busy for probably half the time. There would be
probably 3,000 fewer work-years for our redetermination work,
which is part of our program integrity activities, because we
would want to be handling as many people coming in for
applications as possible. So the backlogs would be dramatic in
our post-entitlements and in our program integrity activities.
And, third, the disability area would be significantly
affected, probably somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000 work-
years since so much of our work is disability-related. That
would mean very long waiting times for the disability area,
particularly at the front end. It wouldn't be quite as drastic
at the hearings level because not as many cases would be
leaving the State disability systems. So the impact would be
major and very detrimental to the American public.
Mr. Matsui. Would this have an impact in terms of your
long-term planning which you referred to in your statement
regarding the disparity between the fact that your workforce is
aging and that the workload will increase significantly over
the next 20, 30 years? Where would you find your projected
savings? I know the day-to-day, but would this impact some of
the long-term planning?
Mr. Apfel. Well, if funding for the Social Security
Administration were going to be significantly reduced for the
long term, it would have a very significant detrimental effect
on our ability to provide service. It would take a dramatic
rethinking about what our service levels could be for the long
term.
One of the challenges that we face includes serious short-
term issues. But in the long term, given those increases in the
retirement wave and the increasing onset of disability for baby
boomers, inadequate funding would have a very significant
detrimental effect on SSA services and would certainly cause, I
think it is fair to say, our long-term planning effort to be
turned on its head.
Mr. Matsui. Thank you. My time is expired. Thank you.
Chairman Shaw. We have been working with the administration
and the appropriators in trying to be sure that we do
sufficiently fund the Social Security Administration. I think
that is something that all of us on both sides of the aisle are
very concerned about.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me carry on with that. I know you have established
performance measures. When was the last time you compared your
performance measures with world-class organizations, as the
President has asked you to do?
Mr. Apfel. Well, our ongoing market measurement program
system, which we just released a report on this week, is based
upon a whole new way of trying to assess our customers'
information, and we have done quite a bit of added customer
service survey information.
I would point out that the lessons that we have learned
from that are that people want to be served as quickly as
possible. They want to be able to get served the first time
they come into our offices or call us on the 800 number, if we
can complete those actions.
What we also plan on doing, Mr. Johnson, is to convene a
group of private sector experts to talk about how customer
satisfaction is measured to see what we could do to make
further improvements in our system.
Mr. Johnson. Well, you are doing a lot of messing around, I
guess I could call it, but to what degree are you consulting
with outside technology experts to try to improve your
programs?
Mr. Apfel. Outside technology experts?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Apfel. Actually, I can't agree about messing around,
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Well, it seems to me from your answer that you
are doing a lot of surveying. What are you doing with the
results, and how are you making changes in your programs to be
more efficient and to deliver your product to the people?
Mr. Apfel. Let me give you two or three examples, sir,
because I think it is very important. What we have heard from
our customers is they want to be served quickly. They want to
be served when they first call us or go into our field offices
and to have that transaction be completed the first time that
they come in.
We have also heard from our customers that our notices
create a lot of confusion and that clarifying notices is a very
important activity. We have also heard from our customers--
Mr. Johnson. Well, I am told, if I can interrupt you for a
moment, that a lot of your notices, for example, come out of
Baltimore and they aren't copied to your regional offices. And
so employees go in and don't know who is where or in other
words, who is on first.
Mr. Apfel. That is a key issue that I believe that we are
now in the process of addressing, so that our field employees
and our 800 number employees can get through the computer any
notice that was sent to an individual pulled up on their
computer screen.
Up until recently, if an individual came in or called us
and said, I got this letter our employees would say, well, can
you show or read me the letter, because they wouldn't have the
information. One of our major objectives is to find ways to
both improve the notices, and the ability of our field and 800
number workers to be able to access immediately on their
computer screens what notice information individuals have
received so that they can address those concerns.
Mr. Johnson. Well, are they all trained to do that now?
Mr. Apfel. Well, I think--
Mr. Johnson. We have been doing that in Congress for 5
years.
Mr. Apfel. I think that we have a remarkable workforce. Is
there need for more training? Yes, and actually there was a
national survey done at the Federal level of employee
satisfaction, and Social Security shows up higher on training
than the other Federal agencies. But it is still too low, in my
opinion. We need to do more training to ensure that our
employees have the right skills.
Mr. Johnson. Well, that gets back to the question that I
originally asked you. Are you using any outside technology
experts to try to improve your system or are you just doing it
in-house?
Mr. Apfel. In two ways, we are reaching to the private
sector. Through our 2010 Vision, trying to establish our long-
term service vision, we are talking to technology experts about
what technology changes are going to be coming in the future so
that we can build that into our long-term vision of what we
need as an agency.
And, second, this summer I intend to convene a group of
private sector experts on measurement to try to find ways that
we can improve our system. I think we have made excellent
improvements to our system, but we can do better. We can learn
more from the private sector and that is my goal, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I appreciate that. I think you are
right. You know, the private sector seems to know how to do it
better, and for some reason the Government can't emulate them
in every case and I think it is incumbent upon us to take a
look at what is going on in the private sector. There is no
pride in authorship is what I am trying to say.
Mr. Apfel. There is not, Mr. Johnson. It is clear that we
can learn more lessons than we have. It is also clear that
resources are going to be part of our equation, ensuring that
we have the resources that are necessary to build the systems
that we are going to need, and to ensure that our workforce has
the training and the capabilities that they need to provide
service to the public.
Part of the answer will be resources, part will be dealing
with the private sector about helping us find better ways to do
activities, and part will be ultimately the commitment that we
have with this committee to help us get our job done.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shaw. Commissioner, as a follow-up on Sam's
question with regard to the letter that has been written, at
what point would somebody be able to come into a field office,
say, in Fort Lauderdale and they would have a copy of whatever
letter that this person has?
Mr. Apfel. On the screen?
Chairman Shaw. Yes, sir.
Mr. Apfel. In other words, whether the screen will have
that actual notice?
Chairman Shaw. When is that going to happen?
Mr. Apfel. With our chip and other technology improvements
that are onstream, I am going to have to get back to you as to
how many months that is going to be. Some steps are completed,
and others will be done in the near term. This is not in the
long term, this is very much in the near term, and I will
provide a specific date for the record.
Chairman Shaw. All right, if you would. Within a year? Is
that--
Mr. Apfel. That is our goal. I think on many of the
notices, are already there, but I will have to get you the
actual date.
Chairman Shaw. We would appreciate that for the record.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
The Online Notice Retrieval System, which was first
available for testing in May 1998, was fully implemented
throughout the Social Security Administration in November 1998.
This system, as tested and implemented, allows field office and
teleservice center employees access to virtually all Social
Security and Supplemental Security Income notices created by
SSA systems.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Levin?
Mr. Levin. Welcome.
Mr. Apfel. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. The agency has received such good grades on your
report card, I hesitate a bit to ask questions. But since we
always ask questions of our kids even if they receive As or
whatever, let me ask you a few questions, and it most relates
to the appeals process because in our office, as we handle
Social Security matters, there seem to be more problems in that
area than any other.
And I am not sure I have the procedures down as well as I
should, but like one case--there were several that were given
to me--a case was filed 2-25-97 and denied 1-21-98, a
disability case. It has been at the Appeals Council since the
2nd of February, 1998, so that would be 2 years-plus, right?
Mr. Apfel. Yes.
Mr. Levin. Now, is that somewhat typical? I mean, is there
a real problem?
Mr. Apfel. I believe that the biggest problem that faced
the Social Security Administration over the past decade has
been in the area of disability adjudication. If I could provide
background for a moment and then go specifically to the Appeals
Council, I will.
First, look at Social Security staffing and our workloads.
Given the increase in disability cases, there was a significant
shift within Social Security over the course of the last 10 to
15 years in the amount of workforce devoted to both disability
adjudication and to appeals. The backlogs grew very
significantly, and when I became Commissioner SSA had what I
believe was an intolerable situation--we needed to do more to
expedite these appeals, both at the Appeals Council level, at
the administrative law judge level, and really at the DDS
level, the State disability determination level, as well.
As my testimony indicates, the Appeals Council delays had
grown to an average of about 460 days. We have now developed
concrete, solid plans for strengthening the State disability
structure, the administrative law judge structure through our
hearings process improvement, and just this week we released
our Appeals Council improvement plan.
It is our goal, by 2002, to bring that 460 days down to 160
days, and by 2003 to get it down another month below that, back
into the area that I believe is appropriate service. That has
taken a whole series of steps that are now being implemented,
both by shifting resources and adding resources--part of my
budget request for 2001 is for some added resources for this
activity. Some excellent steps are being taken by our managers
to take on some of the actual case activities. There are a
series of steps that will significantly drive down that number.
I believe we are seeing real improvement in the disability
area. There is a long way to go, but we have taken some very
important steps. This is the area that has dominated a lot of
my time as Commissioner, and will for many years into the
future. But I believe we are on the right path both in the
appeals area, the administrative law judge area, and in the
disability determination area at the State level.
Mr. Levin. Well, so let me finish by asking you, Mr. Matsui
discussed with you the budget, so what are the implications for
your plans from possible actions and potential reductions in
the budget? I mean, what happens if we make some major cuts?
Mr. Apfel. If there are sizable reductions, we will not be
able to do the performance improvements that we have committed
to in our service plan. That would be true in the short term
and it would certainly be true in the long term.
Mr. Levin. And very much related to the appeals process, to
the improvement in the appeals?
Mr. Apfel. I believe we could still move forward on the
improvements that are underway, but if we had a sizable
reduction and weren't hiring staff, we would have fewer people
to actually handle the cases at the State level; fewer staff to
help the administrative law judges, and fewer administrative
law judges, fewer staff at the Appeals Council as well. It
would certainly have an effect on our ability to be able to
shorten our processing times significantly.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Hayworth?
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Apfel,
thanks for stopping by to visit with us. Let's continue to
pursue the notion of performance improvements--as my colleague
from Michigan pointed out, a 2-year period of time on an
appeals process.
As you talk about both long-term and short-term improvement
of performance for Social Security participants, I want to
explore one area that I guess will come up with other panels,
too, but let me just ask you briefly how many employees of the
Social Security Administration work full-time on union
activities?
Mr. Apfel. I will have to provide that number for the
record. The Social Security Administration has a long history,
as the Federal Government does, of union activities, of unions
being involved in partnership activities and collective
bargaining arrangements, and I will provide the specific
number. I would point out, sir, that with the exception of last
year when we were negotiating the new national agreement, our
official hours, the amount of time spent by our collective
bargaining activities and our official union time, has declined
over the last several years.
Mr. Hayworth. Well, I would be very happy to also see, if I
could request if you could provide for me in writing, in a
timely fashion--and I would hope by this time next week would
not be too excessive to ask for this--I would like to know the
number of employees for the Social Security Administration who
work full-time on union activities, the number of employees who
work part-time on union activities.
[The information of follows:]
In fiscal year 1999, 134 individuals worked full time on
union activities, which equates to 0.268 percent of the
represented workforce.
Also in fiscal year 1999, 1,605 individuals used official
time for union activities on a part-time basis. To put the
number of part-time representatives in perspective, it should
be noted that SSA is a complex organization in terms of its
service delivery structure. There are over 1,300 field offices,
140 hearing offices, 7 large processing centers, 37 teleservice
centers, 10 regional offices and a large number of components
in headquarters. Designating union representatives in many of
these sites or within individual work units helps promote the
resolution of issues at the lowest possible organizational
level. Many of these 1,605 individuals spend a very limited
amount of time on union activities.
Mr. Hayworth. And as you point out a longstanding
tradition, I must also point out, in fairness to you, sir--and
perhaps some of the same folks join us today--last Congress
when we held a hearing of this type, I was saddened and very
disappointed to learn that some employees with certain job
titles had not worked a case in a period of years, some in
excess of an entire decade.
So with that going on, how do you think that affects worker
activity and dealing with the backlog of cases and the growing
number of recipients?
Mr. Apfel. Mr. Hayworth, I believe that labor activities at
the Federal level are a central, important activity that all
organizations are involved with. And also--
Mr. Hayworth. Do they supersede job descriptions and
delivering services to the American people, Commissioner?
Mr. Apfel. Mr. Hayworth, if there is an individual who is
one hundred-percent on union official time, then that
individual is not involved in case work. That is very
consistent with the way it is throughout all of the Federal
Government and it is--
Mr. Hayworth. Well, then maybe you can clear this up for
me. Do they have job titles that would imply they deal with
case work?
Mr. Apfel. They are in certain GS grade levels, yes.
Mr. Hayworth. Well, then perhaps we ought to have truth in
labeling when it comes to job descriptions. Perhaps we should
designate folks as full-time, taxpayer-funded shop stewards who
are not there to serve the taxpayers, but instead to deal with
the collective bargaining process. Would that be a helpful
measure to take?
Mr. Apfel. Mr. Hayworth, I believe--
Mr. Hayworth. Well, you are saying that apparently the
primacy of the union relationship and collective bargaining is
sacrosanct and, in fact, supersedes the job that these people
have to deliver to the recipients of the Social Security
Administration. And I have got to tell you this morning I find
that shocking, but if that, in fact, is the philosophy,
Commissioner, then let's bring it out in the open and let's
have truth in labeling and let's label these folks shop
stewards who are paid by the taxpayer to do nothing but engage
in union activities.
Mr. Apfel. Well, I can point out also, sir, that engaging
in union activities has helped us significantly improve
customer service.
Mr. Hayworth. Well, I would like to see that quantified.
Mr. Apfel. And I will--
Mr. Hayworth. And in one week's time, I would like to see
the figures that you can send. Even when we get stuff from the
shop stewards telling us how we had better take all their
benefits off budget, probably using taxpayer dollars to send us
this propaganda, I would you to quantify for me the benefits of
all this union activity on Government time, and explain to us
all how that is being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.
In fact, Mr. Commissioner, when I get four calls to my
office from Social Security beneficiaries who say, can you help
us, the SSA has declared us dead, I would you to reconcile how
a lively union movement helps folks who are declared death when
they are very much alive and kicking, and we have to intervene
to try and get their benefits back. Maybe, I guess, we can
establish a lifeline hotline or something to help these folks.
When you come here on one hand and talk about productivity
and falling behind and the baby boomers, and on the other hand
you blissfully disregard the notion of full-time employees with
titles where they are supposed to be helping the American
people, when they are, in fact, shop stewards, maybe we ought
to just have truth in labeling.
I thank you for your time.
Chairman Shaw. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Apfel. I would like to--
Chairman Shaw. If the Commissioner wants to reply, I would
certainly allow him to do so.
Mr. Apfel. I would, Mr. Chairman. I would like to also
include in the record our partnership evaluation which shows
the hundreds of activities that our partnership activities with
labor have helped improve customer service through the Social
Security Administration.
[The ``Evaluation and Partnership'' report is being
retained in the Committee files.]
I would also like to point out that the Labor Management
Relation Act has protected union representation in the public
sector through Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford,
throughout the entire last three decades. I think these are
important activities that are conducted, and they help us
provide service to the American public. I will provide that for
the record, sir.
Mr. Hayworth. Great.
[The information follows:]
I would also like to provide some additional background
information on labor-management relations in the Federal
sector. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy issued an Executive
Order that established a framework for Federal agencies to
bargain with unions over working conditions and personnel
practices. This Executive Order, along with a series of
subsequent Executive Orders, was codified in the Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978, which established official time as an
integral part of Federal labor-management relations and the
Federal sector collective bargaining process.
During the Reagan Administration, the first consolidated
collective bargaining agreement between the Social Security
Administration (SSA) and the American Federation of Government
Employees, which recognized Agency payment of official time
from both the trust funds and general revenues, was signed by
then Commissioner of Social Security John A. Svahn on June 11,
1982. Official time granted to union representatives to engage
in activities on behalf of the union is deemed to be Agency
work. However, official time may not be used for internal union
business. SSA, like other Federal agencies and many firms in
the private sector, pays for approved time spent by its
employees on official time.
Partnership has helped us reduce the high costs associated
with protracted litigation of grievances. For example, we have
seen a reduction in litigation, specifically unfair labor
practice charges from 467 in FY 1990 to 209 charges in FY 1995.
The General Accounting Office previously estimated the cost to
the Federal Government to fully process one unfair labor
practice as in excess of $28,000, so that the reduction
represents a potential savings of over $7 million per year.
This trend in reduced unfair labor practices has continued.
There were 167 such charges filed in 1999, significantly less
than the 467 in 1990.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Cardin?
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me
also point in response to my friend's comments that Government
workers, SSA workers, do not enjoy the same labor rights as
private sector employment. And the type of progress that we
have been able to make at SSA over the last several decades
with significant reduction in the number of employees and a
significant increase in the amount of workload, we have been
able to make that progress because of the cooperative spirit
between labor and management.
So I think it is clearly in the taxpayers' interests that
we protect the rights of workers at SSA, and part of that is
workers being able to have their representatives able to work
with management in a cooperative way. It has worked very well
at SSA and I am very pleased that we are able to provide that
type of support to our employees.
Mr. Chairman, let me also point out--first, Mr. Apfel, let
me congratulate you, as Mr. Levin indicated, on the high grades
that you have received on the Government performance projects
report card, receiving an A last year. We are very proud of
that.
As you know, I represent Baltimore, and I get to SSA
probably more than any of the other members of the subcommittee
and have a chance to talk to the employees and management on a
rather frequent basis. And I must tell you I am concerned. I am
concerned by the increased workload and the reduction in the
workforce.
In this budget, fiscal year 2000 budget, you are receiving
hundreds of millions of dollars less than you requested that
you thought was necessary in order to be able to continue to
make the progress on the types of services that our
constituents expect. They expect when they call the 800 number
it is going to answer. You get over 1 million inquiries by
phone a week at SSA. That is a large volume increase, and it is
increasing at all times. The number of SSA beneficiaries is
increasing. And we put new responsibilities by passing
legislation here that creates new work on SSA.
So, Chairman Shaw, I agree with your point, and that is
this committee, on a bipartisan basis, has supported the type
of administrative support that you need. Unfortunately, that
hasn't been carried out by the appropriators. Consistently, the
appropriators have appropriated less than I think what we
believe is necessary for you to make the type of progress on
carrying out the responsibilities of the agency.
I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to be more
aggressive. I know next week we are going to be considering a
supplemental appropriations bill. I am disappointed that there
isn't at least a discussion about SSA receiving some of that
money because I don't think you have enough money in this
year's budget to carry out the type of progress that we would
like to see at SSA.
And I guess what concerns me, our district offices are
going to start to receive more complaints. We are going to
start to hear from our constituents who are going to be upset
with not being able to get the type of information that they
expect on the progress that has been made to get their
disability determinations heard, to get all the information
that comes through on a regular basis to our office when it is
not done on time. And we are going to start expecting more and
more of you when, in reality, it is our fault, Congress' fault,
not the agency's fault, because we are not providing the
resources necessary for you to be able to do the job.
So I guess my question to you is I really would like to
have your observation. You seem to be very diplomatic in the
way that you approach this hearing, but I would really like to
have your assessment of the current year's budget as to whether
we are going to be able to continue to make progress in the
type of consumer activities that my constituents depend upon in
your agency, whether it is disability determinations or whether
it is just getting information over the 1-800 number, without
providing more support.
The number of your employees has actually been reduced at a
greater level than the overall Government level, and you are
one of the agencies that has grown dramatically in your
caseload. We all know that. We know the problems of Social
Security, the demographic changes of our country. So I would
appreciate your observations as to your budget.
Mr. Apfel. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. I would point out that
the Appropriations Committee has tried hard also to support the
Social Security Administration, but it also faces large budget
caps which make it very hard to fund all of the activities that
the Committee would like. And I know that we have some good-
faith discussions over in Appropriations as well, but caps have
led to reductions.
As you are aware, Mr. Cardin, I personally have supported
scoring Social Security administrative costs outside of the
budget caps, and I still believe that is the right thing to do.
But if we look toward 2001, my budget request calls for over an
8-percent increase. It is a sizable increase. The President's
budget calls for a 5-percent increase, so those are sizable
amounts of resources.
I believe we are going to need that in the short term to be
able to continue to provide quality service to the American
public. What we have got to be able to do is ensure resources
and change. The Social Security program has changed in the
course of its 65-year history to meet new needs. I believe we
need to change, too.
We need to deal with new technologies. We need to be able
to touch the American people in the way they want to be touched
through our 800 number or through our field office structure,
through changing technologies. It is clear to me that unless
resources are adequate in the year 2001, it will be very hard
to improve service through our 800 number, to use an example,
and the stresses that are felt now in field offices will grow.
I have a workforce--and I said this in my written
testimony--my greatest pride as Commissioner of Social Security
is the commitment of Social Security employees to providing
service to the American public. They try very, very hard, and I
would just urge everyone to go to their field offices and just
say, how hard are you working out there? I think you are going
to hear a tremendous commitment to providing service to the
American public, and the workloads are very, very major.
With adequate resources--and in my case that would be
restoring some staffing levels in our field structure and 800
number structure--we can provide better service. But ultimately
it is not only about money; it is also about change. We have
got to be able to plan for the future and take the steps that
are necessary to meet those changing needs of the American
public. So it is resources, and it is also change, and I
believe I start off with a base that provides me with an
enormous amount of pride. Our workforce goes the extra mile
each and every day, and we will continue--at whatever level of
resources we receive--we will continue to do whatever we can
for the American public.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. McCrery?
Mr. McCrery. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Apfel, do you know how many total employees are in the
Social Security Administration?
Mr. Apfel. Counting the State disability determination
system, about 80,000.
Mr. McCrery. Eighty thousand?
Mr. Apfel. That is counting the States. Without the States,
about 65,000.
Mr. McCrery. And do you know how that compares to the total
workforce, say, 5 years ago?
Mr. Apfel. Five years ago?
Mr. McCrery. Four years ago, ten years ago.
Mr. Apfel. I would say over the course of the last 5 years,
the workforce has come down in the last 5, 6 years, about 2 or
3 percent. We have been largely exempted from the major
downsizing that has taken place throughout the Federal
establishment through the last 5 and 6 years because of our
service responsibilities. There have been some reductions.
Our sizable reductions took place really back in the 1980s,
and they were major. Over the last few years, we have been
largely exempted from that, and I will provide a statement for
the record that shows both our workforce in, say, 1993 and
where it is now. And my written testimony points out what other
Federal agencies went through in terms of downsizing and what
ours is, and I will provide that for the record, sir.
Mr. McCrery. But you think it is about a 2-or 3-percent
reduction?
Mr. Apfel. Over the course of the last 6 or so years, that
is about correct.
Mr. McCrery. Okay. I have visited the field offices of
Social Security, and I agree that people there work hard and
they have got a lot to do. So I don't mean to imply by my
questioning that your workforce is not doing a good job and
trying very hard to serve the public. I think they are.
However, we have seen, as Mr. Johnson alluded to in his
questioning, tremendous strides by the private sector in
becoming more productive and more efficient, due to technology
primarily, and they have been able to downsize their workforces
by more than 2 or 3 percent. Major corporations have really
downsized, starting back in the 1980s and continuing through
the 1990s.
And I don't know that we can duplicate that in the public
sector, but I think we ought to, as Mr. Johnson suggested, make
every effort, and maybe you are. And it sounds like the
conference that you plan this summer may be getting toward
that, but I just think every agency of Government, including
the Social Security Administration, ought to make every effort
to discover ways to do more with less, just as the private
sector has done, in order to remain competitive in the world
marketplace.
They were forced to do it by market pressures, especially
back in the 1980s, but even in the 1990s. And Government has
not been forced to do that. Thankfully, we have done it to some
extent, but maybe we can do it some more. And I will just ask
you--and I think you are sincere, I think you are a good public
servant--I would ask you to make every effort in your
conference this summer and in every other way you can do it as
long as you are the Commissioner to try to discover ways to do
more with less.
I kind of think we can find ways to do that in the
Government sector, but it is going to take good people like
you, dedicated not only to providing good public service, which
we all want to do, and our constituents demand that they
deserve it, but also people who are dedicated to protecting the
taxpayer as well.
So thank you for coming today, and I will look forward to
your coming back maybe later this year after your conference
and letting us know what you have learned from that.
Mr. Apfel. Thank you, Mr. McCrery. If I could give you the
statistics that you had asked for, it is in my written
testimony.
Mr. McCrery. Sure.
Mr. Apfel. The Social Security Administration, since 1985,
has had a 22-percent reduction in staffing, in total. Since
1993, it is 4.6 percent. Counting our State disability system
the comparable numbers are 17% and 2.0 percent respectively.
Total Federal civilian employment declined during that period
of time by 17 percent, and non-defense civilian employment by 9
percent. So, clearly, there has been less.
Mr. McCrery. Yes.
Mr. Apfel. Doing more with less has been part of Social
Security's activities for many, many years, and I agree we need
to find every way possible and automation does hold a key to
being able to do more with less. When we look at our workloads
in the future, the purpose of this hearing, we are going to
have more.
Mr. McCrery. Yes, and I am not suggesting--I think we are
going to have a problem and I am not suggesting that you are
going to be able to do everything, the increased workload, with
your current workforce or even a reduced workforce. I am not
suggesting that, but in view of the facts that we know are out
there, we all better do everything we can.
And there are going to be pressures on the budget even
though we have got a surplus. As you know, we have got a
tremendous demand for Social Security benefits, for Medicare
benefits, Medicaid benefits, that we are going to have to
satisfy eventually. So there is going to be pressure on the
budget, and so we better do all we can to meet this crushing
need with as few workers, employees, in the public sector as we
can.
Mr. Apfel. I agree that has to be a continued priority for
the agency, sir.
Mr. Shaw, you asked about the notices and whether they were
finalized and up and running.
Chairman Shaw. Yes, sir.
Mr. Apfel. They are already finalized and up and running in
our field offices and our 800 number almost totally, so that we
are almost entirely done with that project, and it does help.
That is the kind of the situation where automation--the perfect
case--automation can help an individual worker do their job,
and do more with less. It is the kind of activity we need to
continue to work on.
Chairman Shaw. Commissioner, if you get down to Florida any
time soon, one of the 800 number facilities is right there in
Fort Lauderdale and I would like to visit it with you and we
can go in and take a close look at what is going on and bring
stuff up on the screen.
Mr. Apfel. That would be great. Mr. Shaw, I would point out
that we have a number of 800 number sites around the country;
we have large ones and we have a number of smaller ones. And
one of the questions was shouldn't we eliminate those smaller
centers for efficiency purposes. If I were here 5 years ago, I
would probably have said not a bad idea.
But technology changes and the ability to route calls, the
changes that have taken place in technology, lead me to now
conclude that those smaller centers are every bit as efficient
as the larger ones. With technology, again, we are able to
route those calls so much faster so that small office in
Florida, and there are many around the country, can provide a
very good service. And I think they should continue.
So where I would have maybe come down on the other side 5
years ago, I wouldn't have realized what technology would have
done for us, and so that center makes sense to be there and to
thrive and to prosper.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you.
Mr. Doggett?
Mr. Doggett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner, do I understand that it is the best estimate
of your office that if the House Republican Budget Committee
resolution that they recommended yesterday is fully implemented
by this Congress that you will have an opportunity to do less
with less, and that, in fact, one-half of the people who file
for disability in this country will not have their claims
processed during fiscal year 2001?
Mr. Apfel. If the budget assumptions translated into a
reduction of somewhere between $1.2 and $1.4 billion, it would
be less with less, and it would mean significantly longer
waiting times for disability, an 800 number that would be busy
for large parts of the time. It would mean a significant
deterioration of services, sir.
Mr. Doggett. And is that your best judgment at this point,
as you understand the resolution, of its effect?
Mr. Apfel. Well, ultimately it will be up to the Congress
and the Appropriations Committee to decide how to handle that.
But as I understand the resolution, if it translated into an
across-the-board for these programs, our share of that would
mean the numbers that you have just laid out in terms of
service deterioration.
Mr. Doggett. Half of the people who file for disability
would probably not get their claims processed during the next
year?
Mr. Apfel. That is correct.
Mr. Doggett. As you know, my office in Austin, and I expect
the offices of everyone up here, does a good bit of work for
Social Security disability claimants. We have inquiries about
that, other aspects of your administration, and that is one of
the reasons that I was so troubled by the proposal that was
advanced last year to impose the tax on claimant
representatives.
I have corresponded with you about that since then. I know
you supported the action of the Congress in that regard, but in
your correspondence I think you make it clear that while you
supported it, contrary to my view and the view of a number of
the disability advocate groups, the idea of a tax or user fee
on claimant representatives, that you supported it with the
understanding that money would be utilized to improve service
and perhaps to reduce the time lag on the payment to claimant
representatives.
And I gather that did not happen; that contrary to your
recommendation, those monies were never deposited into the
account necessary to allow you to improve the administration of
the payment process.
Mr. Apfel. Mr. Doggett, that is correct.
Mr. Doggett. So we have the new tax, but we do not have
through it any funding for improvements in the payment process?
Mr. Apfel. That is correct. Our recommendation had been
that the receipts from this user fee be used to pay for
administrative costs to allow us to make further improvements
in the service.
I must point out, sir, that we have reallocated internally
to do this extra work. We have allocated this year over 100
work-years from other ongoing activities to handle this backlog
of cases, and we are now about 80 percent through. So we are
doing the work, but the reality is it means we are doing less
somewhere else within the agency.
Mr. Doggett. You don't feel that you have the resources
necessary to address the full improvement of the administration
of the process on handling the payments to claimant
representatives that you would like to have?
Mr. Apfel. If the law were as proposed and I did receive
that added money, it would lead to better service, yes, sir.
But we have allocated over 100 work-years to do this even
though we did not receive the administrative resources for it.
So if the law were changed and the resource came in, I could
provide better service.
But I would point out, sir, we have gone a long way toward
strengthening the system. The law specifically took a 30-day
period out of the processing, and our workload changes have
also led to improvements. But they came at a cost, and that
cost is other activities within the agency that we are not able
to do.
Mr. Doggett. What is the average lag time now? I know these
cases sometimes take a very long period of time. But after the
case is resolved, what is the normal lag time?
Mr. Apfel. Well, our goal is about 60 days, and we have
seen the 30-day improvement immediately, but we are also seeing
improvements. There were some cases that had been backlogged
that clearly had longer time lines, and about 80 percent of
that has been worked through. So our goal is to get it down to
much shorter times.
Mr. Doggett. Is there any kind of average or median time
for how long the resolution of a disability case takes?
Mr. Apfel. The disability case itself?
Mr. Doggett. Yes, because that is after the disability case
is concluded.
Mr. Apfel. Right. Oh, you mean how long it takes after the
disability case is concluded. After the completion of the case,
our goal is 60 days, and in many cases we can do it within that
period of time.
Mr. Doggett. Yes, I understood that was afterwards. What I
am asking is what is the average or median time for the
resolution of the disability case itself.
Mr. Apfel. At the hearings level, which these cases are
almost all hearing cases, it is a little bit under a year that
these are taking to go through the process. By 2002, we will be
down in the 200-day range, with further improvements in the
future. So one of the most important things we can do is to
drive that time down and have there be a shorter period of time
from the appeal to the final resolution of that case, for lots
of reasons, just pure customer service for one.
Two, these individuals' conditions change over time. That
means that more information comes in later. The case is not the
same case that was originally heard at the State level. Driving
down that time provides not only better customer service, but
also will reduce the amount of work on that case because there
will be less new information coming in on that case.
Mr. Doggett. Thank you very much.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Weller?
Mr. Weller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner, good morning.
Mr. Apfel. Good morning.
Mr. Weller. Good to see you again, and I appreciate you
being before the subcommittee.
You know, retirement savings and strengthening Social
Security has been one of the top priorities of this Congress
over the 6 years that I have been here, and I am pretty proud
of the fundamental changes that we have made, along with
balancing the budget and paying down $350 billion in the
national debt.
Last year, we succeeded in our effort to lock away 100
percent of the Social Security Trust Fund for the first time in
almost 40 years, and I appreciate the President going along
with that and that was, I believe, fundamental change and
fundamental progress.
One of the questions I am often asked--and I represent the
south side of Chicago and the south suburbs and a lot of rural
areas, so you always listen for what is in common, whether you
are in the city, suburbs, or country. The question I am often
asked, as we look at the impact of Social Security and
retirement savings for the future, is folks, you know, watch
the numbers and the nightly news about what is happening in the
Nasdaq and what is happening in the Dow, and they often ask me,
you know, what kind of return are we getting on our Social
Security? You know, the Government takes 12.6 percent of our
income and, you know, what kind of return are we getting on
that, because for many millions of Americans that is our
return.
Factoring in inflation, what is the current return on our
Social Security investment?
Mr. Apfel. Well, Mr. Weller, for about 85 percent it is
zero because they are paying our parents. That money is not
sitting in a bank account someplace. It is an intergenerational
program, so the vast majority of payroll tax revenues for our
workers pays our parents today. So there is, of course, a zero
return on that. There is a very large return for our parents
because they have economic security that comes from it.
So the answer for about 85 percent of the resource is that
there isn't a rate of return because it is an intergenerational
program. It is one of the reasons it is very hard to compare
rates of returns in a pure private pension advance-funded
system with an intergenerational system because we are paying
through our payroll taxes the benefits of those--
Mr. Weller. On the remaining 15 percent, what is the rate
of return?
Mr. Apfel. On the 15 percent that remains, it is the
average marketable securities, which is about 6, 7 percent,
somewhere in that range.
Mr. Weller. Does that include the rate of inflation or do
you subtract the--
Mr. Apfel. That includes the rate of inflation. It is a
very low rate of return.
Mr. Weller. So you are getting about 3 percent after you
have 3-percent inflation?
Mr. Apfel. Bonds are, I think it is fair to say, the safest
investment throughout the world, but they pay relatively lower
rates of return historically than corporate securities.
Mr. Weller. How is that 15 percent that you do set aside
and invest of someone's 12.6 percent of their income, that 15
percent--how do you invest those dollars? How are they invested
for the long term?
Mr. Apfel. Well, thankfully, the Social Security
Administration doesn't do any investing. That is all handled by
the Treasury Department.
Mr. Weller. How does the Treasury Department invest them
for you?
Mr. Apfel. The receipts that come in to the Social Security
trust fund and the excess over what goes out is credited to the
Social Security trust fund and all that extra amount increases
at the average of Government securities or about 6 or 7
percent.
The important action that was taken by the Congress over
the course of the last year or two, and I strongly support it,
is that this does lead to national savings. For years, we were
running large Federal budget deficits and Social Security was
running Federal budget surpluses. The Social Security trust
fund was receiving the same credits that it always did and its
trust funds were credited with that and the interest would go
forward.
But the issue was how would we be able to redeem those
bonds if we were running large deficits in the long term.
Reserving the Social Security surplus and starting to think
about what our non-Social Security surpluses are and how that
is used and reserving those surpluses right now does put us in
a stronger position for national savings. Whether or not we run
Federal budget deficits will have no effect on the Social
Security trust fund, but it puts our economy and our Nation in
a stronger position to be able to redeem those bonds in the
future.
Mr. Weller. About once a year, I get in the mail at home my
statement telling me that if my income stays the same and
current projections, when I become eligible this will be what I
will receive as a monthly benefit when it is my turn.
Do you indicate, or have any plans to indicate on that form
what the rate of return on that Social Security investment is
for a taxpayer who is paying 12.6 percent of their income into
Social Security?
Mr. Apfel. Well, I believe the General Accounting Office
agrees that using rate of return information on the Social
Security statement would be quite misleading and confusing,
given what we have just talked about, about the fact that
mostly this is an intergenerational program.
Our Social Security Statement does indicate information
about the fact that 30 years out, revenues coming into Social
Security will only pay about 71 percent of future benefits. We
try to use the statement to educate the American people about
the long-term challenges that we face. But the rate of return
information, I think, would be misleading and I have no plans
to add that to the statement.
Mr. Weller. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more question? I
realize the red light is on, but--
Chairman Shaw. One more question.
Mr. Weller. All right. Just to follow up on that, do you
feel that is information that would be helpful, though, to a
taxpayer? Obviously, it is a projection. You know, you put
money into a mutual fund and they project, at the current rate
of return, this is what you would expect, if you continue your
contributions, in 20 years.
Do you feel that would be useful information for a taxpayer
to have? Like I said, 12.6 percent of someone's income. That is
a lot of money over a lifetime, and folks like to know what
kind of return they are going to get on that investment. Do you
feel that is useful information and that is something that a
taxpayer has a right to know, at least a projection on what the
rate of return would be and what the ultimate return on their
investment would be of 12.6 percent of their income?
Mr. Apfel. Again, Mr. Weller, you are adding in the fact
that there isn't a rate of return for most of the program
because this money is used in an intergenerational way to pay
for our parents, as it has been since the creation of the
program.
The General Accounting Office, when we were trying to
determine how to restructure the Social Security Statement,
urged us to simplify it as much as possible. We had focus
groups all around the country to provide information that we
thought would be helpful, and I must say I have heard
tremendously positive reports on our Social Security Statement,
and specifically on our statements about the fact that we do
face long-term challenges and there is a significant shortfall
in the long run.
We also indicate that people should get our brochures on
the future of Social Security. I don't think it makes sense for
that information to be included, for complexity reasons, but
also for the fact that it is not a fair comparison because this
is primarily an intergenerational program.
Mr. Weller. All right. I see my time has expired, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Shaw. Yes, sir.
Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner.
Mr. Apfel. Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. You know, I was listening to your comments and
answers to previous questions concerning resources versus
production, and I was pleased to hear that you have made
adjustments within the agency to take care of some of the
problems of those who are recipients of our services through
the Social Security Administration. So I commend you for that.
That is good leadership.
I also want to take the opportunity to tell you thanks for
the assistance that you rendered in my district here a couple
of weeks ago when we had several hundred checks that were lost
in the mail. And your assistance was very, very helpful, and it
was very timely and folks in my area appreciate that.
Mr. Apfel. I will pass that back to our Social Security
folks who worked very hard to resolve that problem, sir.
Mr. Collins. And they did a good job, they sure did, an
excellent job.
Mr. Apfel. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. You know, I go back to leadership, and you are
making the necessary adjustments within the agency to take care
of the problems that arise. You were setting priorities is what
you were doing there, and we are going through a time right now
that families are having to make a lot of adjustments, too,
because of different increases in cost in the marketplace,
particularly in the area of petroleum products. So it is
something that we have to get accustomed to ourselves here in
the Congress, but the Congress doesn't seem to have the ability
to make those adjustments as fast as what you have done in your
agency and as fast as what the public is having to do in their
family budgets, as evidenced by the budget that the Budget
Committee passed out last night, which I think was excessive in
spending. And that excessive spending is what creates excessive
taxation, and we have a little bit of both there, and quite a
bit of both.
When you were here earlier, I asked you the question about
the workforce plan. I see that you have submitted that
workforce plan, dated February 29. This seems to be a good
preliminary, if I read it right, that you are following up with
this with a continuous Vision 2010 that will give more
substance to exactly how you are going to meet the challenges
of the retirement wave that is going to hit you between the
years 2007 and 2009, where you are going to have about 3,000
retiring per year, on an average today of about 851. And you
are going to lose quite a bit of your supervisory personnel,
which is going to be quite a challenge to you.
So I take it this is kind of a first--not a first step, but
one of the steps that you will be engaged in and planning for
the future to beat the baby boom generation as they come on
board. Is that not true?
Mr. Apfel. Mr. Collins, it is a first step. It is only a
first step. I think it is a very important document to lay out
the challenges that we face within our workforce. What we need
to be able to do, after we develop our long-term vision of how
we are going to provide this service, is to reorient our
workforce plans to make sure that we are training the right
number of people, that our entries of new people coming in can
deal with these long-term challenges.
So I believe that it was a very important first step, and I
am pleased that you appreciated the work. It will provide a
guidepost, but it is only one of the things that we need in the
workforce area. If I could indicate, I think there are three,
actually.
One is a stronger workforce transition plan based upon a
long-term vision which we need to be able to produce consistent
with the piece that you received.
Two, we need a stronger workload measurement system within
Social Security. You will probably be hearing later today, or
if you ask, whether our workload measurement system does a
really good job of capturing the work that people do. And I
think that the answer is it doesn't do a good enough job. We
are going to need to develop a better system to be able to find
what people are doing and capture it within our system, so that
we can assure you provide stronger budget justifications and
with more solid information to our managers and our labor
force, to be able to understand what those workloads are. So
that is the second thing.
And then, three, I think we need to be able to do a better
job of linking resources, with workforce, with outputs. I think
we try very hard and I think we are one of the leaders in
Government in this area, but we need to do more again to better
determine that this much resource will lead to this
configuration of workforce, will lead to that output for the
American public--that is completing so many calls on the 800
number system or decreasing disability claim processing times
by so many months.
And if it is more money, then we can see better service. If
it is less money, then we will see a lower quality service and
lower work. Ultimately, that is my goal, to be able to provide
you and the agency with that information, because I think that
will help us plan for the future.
Mr. Collins. Well, I think that is good strategy. You must
have a plan in order to have the proper resources appropriated,
and so I am pleased to hear that. And we look forward to the
next step, and I have confidence that you as Commissioner will
see that is carried out in the proper fashion. Thanks again for
your assistance.
Mr. Apfel. Mr. Collins, thank you, and we consider this to
be a very high priority for the agency.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Commissioner, a later witness will be
describing how the SSA is poised to launch a project offering
online application for the benefits, and that is just starting
in April of this year. I don't see any mention of that in your
testimony. Can you elaborate on that to us and tell us what
security and privacy precautions you anticipate will be in
place?
Mr. Apfel. Mr. Chairman, if you are concerned that we are
reopening the online PEBES discussions of prior years where we
provided information over the Internet to be able to have a
person's earnings history be done, that is not being discussed
at all right now. I believe that we haven't yet created the
right balance between--
Chairman Shaw. We are talking about claims-taking now,
applications for claims-taking.
Mr. Apfel. Oh, I am sorry, the claims-taking. We are
working, Mr. Chairman, on ways to start using the Internet to
provide some online retirement applications. We have not
finalized those plans yet. Before we do, I will be talking to
this committee about them. I think it is very important that we
discuss these matters with you. I am not quite ready to discuss
them yet because we have not finalized anything yet.
Chairman Shaw. Well, then the information that I have that
you are going to launch this in April has to be wrong. Is that
correct?
Mr. Apfel. That is wrong.
Chairman Shaw. Okay.
Mr. Apfel. That is wrong. We will be back to you. It is one
of the areas where we want to make prudent use of existing
technology. What we need to be able to do is find ways to take
small--rather than creating large, mega computer changes that
take billions of dollars, we need to create small, incremental
improvements. The Internet may help us do that with small,
incremental improvements.
There is some work going on looking at some initial
activities. I am not prepared yet to speak about those, in
general. It is not starting in April for the online
applications, but we will be back to you and I would
specifically be briefing your committee about these activities
before they roll out.
Chairman Shaw. Let me ask you about one more area, and I am
going to try to finish up before I have to go vote, too. And
this goes back to previous discussions that we had and that
Chairman George Gekas, of the Judiciary Committee, has been
working on.
They have submitted a list of very specific questions
pertaining to the operation of the Office of the Chief
Administrative Law Judge in the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
And from this list, I would like to ask you two specific
questions, and if you are brief enough in your answer, then you
get out of here before I go vote. If you elaborate too much,
then you are going to be stuck here until I get back.
First, in a hearing last October and in writing, you
informed me that there were no plans for a reorganization of
the headquarters of the Office of Hearings and Appeals. Yet, we
continue to hear about staff changes which many would argue
have undermined the authority of the powers of the Chief
Administrative Law Judge.
Is your prior statement no longer true? Has that changed
since you were before this committee?
Mr. Apfel. No, sir. There are no plans or intentions to
reorganize the office. I don't want to undermine the Chief
Administrative Law Judge.
Chairman Shaw. Okay.
Mr. Apfel. We have had a briefing with your subcommittee to
discuss some of the activities that are underway. The hearing
process improvement activities have led to a series of work
groups that have been established and some temporary
arrangements. We have provided some information to the
subcommittee. The subcommittee asked for a series of detailed
information that we committed to provide by next week, and we
will.
But I have no plans to reorganize. I think we need an
independent Chief Administrative Law Judge, and I have no plans
for reorganizing. But we will provide this information for this
committee, and also for the Judiciary Committee, so that we can
get to the bottom of this matter.
Chairman Shaw. Second, have you considered the requirements
and the intent of the Administrative Procedures Act to separate
the daily operations of SSA from the adjudication division of
SSA and any potential reorganization of SSA?
Mr. Apfel. Well, I haven't considered a reorganization of
the administrative law judge function. If one were going to
think about such an issue, one would be certain to look at the
Administrative Procedures Act as part of the important issues
to be confronted.
We clearly need an independent judgment by administrative
law judges. I don't think we should have a situation where we
are pressuring anybody to make individual decisions. The
Administrative Procedures Act ought to be an important part of
that. But, again, I have no plans to do that. We will be
providing more information to the committee next week, and also
to the Judiciary Committee on this matter, and let's move
forward from there, sir.
Chairman Shaw. All right. Commissioner, I note that
Chairman Gekas does pose several additional questions, and I
will ask you to respond to this subcommittee and to Mr. Gekas
in writing, as I am sure you will, with answers to these
questions which we will include as part of the formal record of
this hearing. We continue to hear these rumblings coming out of
Mobile, Alabama, and those are of concern to this committee.
[The information follows:]
Responses to Representative Gekas' Letter of March 15, 2000
a) Is it true that the Regional Chief Judges are reporting
to the OHA Associate Commissioner and to the Deputy
Commissioner for operations instead of the Chief ALJ?
Under the past and current functional
organization, Regional Chief Judges have a direct reporting
relationship with the Chief ALJ for all issues related to the
hearings process and its day-to-day operation. They receive
direction, and are expected to coordinate their activities,
with numerous other management officials within the Agency.
The Regional Chief Judges are temporarily also serving as
the Hearing Process Improvement (HPI) Process Action Team to
implement pre-hearing changes, and they are coordinating their
activities through Regional Chief ALJ Stephen Wright. Judge
Wright is temporarily reporting to a deputy commissioner for
those activities related to this time-limited project
(projected to end March 2001). All of the Regional Chiefs,
however, continue to report to the Chief ALJ on matters
unrelated to HPI.
b) Is it true that the Chief ALJ's authority to coordinate
hearing services for the Mobile, Alabama OHA was removed to the
Regional Chief ALJ in Atlanta, who is not reporting to the
Chief ALJ under current operation structure?
There has been no change in authorities or
reporting responsibilities in the Mobile, Alabama Hearing
Office or any other hearing office. Under our current operating
structure, the Mobile Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law
Judge reports to the Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge in
Atlanta who, in turn, reports to the Chief Administrative Law
Judge.
We are aware that the Chief ALJ has taken an active role in
monitoring activities in the Mobile hearing office, resulting
in improved management and performance. The Chief ALJ continues
to provide management oversight for all administrative and
managerial functions involved in the day-to-day operations of
offices, and maintains a continuous review of all aspects of
OHA field operations, implementing improvements where needed.
c) Is it true that the positions of the Deputy Chief ALJ
and the operations Director of the Chief ALJ's office are
vacant and have remained so for over six months and there are
no current efforts to recruit for the position? If there are
plans to fill the vacant positions, please describe and detail
the involvement of the Chief ALJ?
It is true that the Deputy Chief ALJ and the Field
Management Officer positions have been vacant since October
1999. However, we plan to recruit for the positions week of
April 3. In terms of his involvement, the Chief ALJ is the
official who requests to recruit for a position; he recommends
a selection to the Associate Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner for final approval.
d) Is it true that the training function in the Office of
the Chief ALJ has been removed to the Associate Commissioner's
Office of Management under Mr. Pat Carey?
It is not true that the training function or any
function has been removed from the Office of the Chief ALJ
(OCALJ). Providing training is not in the OCALJ functional
statement. This function is assigned to the Office of
Management under the direction of the Associate Commissioner.
OCALJ traditionally identifies training needs and priorities,
and is consulted on faculty and curriculum. However, the Chief
ALJ has, and will continue to have, an important role in
identifying training needs and in working with the Associate
Commissioner to assure that these needs are met.
e) Is it true that the Division of Field Practices and
Procedures in the Chief ALJ's office is being reduced by half
and transferred to the Office of Management?
It is not true that the Division of Field
Practices and Procedures in the Chief ALJ's office is being
reduced or staff transferred. There have been discussions
concerning placing some staff on temporary details to perform
core functions in the Office of Management and the Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation, but no decision has been made.
f) Is it true that activities are underway to abolish the
Division of Field Practices and Procedures and the Division of
Field Operations and Liaison in the Chief ALJ's office and
remove these functions to the Office of Management and the
Associate Commissioners?
It is not true that activities are underway to
abolish either Division. It is true that we have had internal
discussions to develop improved ways to deliver the core
functions of DFPP and DFOL in support of the Regional and
hearing offices. However, there are no plans to remove any
functions from those units.
g) Is it true that the Chief ALJ, at the request of the
Office of Personnel Management, developed a plan to provide a
temporary detail of SSA ALJs to the Department of Interior to
reduce the case backlog of Indian Probate Claims? The basis of
the ALJ loan request is essential to the orderly functions of
the Administrative Procedure Act upon which it is premised.
It is not true that the Chief ALJ developed a plan
to provide a temporary detail of SSA ALJs to the Department of
Interior. When SSA received a request for assistance through
the Office of Personnel Management to provide assistance to the
Department of Interior, the Chief Judge prepared an assessment
of the impact of such a request on OHA's hearings operations.
SSA is not considering any plan to transfer its hearing and
appeals resources to another Department. Our current backlogs,
especially in the appeals section, require all our available
resources. Current law allows the Department of the Interior to
use its own legal corps to adjudicate the Indian Probate
Claims.
h) Is it true that the Associate Commissioner has sent the
request for a detail of temporary ALJs for the Department of
Interior to your office for approval of the plan developed by
SSA's Chief ALJ?
There are no plans to detail any SSA ALJs to the
Department of Interior. See discussion of backlogs above.
i) Has the Commissioner's office considered the
requirements and the intent of the Administrative Procedure Act
to separate the daily operations of SSA from the adjudications
division of SSA in any potential reorganization of SSA.
SSA recognizes the importance of maintaining the
independence of the ALJs, and would not take any action that
would compromise decisional independence under the
Administrative Procedures Act.
Chairman Shaw. One other thing that I would like to submit
to you, and I will submit to you now and if you could come back
in writing, I am concerned about the aging of the Social
Security staff and the projections of retirement ages,
particularly as that group goes out as the baby boomers are
coming in. And I am very concerned about the fact are we
arranging for early retirements or whatever it takes so that we
will have a consistent, trained group of people to help out.
So if you could just submit in writing, with numbers of
employees, projections on retirement dates and related issues
to this committee, that would be very, very helpful. I feel
that is part of our oversight responsibility, and I know you
are concerned about it.
Mr. Apfel. It certainly is, Mr. Shaw. Could I give you 30
seconds? Do you have the time for that or not?
Chairman Shaw. Hurry.
Mr. Apfel. Yes, sir. We will provide that in-depth for the
record.
[The information follows:]
In response to Mr. Shaw's request for information about
SSA's workforce, attached for inclusion in the record is the
report ``Workforce Planning at the Social Security
Administration.''
[``The Workforce Planning at the Social Security
Administration'' report is being retained in the Committee
files.]
Mr. Apfel. It is clear that we are going to need to flatten
that retirement wave to be able to not have these peak
activities happening in the outyears. And, clearly, providing
training is one of the important activities.
Lastly, one of the things I think we need to look at is
whether we should be rehiring retired Federal annuitants to
come back in to provide service. I think that would be a very
interesting idea, potentially. It is not legal right now, so
there are no laws that allow us to do that. But I would like to
explore some activities with--
Chairman Shaw. There is a lot of talent that will be
leaving the Administration, and we have got to be concerned
about that.
We are now going to recess for approximately 15 minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairman Shaw. I noticed before the break that a former
member of this committee, Barbara Kennelly, was here. Is she
still here?
Well, if she comes in, I would like to introduce her
because she was a most respected member of this committee.
Maybe she is missing these long hearings and she just decided
to drop by.
The panel that we have before us right now is Sue Augustus,
who is Associate Director of the SSI Coalition for a
Responsible Safety Net, from Chicago; Gerald McIntyre, who is
Directing Attorney, National Senior Citizens Law Center, in Los
Angeles, California; Witold Skwierczynski--I bet you didn't
think I would pronounce that correctly--President of the
National Council of Social Security Administration Field
Operations Locals, American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO, Council 220, and is Co-Chair of the AFGE-SSA National
Partnership Council, also of Chicago; Terri Spurgeon, who is
the President of the National Association of Disability
Examiners, from Zachery, Louisiana; James Hill, President of
the National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 24, Cleveland
Heights, Ohio; and Steve Korn, the President of the National
Coalition of Social Security Management Associations,
Incorporated, from Vallejo, California.
We have each of your full testimony which, without
objection, will be made a part of the record, and we would
invite you to summarize as you see fit.
Ms. Augustus?
STATEMENT OF SUE AUGUSTUS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, SSI COALITION
FOR A RESPONSIBLE SAFETY NET, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Ms. Augustus. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Chairman
Shaw and members of the subcommittee. I want to thank you for
your invitation to testify on the service delivery challenges
facing the Social Security Administration.
The SSI Coalition is a policy and advocacy organization
that focuses on the SSI program and other public benefit
programs that provide cash assistance and health care to low-
income elderly and people with disabilities. In addition to
legal representation, we convene a statewide working group on
work incentives that brings advocates, State agency staff, and
Social Security staff to the table to address employment
barriers to people with disabilities. This work provides us
with the information that I bring to you this morning to
illustrate the systemic problems of service delivery within the
Social Security Administration.
As you have heard in the earlier hearings on this subject,
SSA is facing big challenges. The expected baby boom generation
retirees, as well as a more diverse and technologically-savvy
population in general, will tax the ability of SSA's employees
to effectively and efficiently handle its workload. To these
challenges, I would add another, the increasing number of
people with disabilities who are returning to work.
I would be remiss for not thanking you, Chairman Shaw, and
other members of the committee who voted for the Work
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation, which
needs to be fully funded, will benefit individuals with
disabilities who return to work by offering them increased
access to health care and providing them some additional
benefit protections if they are unable to continue working
because of their disability.
The booming economy has created a need for more qualified
employees, and people with disabilities are finding that there
are many job opportunities available to them, in part through
medical advances and assistance technology, as well as changes
in attitude and the law, notably the Americans With
Disabilities Act.
Having said that, I must point out that SSA has a real
challenge at the local field office level in dealing with
people with disabilities who return to work. There are many
reasons for this. The work incentive provisions available are
complex and confusing. SSA does not have the staff time to
provide the necessary outreach to publicize the programs. Many
staff in the local field offices do not understand the work
incentive provisions and give out wrong information to
beneficiaries.
There is inconsistency in how to handle earnings reporting
at the field office and at the 800 number, and the work flow at
the field offices tends to relegate earnings reporting and
post-entitlement issues to the bottom of the pile. These
problems, which I believe stem in large part to inadequate
staffing at the local offices and some bureaucratic
intransigence at SSA, have devastating consequences for those
who go back to work.
The cyclical nature of many disabilities, both physical and
psychiatric, also pose a challenge to those who try and work
while trying to maintain their benefits and health coverage. As
a result of the complexity of the work incentives,
beneficiaries end up with large overpayments. It is not
uncommon to see overpayments ranging from $5,000 to $30,000.
Although SSA is taking steps to address these problems, the
current situation is a real barrier to employment.
There are other service delivery challenges that remain and
they have a common theme. There is a failure to communicate,
and I don't say this flippantly. This failure occurs in a
number of ways. The written notices that were referenced
earlier that SSA sends to beneficiaries are really difficult to
understand. Reaching the local field offices by telephone is a
challenge. When you reach a local office, the staff does not
have time to adequately explain things or they do not have your
file.
The SSA staff tends to speak in the same arcane
bureaucratic language that is included in the written notices,
so you are no better off having reached a real person. The
chances of getting accurate information on work incentives is
rare, and if you are an SSI recipient, the chances that you
will understand anything about the income and asset rules is
exceedingly slim.
SSA is addressing many of these issues. The National Office
of Employment Support is a huge step in the right direction. We
want to commend Commissioner Apfel, Deputy Commissioner Susan
Daniels, Associate Commissioner Ken McGill, and our own Region
V Commissioner Jim Martin for raising the level of service
delivery, especially in the area of return to work issues.
There are many dedicated and knowledgeable staff at SSA. I
hope that you will seriously consider the recommendations of
the Social Security Advisory Board and give SSA the resources
it needs to deliver accurate and efficient service.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Sue Augustus, Associate Director, SSI Coaltion for a
Responsible Safety Net, Chicago, Illinois
Chairman Shaw, Chairman Johnson, and members of the
Subcommittees on Social Security and Human Resources, I want to
thank you for your invitation to testify on the service
delivery challenges facing the Social Security Administration
(SSA).
The SSI Coalition is a policy and advocacy organization
that focuses on the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program
and other public benefit programs that provide cash assistance
and health care to low-income elderly and people with
disabilities. Our individual and organizational members range
from consumers with physical and/or psychiatric disabilities to
community based organizations working with people with
disabilities. We also provide individual legal representation
to individuals with Social Security problems. In addition, we
convene a state-wide working group on work incentives that
brings advocates, state agency staff and SSA staff to the table
to address employment barriers to people with disabilities. The
legal representation and the working group provides us with the
information that I bring to you to illustrate the systemic
problems of service delivery within the administration of the
SSA programs.
As you have heard in the earlier hearing on this subject,
SSA is facing big challenges. The expected baby boom generation
retirees and an increase in disability claims, as well as a
more diverse and technologically savvy population in general,
will tax the ability of SSA's employees and infrastructure to
efficiently and effectively handle its workload. To these
challenges, I would add another--the increasing number of
people with disabilities who are returning to work.
I would be remiss for not thanking the members of this
subcommittee who voted for the Work Incentives Improvement Act
of 1999. This legislation will benefit individuals with
disabilities who are or who have been SSI or SSDI beneficiaries
by offering them increased access to health care coverage, and
providing them with some additional benefit protections if they
are unable to continue working because of their disability. The
Social Security Administration has shown its leadership in this
area by creating a National Office of Employment Support,
signaling for the first time SSA's commitment to helping people
return to work, instead of just providing them with a benefit
check. The booming economy has created a need for more
qualified employees, and people with disabilities are finding
that there are many more job opportunities available than ever
before thanks, in part, to medical advances and assistive
technology, as well as changes in attitude and the law, notably
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Having said that, I also must point out that SSA has a real
challenge at the local field office level in handling the
workload created by people with disabilities who return to
work. It is no secret that there is much misinformation and
ignorance about Social Security's work incentives. There are
many reasons for this--the work incentive provisions are
complex, confusing and contradictory; SSA does not have the
staff time to provide the necessary outreach; many SSA staff in
the local field offices do not understand the work incentive
provisions and give out wrong information to beneficiaries;
there is inconsistency in how to handle earnings reporting at
the field office and at the 800 number; and the workflow at the
field offices tend to relegate earnings reporting and post
entitlement issues to the bottom of the pile. These problems,
which I believe stem from inadequate staffing and training at
the local offices, have devastating consequences for
beneficiaries who go back to work.
People with psychiatric disabilities have a very tough time
managing their benefits when they return to work. The cyclical
nature of many disabilities--both physical and psychiatric--
also pose a challenge to those who try and work while trying to
maintain their benefits and health care coverage. As a result
of the complexity of the work incentives, beneficiaries end up
with large overpayments--it is not uncommon to see overpayments
ranging from $5,000 to $30,000. Many beneficiaries who receive
overpayment notices are so devastated that they quit their
jobs, and some are hospitalized as a result of the stress. Once
a beneficiary receives an overpayment, she is faced with filing
appeals and waivers, which tend to be time-consuming and
psychologically draining tasks.
SSA must address these issues as soon as possible. The
Office of Employment Support is a step in the right direction,
and SSA has other initiatives underway to address the workflow
issues. There are a number of policy decisions SSA could make
without waiting for new legislation. For instance, as more
people move away from sheltered workshops and into supported
employment, SSA could use a fairer method of calculating
subsidies for those in supported employment. SSA also needs to
change the culture at SSA -which presently does not encourage
work attempts--to a more positive and less punitive atmosphere
for the working beneficiary. Providing clear and concise
information on work incentives, and streamlining earnings
reporting, will assist in reducing burdensome overpayments.
Thus, ironically, because more beneficiaries are going back
to work, SSA has another workload challenge to add to the
boomer retirement wave.
There are other service delivery challenges that exist at
local SSA field offices. I am incorporating here my comments to
the Social Security Advisory Board at their hearing last April
in Chicago.
Accessibility
The office hours of the local offices must become more
flexible to accommodate working individuals. Evening and
weekend hours would be more helpful. For many workers, taking
time off to go to an SSA office is not only an inconvenience,
but it could mean the loss of a job. Waiting times at many
offices are still too long. Even with scheduled appointments
there are long waits. In fact, scheduling an appointment can
mean a wait of several weeks. This is unacceptable if someone
is waiting on a decision that will affect payment of benefits.
Some offices, mainly the older ones, lack areas that provide
confidentiality.
In the Chicago area, calling a local field office can be an
exercise in futility. Historically, the local offices in
Chicago change their telephone numbers frequently.
Organizations and advocates that serve consumers trade updated
lists of telephone numbers as avidly as good recipes. Even with
a ``good'' telephone number, it is difficult to get a
representative on the line. The new voicemail systems installed
in many of the offices are both a blessing and a curse. If you
know your party's extension, it is helpful to be able to leave
a message. However, if you do not know the extension, it is
many times impossible to get out of the voicemail loop to even
leave a message. Many consumers with cognitive, psychiatric
disabilities and language barriers find it difficult to
navigate a voicemail system. There should always be a default
to a live operator. I also have clients who are deaf who
complain about their inability to receive a response from SSA
on a TTY.
There are many complaints about the 800 number. I believe
that beneficiaries would rather receive accurate information,
particularly about work incentive information, than have their
call answered within a certain number of minutes. Beneficiaries
that report wage information to the 800 number frequently
receive overpayment notices because the reported information is
never associated with their records.
The SSA web site is excellent. It contains a wealth of
information and is not terribly difficult to navigate. The
problem with the Internet in general is its inaccessibility to
those without Internet access and to those whose primary
language is not English. The best way to provide outreach to
underserved communities is to have multi-cultural, bi-lingual
SSA employees bring a networked computer to events in the
community. This allows SSA staff to answer specific questions
and to take information directly from beneficiaries. This has
worked well in Chicago.
SSA Employee Performance
There are many complaints about the level of knowledge and
accuracy of information obtained from SSA employees. Most of
the complaints I hear are about the work incentives programs.
Most SSA employees that deal with the public do not have a
grasp of these provisions, and many impart erroneous
information about them. As a result, beneficiaries rely on this
information, and end up with overpayments. There has to be
either better training of front-line SSA employees on the work
incentive programs, or all work incentive questions must be
expeditiously referred to a work incentive specialist in the
office. In addition, there should be training on dedicated
savings accounts issues, or a specialist in each office. For
any issue that is more complicated, a specialist or two in each
office, who is available to the public, would be helpful.
Consumers, advocates, and parents of children with
disabilities frequently complain about the courtesy and
responsiveness of SSA employees. As a lawyer, I am usually
treated with respect. However, this does not always happen with
the general public. If an advocate is able to cultivate a
relationship with a particular SSA office or employee, the
advocate is generally able to get courteous responses. It
should not take a lawyer, or an advocate with connections, to
receive respectful, courteous treatment and accurate
information.
Those who are most vulnerable, individuals with
disabilities and individuals with language barriers, are
frequently treated the worst. SSA must provide training to all
of its employees, especially its front-line employees, on
disability issues, particularly psychiatric disabilities.
Parents of children with disabilities are routinely treated
poorly, especially when dealing with dedicated savings accounts
issues. SSI beneficiaries frequently report that there is a
pervasive attitude at SSA that they are out to defraud the
system.
At the same time, SSA has some of the most courteous and
loyal employees of any government agency. Their workload has
increased over the last few years as their numbers have
dwindled. It does not appear that they have the time to
adequately explain the intricacies of the programs to the
public. The staffing reductions seem to have taken a toll on
their ability to provide ``world-class'' service.
Clarity and Usefulness of Written Materials
As lawyers, we appreciate the due process information that
must be included in notices regarding benefit awards or
changes. However, the notices in general are atrocious. Most
beneficiaries cannot understand the notices they receive from
SSA, and, in fact, I have a difficult time understanding some
of them myself. The notices are not clear. There is
misinformation in them. For example, the COLA notice that goes
out to SSDI beneficiaries at the end of the year contains
misleading information, because these notices are sent not only
to DI beneficiaries, but to retirement beneficiaries as well.
Another major problem is that beneficiaries receive too
many notices. Clients sometimes receive four and five different
notices a week -each saying something different! When the
payment center sends out a notice about an overpayment, the
local office does not have a copy of it, so calling the local
office about it is fruitless. The local SSA office frequently
does not have copies of notices sent out by Baltimore. There
does not appear to be a central file, either computer or paper,
that contains all the notices that a client receives, with the
result that there is nobody at SSA that can review them and
make sense of them. There must be some centralization of
notices, preferably at the local office.
In summary, advocates recommend that the notices be clear,
brief, contain accurate information, and be understandable by
someone with a fourth grade reading level. There should be a
local telephone number listed on the notice so that the
recipient can call for answers to questions. SSA should not
send out multiple notices containing conflicting information.
Different offices within SSA should not send out notices if
possible. Otherwise, copies of all notices should be available
at the local office.
SSA has undertaken a plain language initiative to try and
make its publications more comprehensive. We look forward to
seeing the results.
Claiming Benefits
The disability determination process should be shortened
and made more accurate. SSA must help claimants understand the
importance of obtaining their medical records, and SSA must do
more to try and obtain those records. There is a disparity
among the field offices in terms of their processing of claims
both before and after a Bureau of Disability Determination
Services (BDDS) decision. In some field offices, paperwork is
lost, or is delayed in getting to the BDDS. We have had many
cases where we sent definitive medical evidence of disability
to the BDDS that was never associated with the disability file.
As a result, the claims were denied, and the claimants had to
wait for months (or over a year) before the favorable decision
was made at the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) level. The
disability decisions made by the BDDS should be more accurate,
particularly in the case of HIV and psychiatric disabilities.
The medical doctors at the BDDS need updated training on HIV/
AIDS issues. The cursory consultative examinations that SSA
purchases are widely viewed as inadequate. This leads to delays
in making the correct disability decision.
The representative payee issue is also problematic. SSA
does not assist an individual in finding a representative
payee. Frequently there is little or no investigation of a
family member who serves as a representative payee, even when
the beneficiary alleges that the representative payee is
improperly using the money. SSA needs to sensitize its staff on
the treatment of special populations, such as the homeless,
those with psychiatric disabilities, and parents of children
with disabilities.
It would be helpful if referrals to vocational
rehabilitation were made much earlier in the disability
determination process. After a claimant tries for years to be
found disabled by SSA, it is many times too late to begin the
vocational rehabilitation process. There should also be better
communication between SSA and the state agencies responsible
for both Medicaid and vocational rehabilitation.
Program Accuracy and Integrity
The SSI income and asset regulations are very complicated
and confusing. Trying to explain them to SSI beneficiaries is
very difficult. SSA's task of verifying income and resources in
the SSI program would be much easier if the regulations were
not so complex and there were more state agency agreements to
share information. In addition, because some SSA employees in
the local field offices have an attitude that most SSI
beneficiaries are defrauding the system, it sets up a hostile
environment and there is decreased cooperation on both sides.
Unfortunately, there are instances of fraud and abuse in
the system. Those that defraud and abuse the system should be
discovered and penalized for it. SSA can address many instances
of overpayment in the SSI program by making timely and accurate
decisions on Continuing Disability Reviews and explaining more
clearly the income and resource rules. Unnecessarily punishing
beneficiaries who are trying to abide by the rules and assuming
that everyone is trying to defraud the program does not promote
the integrity of the programs.
Public Understanding of Social Security
There are many misconceptions among the general public
about the programs SSA administers. Many individuals I
represent do not know what kind of benefit they are receiving,
nor do their family members. The SSI program, in particular, is
misunderstood. As mentioned, the SSA website is a high-tech way
to reach a certain part of the population. The best way to
reach many individuals outside of SSA offices is at local
community events with knowledgeable bi-lingual employees. The
public affairs staff at SSA can go a long way toward fostering
better understanding of the SSA program. The staff reductions
at SSA appear to have diminished the agency's ability to serve
its customers, and we hope that there will not be further
cutbacks.
Information and Referral Services
Although SSA provides many people with referrals unrelated
to the programs it administers, it could do a better job. The
SSI beneficiary is particularly vulnerable to the lack of
information about Medicaid eligibility. Although the 1619
program is a work incentives program, most of the SSA field
office staff does not even know that it exists. It can take SSA
months to make a 1619(b) determination, which means in the
interim that the SSI beneficiary, at least in Illinois, can
lose Medicaid eligibility for those months. The notices that
SSA sends out on 1619 are confusing and often misleading to the
beneficiary.
SSA can create better notices and train its staff on the
work incentives. SSA and the state Medicaid agencies should
have a better working agreement, and refer beneficiaries to
specific employees in their respective offices who understand
the interplay between the programs.
Conclusion
Although our criticisms may seem harsh, they are offered in
a constructive spirit. And all is not bleak. We want to commend
Commissioner Apfel, Deputy Commissioner for Disability and
Income Security Susan Daniels, Deputy Commissioner Ken McGill
and Region V Commissioner James Martin for their leadership and
responsiveness to our concerns about barriers to work for
people with disabilities. We have seen an incredible change in
SSA's attitude toward working with advocates to resolve
problems. There are many knowledgeable, courteous and loyal SSA
employees. Our overtures to SSA on many issues have been met
with enthusiasm. SSA appears to be dedicating more time and
resources to getting out into the community and working with
groups. The creation of the Office of Employment Support
signals a real commitment to assisting SSI and SSDI
beneficiaries who want to return to work. We welcome these
initiatives, and hope that SSA will have the necessary
resources to carry out this commitment.
We also agree with the recommendations of the Social
Security Advisory Board report issued in September, 1999. SSA
needs more funding to carry out its mission to meet the
challenges of this new century and deliver world class service.
We appreciate the opportunity to air our concerns, and we
look forward to continuing our partnership with SSA to find
solutions to address these challenges. I would be happy to
answer your questions. Thank you.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. McIntyre?
STATEMENT OF GERALD A. McINTYRE, DIRECTING ATTORNEY, NATIONAL
SENIOR CITIZENS LAW CENTER, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Mr. McIntyre. Mr. Chairman, my name is Gerald McIntyre. I
want to thank you for this opportunity to present our views to
the committee.
I am Directing Attorney of the Los Angeles office of the
National Senior Citizens Law Center, and work with elderly
legal services programs across the country. Social Security and
SSI programs have been at the core of our work since the
Center's founding in 1972.
For the past 9 years, we have worked with advocates from a
number of different organizations in an effort to obtain better
access to services for SSA's customers with limited English
proficiency. I am pleased to report that the past several years
have seen considerable progress in SSA's efforts to better
serve its limited English proficiency, or LEP, customers. The
agency has changed its policies to recognize its responsibility
to provide an interpreter when an individual is not able to
communicate adequately in English. It has done this out of a
desire to assure equal access to its services and out of a
concern for program integrity.
However, in spite of undeniable progress, much important
work remains to be done if SSA is to respond effectively to the
needs of the limited English proficient population. Most
important is the need for systems improvements to enable SSA to
obtain information on the language spoken by each of its
customers.
At present, SSA captures this information on all new Title
II and Title XVI claims, but does not obtain this information
for its existing customer base. Until it obtains this
information for all of its customers, implementation of SSA's
interpreter policy will continue to be highly uneven and
inefficient. Without this information, SSA field office staff
does not know whether or not an appointment should be scheduled
with a bilingual staff member, and SSA will lack adequate
management information to best utilize the language resources
it already has on staff.
The absence of language information about its customers
also means that SSA is currently unable to effectively
communicate in writing with its limited-English customers. At
present, SSA does have some Spanish language SSI notices, but
does not have any notices in other languages, which are an
increasing presence in the customer base. However, SSA is
unable to properly target even the limited number of Spanish-
language notices when it does not systematically record the
language used by each of its customers.
SSA must establish the capacity to send important written
notices in a language the recipient will understand. This is
already done by many States administering benefit programs of
similar complexity. For example, Washington State sends written
notices in 85 different languages in its Medicaid program. When
notices are sent in a language recipients cannot understand,
the results are more over-payments, more under-payments, more
field office visits, and a greater strain on limited field
office resources.
Another area that needs to be looked at is the feasibility
of establishing toll-free telephone service for additional
languages when it makes economic sense to do so. This not only
will result in better service to people speaking those
languages, but also will result in the better use of agency
resources by enabling the agency to handle these inquiries
expeditiously rather than through a time-consuming visit to a
field office.
American industry has come to the realization that if it
wishes to compete for the business of the limited English
proficient population, it must offer them services in a
language they can understand. Serving customers in their own
language is now recognized as a key element in gaining a
competitive edge and is simply good business. America's seniors
should be able to expect at least as good a level of customer
service from their Government when it deals with matters vital
to their welfare and security as they have come to expect from
the best of private enterprise in their role as consumers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Gerald A. McIntyre, Directing Attorney, National Senior
Citizens Law Center, Los Angeles, California
Mr. Chairman and Members:
My name is Gerald McIntyre. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to present our views to the Committee. I am
Directing Attorney of the Los Angeles office of the National
Senior Citizens Law Center, which works with elderly legal
services programs across the country on a broad range of legal
issues affecting the security and welfare of older persons of
limited means. The Social Security and SSI programs have been
at the core of our work since the Center's founding in 1972.
For the past nine years, we have worked with advocates from
a number of organizations representing older persons and
persons with disabilities in an effort to obtain better access
to services for SSA's customers with limited English
proficiency. I am making this statement on behalf of several
such organizations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This statement is submitted on behalf of Christopher Bowes,
Center for Disability Advocacy Rights (CeDAR), New York, NY, Linda
Landry, Disability Law Center, Boston, MA and Edwin Lopez-Soto, Greater
Upstate Law Project, Rochester, NY. In addition, we want to convey
special thanks to Gillian Dutton of Northwest Justice Project, Seattle,
Washington, who has worked with us on this issue since the beginning
and has provided valuable information based on her experience in
Washington State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are pleased to report that the past several years have
seen considerable progress in SSA's efforts to better serve its
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) customers. The agency has
changed its policies to recognize its responsibility to provide
an interpreter when an individual is not able to communicate
adequately in English. It has done this out of a desire to
assure equal access to its services and out of a concern for
program integrity. In an effort to obtain more accurate
disability determinations and in response to the increased need
for disability determinations for elderly non-citizens as a
result of the Balanced Budget Act, this policy has been
extended to the state agencies that make disability
determinations for SSA.
SSA has in the last few years hired an increased number of
bilingual personnel. It has established training programs and
prepared manuals to better utilize their skills. In addition,
SSA has established a standing Non-English Speaking/Limited
English Proficiency (NES/LEP) Workgroup drawn from various
components of the agency which has performed a major leadership
role in helping the agency clarify its policies and provide
efficient services to this population. To his credit, the
Commissioner has recognized the importance of these
contributions by giving the NES/LEP Workgroup an award for its
vision and hard work.
However, in spite of undeniable progress, much important
work remains to be done if SSA is to respond effectively to the
needs of the LEP population. Most important is the need for
systems improvements to enable SSA to obtain information on the
language spoken by each of its customers. At present SSA
captures this information on all new Title II and Title XVI
claims, but does not obtain this information for its existing
customer base. Until it obtains this information for all of its
customers, implementation of SSA's interpreter policy will
continue to be highly uneven and inefficient. Without this
information, SSA field office staff does not know whether or
not an appointment should be scheduled with a bilingual staff
member. As a result, appointments often have to be rescheduled
with considerable inconvenience and expense for both the
individual and SSA. Furthermore, the failure to obtain this
information means that SSA lacks adequate management
information to best utilize the language resources it already
has on staff.
The absence of language information on its customers also
means that SSA is currently unable to effectively communicate
in writing with its LEP customers. At present SSA does have
some Spanish language SSI notices, but does not have any
notices in other languages. However, SSA is unable to properly
target even the limited number of Spanish language noties when
it does not systematically record the language used by each of
its customers.
Understandable written communications are essential to
quality service delivery. Without them, services are second
rate. This is true in any environment, but especially so in the
administration of complex public benefit programs. This is
especially so for immigrants whose dealings with SSA are more
complex because of the additional inquiry required to establish
the validity of documents from another country and because of
the greater complexity of the laws and regulations surrounding
immigrant eligibility for benefits.
SSA must establish the capacity to send important written
notices in a language the recipient will understand. This is
important, not just from the standpoint of providing quality
service to the individual, but also from the standpoint of
overall agency efficiency.
When beneficiaries receive notices in a language they do
not understand, some people will try to find a friend, relative
or neighbor to translate it. The problems with this approach
are:
(1) the person doing the translating all too often
also has a limited grasp of the English language thus assuring
the transmission of inaccurate information,
(2) the beneficiary may be obliged to disclose
otherwise confidential personal information to his or her
detriment, and
(3) it results in delay that often causes an individual to
miss important response deadlines \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, SSI notices often require a response within ten
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another common reaction for a person receiving an English
language notice they do not understand is to bring the notice
in to the local SSA office to find out what it means. This may
require an elderly person to make two trips to the SSA office
since there may not be anyone available to talk to the person
in their language and an appointment may need to made for a
second visit. The result is not only poor service to that
individual and the possibility of a missed response deadline,
but also a diversion of scarce agency resources from other
tasks to deal with two unnecessary visits, thus affecting the
level of service for everybody.
SSA should look at the efforts of state and local
governments which are now sending notices to benefits
recipients in several languages. The best example in this
regard is the State of Washington which sends written notices
to benefits recipients in eighty-five languages. This includes
notices for the Medicaid program which has eligibility
provisions similar to those of SSI. While the challenges of
implementing such a program on a national scale are much
greater, the Washington State experience shows that it can be
done.
In recent years, SSA has placed increased emphasis on its
nationwide toll-free telephone service as a means of handling
routine inquiries and thereby reducing the field office
workload. SSA needs to consider the feasibility of establishing
separate toll-free numbers for different language groups where
it makes economic senses to do so. This will not only result in
better service to people speaking those languages, but will
also result in better use of agency resources by enabling the
agency to handle these inquiries expeditiously, rather than
through a time-consuming visit to a field office.
American industry has come to the realization that, if it
wishes to compete for the business of the LEP population, it
must offer them services in a language they can understand.
Companies, large and small, now regularly solicit business,
both in writing and orally, in a wide range of languages. A
prime example of this can be found in the highly competitive
long distance business, where the largest and smallest
providers and their customers communicate with their customers
in many languages. Another example was described in a recent
New York Times article about a no-frills shopping mall in
Queens, New York that has become one of the nation's most
profitable by emphasizing service to immigrants and which has
an information booth which can provide translation services in
21 different languages. (The article is attached as an Appendix
to this statement.) Serving customers in their own language is
now recognized as a key element in gaining a competitive edge
and is simply good business. America's seniors should be able
to expect at least as good a level of customer service from
their government when it deals with matters vital to their
welfare and security as they have come to expect from the best
of private enterprise in their role as consumers. We believe
they are entitled to have SSA's performance measured by the
same standards that would be applied to those private
enterprises which seek our business.
Finally, we agree with the recommendation of the Social
Security Advisory Board on the need for providing SSA with
additional resources. The strain on resources already shows
with the current caseload and can only be expected to increase
with the retirement of the baby boomers and the projected
increase in the number of LEP customers. At present, the policy
on interpreters is excellent, but implementation is highly
uneven and agency efforts to monitor compliance and to
consistently reinforce the policy are inadequate. We suspect
that one reason for this is inadequate staffing levels,
exacerbated by the reduction in the number of mid-level
supervisory personnel, as pointed out in the Advisory Board's
report.
In closing, we urge SSA to devote considerably more effort
to ensuring compliance with its existing interpreter policy and
to embark on a course of providing notices to LEP individuals
in their own language. This action should not be deferred as it
will not become any easier as the number of LEP customers
continues to grow. We have seen from the example of Washington
State that it can be done and we know that SSA has the
leadership needed to carry it out. We urge Congress to see to
it that SSA has the resources required to provide quality
service to all of America's seniors.
Nothing Gaudy but Sales Figures; No-Frills Queens Center Outshines Most
Luxury Malls
There is no marble, no chandeliers, no gourmet food court
or Neiman Marcus at the Queens Center Mall, an aging shopping
plaza where the landscaping consists of fake ficus trees and
the atrium is highlighted with neon lights and a giant plastic
Bugs Bunny statue.
As for its mauve and beige and windowless exterior,
Lorraine O'Neill, the mall's manager, put it bluntly: ``It is
ugly.''
So why is this cramped, dated mall causing twinges of
jealousy among owners of upscale suburban-shopping meccas,
places where visitors sip lattes under imported live palm trees
and where Bugs Bunny is more likely found on a pricey T-shirt?
Despite its decidedly no-frills style, the 27-year-old mall
in Elmhurst is one of the best-performing in the nation. Sales
per square foot there--about $760 in 1999--are more than twice
the national average. It even outperformed luxury-oriented
centers like Tysons Galleria in suburban Washington, which sold
about $680 per square foot in 1999 at stores including Versace
and Max Mara, a spokeswoman for the mall owner said.
The quiet success of the Elmhurst mall, owned by the
Macerich Company, based in Santa Monica, Calif., is a testament
to the growing buying power of the surrounding Queens
community, a sizable share of which is made up of recent
immigrants, who turn to the mall for goods to set up new
households or ship back to relatives.
As the only large-scale enclosed mall in the borough, it
also illustrates the shortage of shopping alternatives for
middle-class Queens, a reality that some of the nation's
biggest retailers are scrambling to correct.
``Queens Center clearly does much better than most people
realize,'' said William S. Taubman, executive vice president of
the Taubman Company, a Macerich competitor. ``Even most people
in our industry don't realize it.''
The cash registers at Queens Center ring year-round, from
the ground-floor Baskin-Robbins, which has the second highest
sales of the 250 outlets in the New York region, to the top-
floor Children's Place, the top-performing store of the
national chain's 293 outlets. Sales at the two mall anchors--J.
C. Penney and Macy's--also put these stores among the national
chains' top performers, company officials said.
Much of its success can be attributed to its location at
90-15 Queens Boulevard: it sits in the middle of a borough of
two million residents, atop a subway line and alongside the
Long Island Expressway. Macerich's managers have also assembled
a mix of retailers--from Father and Son Shoes to Lechters
housewares--that seem ideally matched to the needs of this
particular set of shoppers.
Retail analysts say that the youthful makeup of the
customer base contributes to the mall's high sales. Popular
labels like Tommy Hilfiger and Polo Sport sell consistently at
shops there, in part because of a desire by many of the
community's first-generation Americans to assimilate into their
adopted culture, said Malachy Kavanagh, a spokesman for the
International Council of Shopping Centers, based in New York.
``The mall is a conduit to the American dream,'' Mr.
Kavanagh said. ``You might still have a language barrier, but
very quickly, if I buy the Levi's jeans, the Michael Jordan
sneakers, the Tommy Hilfiger jackets or Polo shirts, I can look
like an American.''
The frequent travel between native lands and Queens by many
of the mall's customers also drives sales, said Paco Underhill,
a New York retail consultant who has visited the Queens mall.
``Queens, almost like Miami, is an acquisition capital of
America for goods leaving the country,'' said Mr. Underhill,
author of the recent book ``Why We Buy: The Science of
Shopping'' (Simon & Schuster). ``People are buying icons of
American culture to take them back with them.''
All this was evident on a recent evening at Queens Center,
which buzzed with shoppers even after the holiday frenzy.
Customers packed the Victoria's Secret store, feverishly
grabbing for sale items. Employees at Baskin-Robbins could not
scoop ice cream fast enough for a steady flow of customers.
Upstairs at Macy's, shoppers lined up at the housewares
registers, their arms filled with merchandise.
One Macy's customer, Paulina Espin, walked out with a
toaster oven, pressure cooker and several bowls. She moved to
New York City with her family seven months ago from Quito,
Ecuador, and has turned to the Queens mall to fill her house
with essential goods.
``I need so many things,'' she said.
Shahzad Azmat of Kew Gardens added about $150 to the mall
sales that evening, buying dolls, watches, children's clothing,
shirts, perfumes and other goods he and his wife planned to
take to their native Pakistan as gifts for family and friends.
Meanwhile, Alexis Cartagena, 18, a recent graduate of
Newtown High School in Elmhurst, was hanging out with his
friends and looking for must-have clothes. ``Every day, there
is something that looks cool,'' said Mr. Cartagena, who was
wearing a Polo shirt, Mecca jeans, Spider cap and Dolomite
boots. ``You come here, you see stuff, you want to buy it.''
The ethnic diversity at the mall is evident on every floor.
Customers lined up in one row of tables at the food court were
natives of Guatemala, Korea, El Salvador, Jordan and
Bangladesh, as well as Queens.
At least 21 languages are spoken at the mall, according to
a list kept at the customer service desk, which can arrange
translation services.
Over all, the steady stream of customers generated about
$105 million in total sales at the mall last year, not
including the anchor stores. That figure is far smaller than
those of many giant malls, with the extreme being the Mall of
America in Bloomington, Minn., with its 4.3 miles of
storefronts.
But on a square-foot basis, sales at Queens Center last
year totaled about $760, an increase of $20 a square foot from
1998, when it was already more than twice the national average
of $320. Garden State Plaza in Paramus, N.J., and King of
Prussia Mall in suburban Philadelphia, in comparison, each
listed about $470 per square foot of sales in the recent tally
by the Directory of Major Malls, an industry publication.
Exceptional retail sales in Queens are not limited to the
mall. Home Depot has three outlets in the borough, two of which
are open 24 hours a day. All three stores--in Long Island City,
Flushing and Ozone Park--rank among the top 10 in performance
in the 913-unit chain. Retailers nationwide have noticed all
the money being made. A result is a flurry of blueprints that
should soon mean lots of new shopping options for residents of
Queens.
Macerich, the owner of Queens Center Mall, wants to invest
about $200 million to double the mall's retail sales area, by
building an annex atop a municipal parking lot across the
street. The expanded mall is to include skylights, real trees
and sit-down restaurants.
Mattone Group, a family-owned developer based in College
Point, Queens, intends to build an 18-screen movie theater on
top of a second nearby municipal parking lot in Elmhurst. And
Forest City Ratner, based in Cleveland, wants to add a new
floor to the Stern's store nearby after the department store
closes to accommodate a Target store, other retail space and
another multiplex movie theater.
``The pent-up demand is so strong,'' said John E. Simley, a
spokesman for Home Depot, which intends to open its fourth
Queens store, on Woodhaven Boulevard, in mid-February and is
already planning a fifth, in College Point. ``It is not like
suddenly two million people moved to Queens. I guess it was
just overlooked for some time.''
Some Queens residents are concerned that the building plans
are too ambitious. Community Board 4 in Corona recently voted
to oppose the construction of the new movie theaters planned
for one of the municipal parking lots next to the mall.
``You already have gridlock traffic every day, even on
weekends,'' said Rose Rothschild, district manager for
Community Board 4. ``Imagine if they all get approval. It is
going to make a big mess.''
But borough leaders--noting that they are committed to
ensuring that the construction does not overwhelm Queens--said
they have long been waiting for respect from retailers that the
borough deserves.
``There are precious few places in Queens where you can
shop and get a wide variety,'' said Borough President Claire
Shulman, who often shops at Queens Center Mall. ``Big retailers
have suddenly discovered us, and now they are making out like
gangbusters. It is about time.''
Chairman Shaw. Thank you.
Mr. Skwierczynski?
STATEMENT OF WITOLD SKWIERCZYNSKI, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL
OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FIELD OPERATIONS LOCALS,
AMERICAN FEDERAL OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL 220,
AND CO-CHAIR, AFGE-SSA NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL, CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS
Mr. Skwierczynski. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Shaw,
Ranking Member Matsui, and other members of the subcommittee. I
am with the union. I represent 50,000 bargaining unit Social
Security Administration employees. We have a veteran workforce.
Our average age of our workers is about 46 years old. Our
workers are about 73 percent female. We work in about 1,300
field offices and 36 teleservice centers and 132 hearings
offices.
We have a dedicated, veteran workforce who care deeply
about the program that we administer. The employees reflect the
face of Social Security in the community. Unfortunately, we
have many less faces than we have had before. We work in
community-based facilities. We know the problems of our
clientele. We not only deliver Social Security services, but we
also refer our clients to a wide variety of other community-
based services.
SSA's community-based service has been the foundation and
the key to public acceptance of Social Security, and its
accessibility to a vulnerable clientele--senior citizens,
disabled people, the poor, and survivors of breadwinners who
die prematurely. The SSA clients consistently tell Social
Security on focus groups and also in surveys that they want to
maintain the community-based service, that they want a
caseworker whom they can rely on to process their claim, refer
them to other community-based agencies and services, decide
their claim, and help them file an appeal.
The budget and staffing cuts of the last two decades have
jeopardized the ability of Social Security to continue to
provide efficient, caring, speedy, and accurate community-based
service. The Social Security Advisory Committee report released
last fall has highlighted this crisis. Our employees have been
telling us, the union, about this for years. In 40 percent of
our field offices, the staffing levels have gone down to 15 or
less employees. With that type of staffing, which is the result
of about 29-percent cuts in our field organization, it is next
to impossible to continue to provide the kind of broad-based
service that our customers desire and deserve.
There has been increased office closings that the
administration has initiated to try to deal with the size of
our offices. We have an 800 number service that requires
shifting employees from other kinds of work in order to answer
the millions of calls that we are getting. Many of our offices
have frequent lengthy waits of 2 to 4 hours for customers who
want service. These are disabled customers and senior citizens.
Many of them, when they seek an appointment, have to wait 3 to
4 weeks in the future to get that appointment.
While Social Security workloads have increased, Congress
has responded by cutting staff. Our veteran workers have
utilized overtime to try to keep up with the workloads. The
response by Congress and the administration has been to cut
overtime. In the fiscal year 2001 budget, the work-years for
overtime would constitute an 85-percent cut over 2 years.
This continuous assault on the staffing levels of Social
Security and overtime make it next to impossible for us to
continue to provide the services that are expected. Our
stressed-out, overworked staff can no longer tolerate the
situation. Retirements are up, and many employees tell me that
they are counting the days until they retire because they can
no longer work in that kind of environment.
The union applauds Commissioner Apfel's alternative budget,
which I think will move us in the correct direction, stems the
tide, and offers some modest FTE and overtime increases. We
don't think it is enough. The proposed budget does not go far
enough. It doesn't even go to fiscal year 1999 levels. We think
some drastic measures are needed.
Off-caps, we are in favor of. We think SSA is a unique
program. We think the American public would support that
Congress view it as different from other agencies and take a
hard look at the type of staffing and resources that are needed
for Social Security. We think off-caps is necessary.
We think that the service delivery schemes, such as
Internet service, applications on the Internet, and claims at
first contact, need to be rethought. We don't think the
American public is looking for centralized Social Security
service. We think they desire community-based service,
something like the DCM. I have testified on the DCM at our last
hearing. I think the DCM is something that you need to schedule
another hearing for and look at how we can provide the kind of
community-based service that the public wants.
The disability area--the DCM project indicates that claims
are processed faster, more expeditiously, as accurate as the
current process, and that something that works where you get a
single caseworker making a decision, helping a client get
through their disability claim, explaining to them the
reasoning of the decision, is something that we need to explore
the legal problems and eliminate the legal barriers that makes
that work.
In summary, I think we are in a crisis situation. These are
not just words. The employees understand it, and we need to
come to grips with the fact that in order to provide a Social
Security service that is of world-class, you have got to
provide the resources for it.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Witold Skwierczynski, President, National Council of
Social Security Administration Field Operations Locals, American
Federation of Government Employees, Council 220, and Co-Chair, AFGE-SSA
National Partnership Council, Chicago, Illinois
Chairman Shaw, Ranking Member Matsui, and members of the
Social Security Subcommittee, I want to thank you for your
invitation to testify on the subject of SSA's service delivery
and SSA's readiness for the impending wave of baby boomer
beneficiaries. AFGE welcomes the opportunity to encourage the
prompt action that is needed to ensure that the Social Security
Administration can fulfill its current and future obligation to
serve the American people.
I would like to extend our gratitude to Stanford Ross and
the SSA Advisory Board for their candidness and presentation of
the reality of SSA's ability to meet the publics needs. We
salute the Advisory Board insight and dedication to fulfill the
mandate of the 1994 legislation that established Social
Security as an Independent Agency.
AFGE embraces the SSA Advisory Board's report, which
validates the Union's position presented in testimony to
Congress over many years. For the first time, SSA has openly
acknowledged the stress and strains placed on employees due to
the lack of staff and resources needed to provide the level of
world class service that the public expects and deserves. For
the first time, SSA has begun to address operational and
organizational shortcomings.
The Union has, for many, many years, urged Congress to take
SSA off budget. This would allow SSA programs to be set at a
level that fits the needs of Social Security's contributors and
beneficiaries, rather than at an arbitrary level that fits
within the current government cap on discretionary spending.
Already understaffed, SSA was once again subjected to arbitrary
spending caps as a result of the 1997 Budget Deficit Act. This
short fall was accomplished without consideration to the
increased beneficiary population and service demands. As an
outcome SSA is forced to compete for limited funding with other
federal programs such as Head Start, WIC, meat inspection,
Education and VA administrative costs. We find this incredulous
since SSA administrative expenses, by statute, must be paid
from the trust fund.
We commend Commissioner Apfel for submitting an annual
budget independent of the President's budget according to the
Social Security Independence Act of 1994. The Commissioner's
budget requesting 66,300 total workyears is an improvement over
the President's budget inadequacies of 63,831 total workyears.
Although neither budget achieves the 1999 total workyears of
66,459, AFGE believes that Commissioner Apfel's budget is a
step in the right direction. For a comparison of FY 2001 Budget
Requests to Congress for SSA by President Clinton and
Commissioner Apfel see Addendum A.
SSA is a unique government program, fully supported by the
Congress and the American public with a trust fund surplus at
an all time high. We serve the elderly, people with physical
and mental disabilities, children who have lost parents,
spouses who have lost a partner. These people need our benefits
to survive. These people deserve the highest level of quality
service that we can provide. This is not happening. SSA
administrative expenses are lower than any insurance company
can provide. SSA administrative expense must not be limited by
an arbitrary spending cap. SSA must be adequately funded to
meet the needs of the people we serve. SSA administrative
expenses can and should be taken off-budget. The American
public deserves no less.
We have given you our proposed solution, now we will take
this opportunity to present some of the problems that we feel
SSA must correct to prepare for the impending increase in
beneficiaries.
Staffing Problems
Our Union represents more than 50,000 employees almost 1300
field offices, 132 offices of Hearings and Appeals, 36
Teleservice Centers, 7 Program Service Centers, a Data
Operations Center, Central Office, the National Computer Center
and 10 Regional Quality Review Offices.
Over the last 20 years, governmental agencies as a whole
suffered a 12% reduction. During this same period, SSA's
overall workforce was reduced by 27%. Most devastating to
quality service however was the more severe impact of the 29%
reduction in direct service staff who work in local community
offices. As a result of staff reductions, service has
deteriorated. Additionally a decline in accuracy and timeliness
have been caused by dramatic increases in disability claims and
appeals, and the complexity of other additional workloads.
Congressional mandates without consideration to the additional
staff needed to fulfill the mandates has also contributed to
the erosion of quality service. AFGE has called for the
restoration of adequate staffing levels for years. We know
where the problems are and what the solutions need to be.
Congress, the Administration, and SSA decision-makers have been
unresponsive. We feel Congress had been mislead based on SSA's
incorrect assumptions concerning technology replacing staff.
Computers do not replace people. The SSA Advisory Board has now
joined us in advocating for more staff and an independent
budget to improve program administration.
Simply put, we have fewer employees to do more and more
work. SSA's human resources are stretched to the breaking point
so that we can't give the American people the world class
service they need or deserve. For example:
In our Prescott, AZ office, more than 25% of its
staff was lost within this past year. Post entitlement
workloads, such as overpayments and the posting of wages for
Supplemental Security Income benefits, are not being processed
due to a lack of staff.
In our San Francisco Region, a temporary
moratorium was placed on SSI redeterminations, so that some of
the backlogged post entitlement workloads could be processed.
In our Fremont and Hayward California offices,
loss of staff has caused major backlogs in all workloads,
making prioritization difficult. Post-entitlement workloads,
such as wage reports are not processed timely, resulting in
overpayments.
In our Sacramento, California offices, SSI
workloads are tremendous. Although pending workloads are equal
in our Sacramento District Office and our South Sacramento
office, our South Sacramento Office has 40% less staff to
accomplish the same goals.
In one of our San Diego California field offices
customers wait two (2) hours to speak to a Social Security
Representatives. During peak periods of the day or month,
waiting time increases to four (4) hours.
In our New Britain and Bristol, Connecticut field
offices, all workloads are falling behind. They desperately
need overtime to try to catch up. Out of 7 CRs, 2 are eligible
for retirement and because they are so stressed out, they are
very tempted to leave. There is no motivation to continue
working at SSA.
In the Kankakee Illinois field offices, staffing
shortages have resulted in 3-4 day delay in the adjudication of
RSDI claims. The average waiting time is \1/2\ hour. Depending
on daily staffing, waiting times could easily increase to a one
(1) hour wait. Critical payments take 2-3 days. Additionally,
four contact stations were closed, one of them an hour drive
forcing the public to use the phone or drive an hour to the
office.
Our Easton, Pennsylvania field office is
supporting the Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania Branch Office where 5
of 8 employees retired at the end of FY99 leaving 2 experienced
claims representatives and 1 service representative to serve
the community. Although 5 replacements were hired, 2 quit and
the recently hired trainee Claims Representatives will work in
the office for a few months before they go to 13 weeks
additional training. The first available teleclaim appointment
for the Stroudsburg/Easton schedule is 3 weeks. The Easton
office has been taking teleclaim appointments for the
Stroudsburg office since last October and expects to continue
to do so for another 4-5 months. The Easton office has 2
Service Representatives on duty and is understaffed by 2.
In our Meadville, Pennsylvania field office, RSDI
waivers and work CDRs are backlogged and will take months to
resolve. Additionally, backlogs of wage verification and inputs
cannot be processed, and will predictably result in
overpayments.
In our Sharon, Pennsylvania field office, employee
report that all workloads are backed up and since there is no
overtime, there is no hope to catch up.
In our McKinney, Texas field office, staffing
shortages and the inability to replace lost staff has resulted
in GS-11 Claims Representatives absorbing the additional
workloads/duties of GS-8 Service Representatives. This has
resulted in delays in services (i.e. appointments, benefits,
and general information) to the McKinney community. It has been
estimated that an additional three (3) FTEs are needed to meet
the needs of this community to keep up with fast growing Collin
county.
In our San Antonio Texas field office, medical
CDRs are being mailed and later reviewed by a volunteer
student, instead of completed during a mandatory face to face
interview with an experienced GS-11 Claims Representative. This
same procedure is being implemented throughout the nation.
Additionally, SSA's aging workforce will result in a great
number of retirements at the same time the agency's workloads
are expected to rise. The loss of experience and program
knowledge will be devastating if we do not make every effort to
immediately hire and fully train new employees to replace
anticipated personnel losses. New employees should be given
every opportunity to be taught and mentored by our most
seasoned workers. However, given the everyday pressures of
doing ``more with less,'' and as workloads become increasingly
stressful and backlogs grow, SSA employees have become much
more motivated to retire as soon as they become eligible. We
call on Congress to direct SSA to actualize a hiring plan
immediately, while time permits to adequately hire and train
new employees.
Another important area that has suffered as a result of
staffing cuts is the Office of Quality Assurance tasked to
investigate and uncover fraud, waste and abuse. The staffing
has been cut so drastically that quality review audits are
limited to cases in metropolitan areas. Whereas quality
assurance staff previously conducted reviews in field offices
nationwide to ensure accurate work product, they no longer have
the staff or the resources to perform this function.
Community Based Service
Only our network of community based field offices can
effectively handle the public's business by whatever means the
public chooses as its method of contact. Staffing levels in
these offices must be consistent with the public service needs
of the residents in these communities.
Social Security's field offices have become ``a beginning
place of access'' for other public and private social service
agencies. As the Advisory Board was able to confirm, people go
to the Social Security office because they do not know where
else to turn for help. Because SSA serves as a community
resource, we believe SSA should retain it's community based
capacity with adequate staffing to provide quality service.
Consolidation and closure of field offices has proven
counter productive and become a major public relations problem
for SSA and a hardship on the elderly and disabled. To
complicate the matter, in areas of the country that are growing
by leaps and bounds, SSA has not considered opening additional
field offices to meet the public's needs. For example, the city
of Austin, Texas is one of the largest growing cities in the
country. There is only one field office to serve the city's
more than one million citizens. The Austin office has
experienced more than a 25% reduction in staff. Las Vegas,
Nevada is the fastest growing city in the United States with
more than 1.2 million citizens. Las Vegas grows by more than
50,000 people each year. Despite all this, SSA has only two
field offices to service the Las Vegas area. These two (2)
offices cannot keep up with public demands.
Austin, Texas, Easton/Stroudsburg Pennsylvania and Las
Vegas, Nevada, are just a few examples of how the Agency has
not recognized the needs of growing communities. Longer waiting
times, backlogged workloads and high personnel turnovers are
the apparent results of insufficient staffing and lack of
planning.
SSA Focus Groups of current and future beneficiaries
throughout the country strongly voiced preference for community
based service. A local office presence is the resounding choice
in conducting important personal business, such as applying for
benefits and resolving check problems. The public preferred the
option of doing routine business by phone with the local office
or a Teleservice Center. When questioned, the public expressed
no interest in receiving service from third parties or other
non-SSA personnel, especially when fees are involved.
SSA intends to prematurely launch its plans to allow
beneficiaries to file claims via the Internet in April 2000.
While AFGE recognizes that the use of the Internet will be an
acceptable and convenient method of filing claims in the
future, security safeguards and adequate protection of
individual privacy does not yet appear to be in place. AFGE,
still mindful of the online PEBES fiasco, strongly believes
that Congress should take a long hard look at the security and
privacy issues before a scheduled release. Additionally, we do
not believe that the public is willing to deal with the
complexity of a 90-page screen application.
AFGE is also very concerned and believes that Congress
should be alerted to watch closely and recognize that Internet
claims taking could result in more centralized workloads and
the closing and consolidation of community based offices in
every congressional district.
SSA's 800 Number
Our Teleservice employees must be empowered to handle more
calls to completion, thereby allowing the public to complete
more of its business with SSA in a single contact.
One of the most serious service delivery problems that SSA
faces is its telephone service. Due to restrictions on hiring,
SSA's Teleservice Centers have too few employees to handle the
more than 70 million calls received by the national 800 number
each year. Therefore, employees at the seven (7) Payment
Service Centers and its Central Office are forced to put aside
critical workloads and instead are assigned to answer calls or
``spike'' during peak hours on the national 800 number. Last
year, ``spikes'' were used more than 100 workdays. While the
agency has stated that using PSC employees would be a temporary
measure, the practice has been ongoing and increasing for 10
years!
Teleservice Center employees are encouraged to resolve
calls as soon as possible. If employees take too long on calls,
their knowledge of SSA programs is questioned. If employees try
to keep responses short, they are often criticized for not
providing good public service. Therefore, calls that could not
be resolved quickly or thoroughly, are referred to field
offices for follow up service. This not only creates a very
stressful work environment but it also leaves employees
frustrated and provides little satisfaction of doing a job well
done under difficult circumstances.
Because of the tremendous amount of pressure put on
Teleservice representatives and their managers to meet the goal
of answering 95% of calls to the national 800 number in five
minutes, backlogs and workload priorities do not allow for
sufficient training. The SSA Advisory Board found that ongoing
training is essential to building and maintaining the knowledge
and skills that employees need. SSA's growing program
complexity requires a higher level of programmatic knowledge.
Without necessary ongoing training, accuracy of information
will continue to be compromised.
The Disability Claims Manager
The Disability Claims Manager (DCM) pilot position was
defined in my October 1999 testimony to this subcommittee. All
indication in Phase I are that the DCM is a viable customer
service initiative. Claimants are extremely satisfied to have a
single point of contact from their initial disability interview
through the medical decision on their case.
Phase II of the DCM test began November 1999. This is the
formal evaluation period when SSA will continue to measure
enhanced public service, employee satisfaction, productivity,
the allowance rate, quality assurance and processing time. The
SSA/DDS environmental fit must be determined, and
administrative cost estimated. AFGE believes that the DCM
position is the most efficient means for continuity of claimant
services between the medical and non-medical parts of their
claim.
Why the Disability Claim Manager (DCM) Position?
A claimant in Jacksonville, Florida said that his
experience with a DCM was that ``she was patient, courteous and
supportive in handling my claim for disability. In an
impersonal world which easily frustrates the mentally
handicapped she stands head and shoulders above the rest in
dedication to fairness in working for such a large government
entity.''
A licensed clinical social worker in Denver who is an
advocate for the homeless or those at risk of becoming homeless
and have persistent mental illness or a terminal illness. He
says, ``I have had the incredibly fortunate opportunity to
assist three clients in applying for disability benefits
through the DCM pilot. Rather than the cumbersome and
complicated traditional process, the DCM allowed for the
application to be completed in one office, in one visit, by a
decision-maker who I could readily reach by phone!''
National work sampling data reveals that two thirds of the
disability claims are for SSI and 80% of SSI allowances have
some type of mental impairment. This segment of our population
needs to have access to a claims manager in a face to face
interview setting to navigate them through the disability
process.
Another claimant in Helena Montana wrote to thank a DCM for
his excellent help; noting, ``the pilot program obviously is a
success! It was very nice of you to take time to explain the
procedures. My claim was completed quickly and courteously,
eliminating all the stress and anxiety for my family during
this time of tragedy.'' Even claimants that are denied
disability benefits have written letters expressing their
appreciation for this process which enabled them to deal with
one decision-maker, participate in the process, and understand
the reason for their denial.
AFGE strongly believes that the DCM should be implemented
within the field office structure nationwide. We question SSA's
commitment to DCM implementation as evidenced by their refusal
for an independent evaluation of Phase II, with no SSA
evaluation plan yet finalized.
SSA's Union-Management Relationship
We believe that SSA needs a service delivery plan that will
guide the Agency through the next ten years that will address
the service needs of current and future beneficiaries during
the same period SSA will be losing the majority of its current
workforce to retirement. We believe that SSA employees
understand better than anyone what steps need to be taken to
improve service to the public. SSA needs to address these
issues far more aggressively than it has in the past if it is
to meet the challenges in the coming decade. We continue to be
prepared to work together with SSA top management to seek
improvement in service.
As I previously testified in October 1999, Labor-Management
Partnership and the Disability Process Redesign are
inextricably connected. SSA and AFGE worked together to write
the recommendations that comprised the Disability Redesign
proposal. Several tests, pilots, and prototypes started during
the Redesign have demonstrated the efficiency of working in
partnership and cooperation with the Union in planning and
implementing improved processes.
Federal employees can process both disability and non-
disability aspects of claims quickly, accurately, and
successfully. The public likes one stop service, which the DCM
provides. We are dismayed by DDS resistance to the recognized
success of the DCM pilot and SSA's willingness to gut it. DDS
has opposed expansion of the DCM pilot even though a neutral
party documented both the service improvements and increased
public and employee satisfaction. It appears that DDS fear for
loss of staff may be an unrealistic when the success of the DCM
pilot utilizes both State and Federal employees. AFGE believes
that Congress should research legal implications and make
statutory changes if necessary to allow federal and state
employees to make disability decisions.
Conclusion
The SSA Advisory Board recommends cooperation and teamwork
in the disability process yet SSA displays an unwillingness to
move forward with full implementation of the DCM program
despite it's screaming success. AFGE is willing to work in
cooperation with SSA top management in a continued effort to
improve the disability process that better serves the American
people.
AFGE is willing to work with SSA to improve the work
environment, ensure a safe and healthy workplace, provide
opportunities for training and promotion and most importantly
improve public service. However SSA is still reluctant to have
first line employee representatives involved in the decision
making process. AFGE continues to be concerned with SSA's
unilateral implementation of policies and trends that include
centralizing workloads that cost face to face contacts, could
result in loss of staff from field offices that will most
likely close or consolidate offices and weaken community based
service. Another potentially dangerous trend in our opinion is
the proposed applications on the Internet. Without security and
encryption protections this endangers privacy and personal
security of all social security number holders and we believe
potentially makes individual records vulnerable to hackers. We
urge Congress to pay particularly close attention to SSA action
in this area.
We agree with the Advisory Board's findings that SSA's
administrative budget should be set at a level that fits the
needs of Social Security's taxpayers and beneficiaries rather
than at an arbitrary level which fits within the government's
overall discretionary spending cap. If SSA's administrative
budget is not explicitly excluded from the cap on discretionary
spending, SSA is forced to compete with other Federal agencies
for scarce resources within the spending limits defined by law.
The result will be SSA's inability to provide world class
service to tens of millions of Americans in the next decade.
Comparison of FY 2001 Budget Request to Congress for SSA
[By President Clinton and Commissioner Apfel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATION
EXPENSES (LAE) Commissioner's Budget President's Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Operations....................... $6,866 million $6,684 million
Capital Investment.................... $40 million 0
Additional Funding for CDRs........... $450 million $450 million
Total LAE............................. $7,356 million $7,134 million
OIG................................... $76 million $73 million
Research (Sect 1110, SSI acct)........ $34 million $30 million
Total Budgetary Resources............. $7,466 million $7,237 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Apfel FY President
STAFFING FY1999 President's 2000 Actual 2001 FY 2001
Budget Request Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTE Full-time Permanent................... 59,000 60,000 60,000 60,400 60,000
SSA FTE................................... 62,972 63,573 63,350 64,049 63,140
SSA Overtime.............................. 3,292 2,062 1,664 2,061 500
SSA Workyears............................. 66,459 65,824 65,203 66,300 63,831
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 Apfel FY President
Component FTE;s and OT WY) FY 1999 President's 2000 Actual 2001 FY 2001
Budget Request Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations................................ 47,017 47,058 47,360 47,360 47,126
(2,448) (1,249) (1,089) (1,447) (145)
Hearings/Appeals.......................... 8,041 7,865 7,782 7,680 7,782
(550) (361) (300) (361) (122)
Others.................................... 7,504 7,657 7,540 7,679 7,410
(290) (249) (272) (249) (229)
OIG....................................... 428 536 536 590 584
(4) (3) (3) (4) (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Shaw. Thank you.
Ms. Spurgeon?
STATEMENT OF TERRI SPURGEON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
DISABILITY EXAMINERS, ZACHERY, LOUISIANA
Ms. Spurgeon. Chairman Shaw, members of the committee, on
behalf of the members of the National Association of Disability
Examiners, I want to thank you for this invitation to testify
today at your second hearing of Social Security's Readiness for
the Impending Wave of Baby Boomer Beneficiaries.
NADE is a professional association whose purpose is to
promote the art and science of disability evaluation. Our
members have a unique understanding of the problems facing the
program at this time and a strong commitment to maintaining
meaningful and viable disability programs. Although the
majority of our members are employed within the State
disability determination offices, our membership also includes
SSA claims reps, physicians, psychologists, attorneys,
advocates, and other professionals who work with and are
interested in the evaluation of disability claims.
We believe the diversity of our membership, as well as our
experience working directly with the Social Security and SSI
disability programs, allows us to address the problems from a
practical and realistic viewpoint. We understand the impact
these programs have on the lives of the disabled individuals
and their families. We also recognize that the compelling needs
of these individuals must be met within a framework of fiscal
responsibility.
The perspective from which NADE views SSA's readiness for
handling the impending workload is unique. We acknowledge that
SSA has been focused on the future of the disability programs.
We have expressed support for exploring measures that may
improve customer service, reduce program cost, and increase
employee satisfaction. Many of the proposals look good on
paper, but the reality of testing and implementation has taken
its toll on the DDS resources. Without adequate additional
resources to implement and/or test the initiatives, DDSs have
to rely on the limited number of experienced employees in our
current budgets. The remainder has been stretched to
operational limits in order to handle the usual daily workloads
and has resulted in an unusually high number of turnovers in
many of the State agencies.
Front-line workers are reluctant to consider the future of
the agency programs because they are so stressed and can't
handle the current levels of stress that they are working under
today. The increasingly rapid turnover of case processing staff
and the continuing loss of experienced personnel will have a
significant impact on the quality of the service that the DDSs
can provide and that the public needs. This potential adverse
effect on service delivery is an important issue for NADE,
DDSs, and this committee.
The reduction in the number of field office personnel and
the increase in the number of telephone claims has had a
negative impact on the completeness of these initial
applications as received in the DDSs. Disability adjudicators
are forced to spend additional time recontacting claimants to
adequately complete the applications. This has had a positive
impact on the quality of our decisionmaking process, but on the
flip side it has had a negative impact on the processing time
and the time that adjudicators need to spend on their other
duties.
In April of 1994, SSA issued its Plan for a New Disability
Claim Process. The five primary objectives of this plan were to
make the process user-friendly, make the right decision the
first time, make decisions as quickly as possible, make the
process efficient, and make the working environment
satisfactory for the employees.
In March of last year, following 5 years of piloting
various elements of the redesign plan, the Commissioner
announced his decision to begin implementation of a new process
which combined several of the key elements from the original
plan. These included the single decisionmaker, the pre-decision
interview, expanded rationales, elimination of the
reconsideration step in the appeal process, and the
improvements on the hearing process.
Beginning with the initial claims filed on or after October
1, the new process was to be prototyped in 10 State DDSs, which
represented about 20 percent of the initial applications. NADE
had previously expressed concerns about the negative impact on
the OHA workloads as a result of eliminating the recoin step
from the appeals process. We didn't believe that the full
impact imposed by the new process in terms of processing time
and examiner responsibilities had been adequately evaluated.
For that reason, we were pleased that it was being
prototyped instead of just rolled out nationally. Now that we
are 5 months into the new process, it is a little early to
really know exactly what the numbers are adding up to. But the
preliminary anecdotal evidence suggests that the new process
neither increases customer satisfaction, nor does it improve
employee morale. Results of the prototype must be evaluated
carefully and objectively before national rollout can be
implemented.
It is commonly recognized that it takes at least 2 years
for a disability examiner to become proficient at the position.
This time is likely to increase as the complexity of the
process and the diversity of the customer base increases. While
nationwide the number of disability examiners with less than 2
years of experience has increased, the DDSs are also faced with
a large percentage of staff reaching retirement age.
When SSA began administering the SSI program in 1973, most
of the DDSs hired a large number of staff to accommodate that.
As employees are reaching retirement age, the pool of
experience we are going to be losing, and that is going to
leave us at a loss for having the right people there to train
our new employees and do mentoring.
NADE has consistently urged that SSA's administrative
budget, like its program budget, be removed from the cap on
discretionary spending. We concur with the views expressed by
the Advisory Board that SSA's staffing resources have declined
significantly over the last two decades, while the agency's
workload has increased and become more complex. The agency's
tight resource constraints limits its capacity to respond to
the growing workloads. This is as true in the DDSs as it is in
the field offices. Additional staff is needed to handle the
increasingly complex workloads.
SSA has announced their intention to revise and update a
number of the medical listings. While it is important that the
criteria used to establish disability be updated, this again
impacts on resources. As presented to this Association, these
changes in the listings, which include emphasis on credibility
and functionality, will require substantial training and will
significantly increase the demands on the adjudicators.
The time necessary for an examiner to address issues like
credibility and functionality will increase the time
adjudicators will spend on each case. And while this should
increase the quality of our decisionmaking, it will decrease
the time available to spend on other cases. Adjudicators will
necessarily have to assume smaller caseloads. This will result
in increased need for additional staffing in the DDSs.
Many of SSA's administrative costs are fixed and rising.
Therefore, in order to meet the current budget limitations on
administrative costs, the DDSs are being asked to reduce
medical expenditures. Accurate medical decisions require
quality medical evidence. Both program costs and public service
are negatively impacted if spending for administrative costs is
not sufficient to ensure accurate decisions. Program costs will
increase if claims are allowed inappropriately, and public
service will certainly decline if the claims are denied
inappropriately.
SSA has launched initiatives to improve the quality and
retrieval of the medical evidence of record and the purchase of
consultative exams that are necessary in the adjudicative
process. However, the DDSs are not sufficiently staffed to
implement the essential outreach and training for these
activities. We are unable to undertake the actions necessary to
improve the quality of medical evidence, as current resources
are not sufficient for effective outreach to the medical
community and preclude the desirable monitoring of the CE
providers. Staff shortages require all resources be directed to
the adjudicative positions. Again, NADE acknowledges the need
for these improvements, but recognizes the inability of the
DDSs to implement due to the shortfall of resources.
In conclusion, NADE would like to offer the comment that
the ability of SSA and the DDSs to successfully meet the
challenges of the future workload is contingent on many
features, some of which have been mentioned in this testimony.
The committee has already heard from a variety of witnesses and
will hear from others. NADE is very grateful for this
opportunity to share some of our concerns.
SSA workloads are projected to increase, and the disability
workload alone is expected to increase by 47 percent over the
next 10 years. Because of the increasing complexity of the
workload and the continuing changes that are being made in the
program itself, SSA and the DDSs must begin today to prepare
for the tremendous challenge. If we are to begin, we must be
allowed the tools and resources to do so.
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Members, thank you for the
opportunity to present this and for listening to our ideas.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Terri Spurgeon, President, National Association of
Disability Examiners, Zachery, Louisiana
Chairman Shaw and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of
the members of the National Association of Disability Examiners
(NADE), I want to thank you for this invitation to testify
today at your second hearing on Social Security's Readiness for
the Impending Wave of Baby Boomer Beneficiaries.
NADE is a professional association whose purpose is to
promote the art and science of disability evaluation. Our
members have a unique understanding of the problems facing the
Social Security program at this time and a strong commitment to
maintaining a meaningful and viable disability program.
Although the majority of our members are employed in the state
Disability Determination Service (DDS) agencies, our membership
also includes Social Security claims representatives,
physicians, psychologists, attorneys, advocates and other
professionals who work with, and are interested in, the
evaluation of disability claims. We believe the diversity of
our membership, as well as our experience working directly with
the Social Security and SSI disability programs, allows us to
address problems from a practical and realistic viewpoint. We
understand the impact these programs have on the lives of
disabled individuals and their families. We also recognize that
the compelling needs of these individuals must be met within a
framework of fiscal responsibility.
The perspective from which NADE views SSA's readiness for
handling the impending workload is unique. We acknowledge that
SSA has been focused on the future of the Disability Programs.
We have expressed support for exploring measures that may
improve customer service, reduce program costs, and increase
employee satisfaction. Many of the proposals look good on paper
but the reality of testing and implementation has taken its
toll on DDS resources. Without adequate additional resources to
implement and/or test the initiatives, DDSs have had to rely on
the limited number of experienced employees and current
budgets. The remainder has been stretched to operational limits
in order to handle the usual daily workloads and has resulted
in an unusually high number of turnovers in many state
agencies. Front line workers are reluctant to consider the
future of the Agency Programs, as they are unable to handle the
current levels of stress they are now working under. The
increasingly rapid turnover of case processing staff and the
continuing loss of experienced personnel will have a
significant impact on the quality of service delivery that the
DDS's can provide and the public deserves. This potential
adverse effect on service delivery is an important issue for
NADE, for the DDSs, and this Committee.
The reduction in the number of Field Office personnel and
the increase in the number of telephone claims have had a
negative impact on the completeness of these initial
applications received in the DDSs. Disability adjudicators are
forced to spend additional time re-contacting the claimants to
adequately complete the applications. This has had a positive
impact on quality of the decision-making process but a negative
impact on processing time and the time adjudicators have to
spend on other duties.
On April 1, 1994 the Social Security Administration issued
its Plan for A New Disability Claim Process. The five primary
objectives of this plan were:
Making the process ``user friendly `` for
claimants and those who assist them
Making the right decision the first time
Making the decision as quickly as possible
Making the process efficient
Making the work satisfying for employees.
In March 1999, following five years of piloting various
elements of the Redesign Plan, the Commissioner announced his
decision to begin implementation of a new process, which
combined several key elements of the original plan. These
included:
A single decision maker
Pre-decision interview (now known as a Claimant
Conference)
Expanded explanations
Elimination of the reconsideration level of appeal
Improvements in the Hearing process
Beginning with initial claims filed on or after October 1,
1999, this new process was to be prototyped in 10 state DDSs
and would include 20% of the total initial disability claim
workload.
NADE had previously expressed concern about the negative
impact on OHA workloads as a result of eliminating the
Reconsideration step from the appeals process. We did not
believe the full impact imposed by this new process in terms of
processing time and examiner responsibilities, had been
adequately evaluated. For that reason we were pleased that it
was being prototyped rather than being rolled out nationally.
We are now five months into the new process. Although it is
too early to know with certainty, preliminary anecdotal
evidence suggests that this new process neither increases
customer satisfaction nor improves employee morale. Results of
the prototype must be evaluated very carefully and objectively
before national rollout of the new process. Also, before this
new process can be successfully rolled out, DDSs must begin to
hire and train adequate staff to handle this workload. This
hiring and training of new staff, and the necessary retraining
of current staff, must begin immediately if the DDS's are
expected to be in a position to successfully handle the
workload. What we are seeing instead is the continued loss of
experienced staff and, because of Federal and State budget
reductions, the inability to hire and properly train
replacements.
It is commonly recognized that it takes at least two years
for a disability examiner to become proficient. This time is
likely to increase as the complexity of the process and the
increasing diversity of our customer base increases. While
nationwide the number of disability examiners with less than 2
years of experience has increased, the DDSs are also faced with
a large percentage of staff reaching retirement age. When SSA
began administering the SSI program in 1973, most DDSs hired
large numbers of examiners to handle that workload. These
employees are now reaching retirement age. As this pool of
experience is lost it will become more difficult for the DDSs
to train and mentor new examiners.
NADE has consistently urged that SSA's administrative
budget, like its program budget, be removed from the cap on
discretionary spending. We concur with the views expressed by
the Social Security Advisory Board that: ``. . . SSA's staffing
resources have declined significantly over the last 2 decades,
while the agency's workload has increased and become more
complex. The agency's tight resource constraints limit its
capacity to respond to these growing workloads.'' This is as
true in the DDSs as it is in the Field Offices. Additional
staff is needed to handle the increasingly complex workload.
The Social Security Administration has announced their
intention to revise and update a number of the medical
listings. While it is important that the criteria used to
establish disability be updated, this again impacts resources.
As presented to this Association these changes in the listings-
including an increased emphasis on credibility and
functionality--will require substantial training and will
significantly increase the demands on adjudicators. The time
necessary for an examiner to address issues like credibility
and functionality will increase the time adjudicators will
spend on each case. While this should increase the quality of
our decision-making, it will decrease the time available to
spend on other cases. Adjudicators will necessarily have to
assume smaller caseloads. This will result in an increased need
for additional staff in the DDSs.
Many of SSA's administrative costs (salary, maintenance,
etc.) are fixed or rising. Therefore, in order to meet the
current budget limitations on administrative costs, the DDSs
are being asked to reduce medical expenditures. Accurate
medical decisions require quality medical evidence. Both
program costs and public service are negatively impacted if
spending for administrative costs is not sufficient to ensure
accurate decisions. Program costs will increase if claims are
allowed inappropriately and public service will decline if
claims are denied inappropriately.
SSA has launched initiatives to improve the quality and
retrieval of the medical evidence of record (MER) and/ or the
purchase of consultative examinations (CEs) necessary to the
adjudicative process. However, the DDSs are not sufficiently
staffed to implement these essential outreach and training
activities. We are unable to undertake the actions necessary to
improve the quality of medical evidence as current resources
are not sufficient for effective outreach to the medical
community and preclude the desirable monitoring of CE
providers. Staff shortages require that all resources be
directed to adjudicative positions. Again, NADE acknowledges
the need for these improvements but recognizes the inability
for DDSs to implement due to the shortfall of available
resources.
In conclusion, NADE would offer the comment that the
ability of SSA and the DDSs to successfully meet the challenges
of the future workload is contingent on many features, some of
which we have described in this testimony. This Committee has
already heard from a variety of witnesses and will hear from
others. NADE is very grateful for this opportunity to share
some of our concerns. SSA's workloads are projected to increase
and the Disability workload alone is expected to increase by
47% over the next ten years. Because of the increasing
complexity of the disability workload and the continuing
changes that are made in the program itself, SSA and the DDSs
must begin today to prepare for this tremendous challenge. If
we are to begin, we must be allowed the tools and resources to
do so.
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Members of Congress, thank you for
your consideration of these issues.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you.
Mr. Hill?
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. HILL, PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 224, NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, AND STAFF ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF
HEARINGS AND APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, CLEVELAND
HEIGHTS, OHIO
Mr. Hill. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is James
Hill. I have been a staff attorney at the Cleveland, Ohio,
Office of Hearings and Appeals for over 17 years. For nearly 9
1/2 years, I have also been the President of Chapter 224 of the
National Treasury Employees Union that represents attorneys and
other staff members in over 100 OHA offices across the United
States. I thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing.
I will limit my testimony to the current situation at the
Office of Hearings and Appeals. OHA is presently implementing
the Hearings Process Improvement Initiative, or HPI, as it is
commonly known. As you know, SSA has experienced significant
difficulties maintaining an acceptable level of service at the
hearing level since the large influx of disability cases in the
early and middle-1990s.
SSA was painfully slow in reacting, which caused a
precipitous increase in the number of cases pending--the
disability backlog--and a substantial increase in processing
time. SSA's response was the Disability Process Redesign, a
program conceived and implemented by SSA rather than OHA that
has failed to have any significant beneficial impact upon
productivity or the level of service provided by OHA.
Its centerpiece for the hearings portion of the plan, the
adjudication officer, was a dismal failure, and it was
eventually abandoned. It failed because of unreasonable
expectations that were impossible to meet and fundamental
misconceptions regarding the hearing process that are endemic
at SSA. I fear the same fate will befall HPI for much the same
reasons. For example, HPI has incorporated nearly all of the
attributes of the failed adjudication officer program, except
the most beneficial attribute, limited decisional authority.
While the Disability Process Redesign did little to ease
the situation at OHA, the short-term disability program was a
resounding success. Commissioner Apfel stated in his testimony
before this subcommittee on October 21, 1999, and I quote,
``During the past few years, SSA undertook a number of
initiatives to address large hearing workloads that have
produced real results. Initiatives such as the establishment of
case-screening units and specialized writing units helped to
decrease average processing time at the hearing level from 386
days in 1997 to, under a preliminary analysis, 316 days at the
close of fiscal year 1999,'' end of quote.
What the Commissioner did not state was that the backlog at
OHA had decreased from around 570,000 cases to approximately
310,000 cases. The unquestioned centerpiece of the short-term
disability program was not the screening units or the writing
units mentioned by the Commissioner. It was the Senior Attorney
Program that has produced over 200,000 decisions.
Given the amount that the backlog at OHA has been reduced,
it should be difficult to understate the importance of the
contributions made by senior attorneys. Yet, the Commissioner
in his testimony managed to do exactly that. The screening
units were never particularly effective. The writing units were
useful in drafting ALJ decisions, but it should be understood
that senior attorney decisions are in addition to the decisions
issued by administrative law judges.
Yet, the Commissioner in his testimony did not mention the
most successful disability initiatives in many, many years.
Why? Because the Senior Attorney Program, or at least the
decisional authority at the heart of that program, is not part
of HPI. Why? That is an intriguing subject which time
constraints preclude discussing. Suffice it to say that
concerns other than maximizing the level of service provided to
the public continue to play a significant role in determining
SSA's strategy for the future. HPI will not be successful
because not only has SSA failed to learn from its failures, it
has failed to learn from its successes.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of James A. Hill, President, Chapter 224, National Treasury
Employees Union, and Staff Attorney, Office of Hearings and Appeals,
Social Security Administration, Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Chairman Shaw and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is James A. Hill. I have been employed by the
Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Social Security
Administration (SSA) for more than 17 years as a Staff Attorney
and as a Senior Attorney. I am also the President of National
Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 224 that represents
Attorney-Advisors and other staff members in approximately 100
Hearing Offices across the United States. I wish to thank the
Subcommittee for inviting me to testify regarding SSA's current
and future service challenges and the current and proposed
delivery practices with which SSA hopes to meet those
challenges.
The ``demographics'' with which SSA must contend both in
the immediate and in the more distant future are well known and
need little amplification by NTEU. Suffice it to say that
workload demands will significantly increase, and that during
the same period, SSA will lose an unprecedented number of its
employees to retirement. Thus SSA will be faced with an
increased workload and far fewer experienced employees to deal
with that workload. Additionally, SSA must contend with the
issues of the Medicare Program, SSA retirement trust fund
solvency, and maintenance of the faith and trust of the
American people in our ability to provide the same level of
service provided to previous generations. These issues are
beyond SSA's ability to solve by itself; indeed they are among
the most important political issues of our time. Nonetheless,
it is the responsibility of SSA to maintain the level of
service expected by the American people while the broad ranging
political issues are resolved and the role of SSA in the future
is finalized. Consequently, for the most part I will limit my
testimony to the service provided currently and in the
immediate future by the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
NTEU makes the following recommendations for insuring that
the Office of Hearings and Appeals delivers the quality of
service demanded by the American people currently and in the
immediate future:
1. SSA must reaffirm its commitment to the judicial process
at OHA and the decisional independence of its adjudicators. SSA
must recognize that maintaining the due process hearing
procedures is essential to retaining the faith of the American
public in the SSA disability adjudication system.
2. Attempts to de-legalize the OHA process must stop and it
must be recognized that the maintenance of a credible
disability adjudication system demands retention of highly
qualified legal professionals--administrative law judges,
attorneys and qualified and properly trained and certified
paralegals.
3. SSA must remove the composing of ALJ decisions from the
responsibilities of employees in the Flexible Disability Units.
4. All experienced OHA Attorney Advisors should be Senior
Attorneys and given the authority to issue fully favorable
decisions in those cases in which the documentary evidence
demonstrates that the claimant is disabled.
5. Reinstate the original Senior Attorney Program with
decisional authority vested in the nearly 500 experienced OHA
Staff Attorneys. (Without the additional 50,000-75,000
decisions a year, OHA, even with Hearing Process Improvement
(HPI), will suffer a serious degradation in the quality of
service it provides).
6. Retain the Supervisory Attorney Advisor whose primary
duty is the supervision of all the subordinate attorneys in the
Hearing Office.
7. Recognize that the ALJ decision is a legal work product
requiring the skills of qualified legal professionals such as
administrative law judges, attorneys and paralegals with proper
legal training.
8. Re-establish OHA Central Office in operational control
of HPI and hearing offices.
9. Ensure the existence of a viable ``National Workflow
Model'' that takes advantage of the talents and abilities of
hearing office staff.
The Importance of the Office of Hearings and Appeals
Americans have been characterized as overly litigious.
Perhaps, but by their very nature Americans do believe ``in
standing up'' for their rights even, or perhaps especially,
against intrusion of their rights by the government. We believe
that we can stand against the government, and if we are right,
we shall prevail. We have traditionally regarded the court
system as the vehicle for protecting our rights, particularly
when it is the government itself that is threatening them. In
short, when we feel unjustly tread upon by the government, we
Americans demand our ``day in court.'' Claimants, who are
denied disability benefits, feel the government has wronged
them. There are far too many denials of disability claims to
initially process through the federal court system. It is OHA
that provides dissatisfied SSA claimants with their ``day in
court.'' However, to effectively fulfill this function,
claimants must believe that the ALJs in OHA are free to decide
each case on its merits. It is the right to a due process
hearing that provides the vehicle for fair and independent
decision making. That right must not be eroded by those seeking
administrative efficiency. It is OHA that provides the element
of credibility in the SSA adjudication process that is
essential if it is to retain the faith and trust of the people
we serve. The role of OHA as guarantor of the legal rights of
claimants is not universally appreciated at SSA. Unfortunately,
SSA's leadership has made several efforts in the past decade to
de-legalize the OHA appeals process without regard to the
effect that de-legalization would have on the credibility of
the SSA disability adjudication process.
The Social Security disability adjudication system is
bifurcated; the State Agencies are responsible for the initial
(and reconsideration) determination, while Senior Attorney and
ALJ decisions are made at the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
There are good reasons for the bifurcated system; the huge
number of initial claims, of which 35% are favorably decided,
render the use of a judicial system with individual hearings
unsupportable. The initial determination process is a purely
administrative process conducted with minimal participation by
the claimant. The State Agencies have traditionally avoided the
knotty problem of evaluating credibility of the claimant's
subjective complaints and the effect to which those symptoms
limit a person's ability to work. The State Agencies
concentrate on the objective medical evidence and issue only
superficial explanations of their disability determinations.
The determinations issued by the State Agencies are nearly
devoid of rationale. While SSA promised better State Agency
rationales as part of Disability Process Redesign (DPR), my
members note no significant improvement. State Agency
rationales under HPI are as devoid of content as their
predecessors under the old system. The determination by the
State Agency consists of readily identifiable boilerplate that
is obviously sent to every applicant whether it is applicable
to his/her situation or not. For example, language included in
many Step 5 denial determinations admits, ``We realize that
your condition prevents you from doing your past jobs, if any,
but it does not prevent you from doing other work which is
considered less demanding.'' The text of the determination
demonstrates to claimants that little, if any, individual
consideration was afforded to their case. Claimants are left
with the conclusion that they are so insignificant that they do
not deserve individual consideration.
The failure to provide an adequate explanation of why a
person was determined not to be disabled at the initial level,
tells the claimant: You are not disabled because we say you are
not disabled. This attitude is not likely to be satisfying to
claimants or to convince them that they have had a fair
determination of their disability application. At the initial
level, the fact that the individual is not disabled, rather
than the explanation of why he/she is not disabled, is the
salient point. It is also consistent with the highly
paternalistic view of the disability process held by many in
SSA. A detailed explanation is not considered by SSA to be
significant because it will not change the fact that the person
is not disabled. The lack of concern about explaining the
decision makes some administrative sense. That determination is
not subject to appellate review; subsequent review by OHA is de
novo. However, the attitude that the rationale is relatively
unimportant leads to disastrous conclusions when applied to the
OHA decision makers.
The process at OHA is judicial in nature and is focused
around the due process hearing. The due process, individualized
hearing is essential to the fact and perception of fair
adjudication in any case in which the decision is not fully
favorable to the claimant. The OHA hearing procedure permits
the dissatisfied claimant to personally interact, to personally
argue his/her position directly to the decision maker. The
decision he/she receives is comprehensive and specific; it
deals with his/her situation in great detail. A well-written
OHA decision will provide specific reasons and details as to
why an individual was determined not to be disabled. It must be
specific and compelling. Indeed, the OHA decision must be of
sufficient quality to routinely withstand review by United
States District and Circuit Courts and therefore the decision
needs to be the product of legally trained employees. The OHA
decision must satisfy the claimant's need to ``have his/her day
in court'' and the need of the court system to have detailed
and highly professional decisions upon which they can base
their appellate review. Inadequate, not necessarily wrong,
decisions are the basis for some of the remands from the
District Court. The lack of a well written favorable decision
significantly detracts and in fact may preclude conducting an
effective Continuing Disability Review permitting those no
longer disabled to remain on the rolls. No one is well served
by an inadequate OHA decision.
The OHA decisional product is subject to court review where
the standard applied is whether the decision is supported by
substantial evidence. The rationale supplied by the decision
maker at OHA will be carefully examined by the court as an
integral part of its decision making process. To the court the
explanation is as important as, and cannot be separated from,
the ultimate decision regarding disability. While the ultimate
decision of whether he/she is disabled is of primary importance
to the claimant, a coherent explanation of a negative
conclusion certainly provides the claimant with the feeling
that at least he/she has had his/her day in court.
Many in SSA improperly equate the ALJ and Senior Attorney
decision with the determination rendered by the State Agency.
This attitude leads to devaluing the importance of the ALJ and
Senior Attorney decision and therefore the necessity of
retaining highly qualified legal professionals to create those
decisions. The denigration of the ALJ or Senior Attorney
decisional product, resulting from the failure to appreciate
its purpose and importance, is central to the long term theme
of de-legalizing OHA which appears in nearly every SSA
originated plan to deal with hearings level adjudications.
If as in the case of the State Agency determinations, the
quality of the written decisional product is not important,
there is little need to maintain a cadre of highly trained
legal professionals; on the other hand given the purpose and
importance of the OHA decision, retention of attorneys in the
process is of paramount importance. As noted by Administrative
Law Judge Kathleen McGraw, Chair, Social Security Section of
the Federal Bar Association in her testimony before the
Subcommittee on Social Security and the Subcommittee on Human
Resources on October 21, 1999, it has been SSA's inclination to
de-legalize the hearings process. She stated, ``It (ALJ
decision) needs to be the product of legally trained
employees.'' She further noted, ``The work of the Office of
Hearings and Appeals is judicial in nature. It requires the
input of attorneys. While there is a legitimate place for
paralegals in the process, the trend seems to be to supplant
the attorneys with paralegals.'' Judge McGraw continued, ``The
title ``paralegal'' has been given to a job that for the most
part is held by employees who have been promoted from clerk-
typist, to clerk, to legal assistant to paralegal. These
employees have no legal training and are in no better position
to analyze evidence and write legal decisions containing
credibility assessments than the examiners in the State
Agencies.'' NTEU fully concurs.
Another attempt to de-legalize the OHA procedure involves
the use of Flexible Disability Units to draft ALJ decisions.
Seven Flexible Disability Units have recently been established
in Operations that are responsible for providing support as
needed for the State Agencies, the SSA Field Offices, and the
OHA Hearing Offices. The grade controlling activity of the
employees assigned to these units is composing ALJ decisions.
Operations controls the initial phase of the disability
adjudication. Permitting it to be involved in the hearings
portion of the proceedings gives at least the appearance of
impropriety. These individuals, much like those SSA calls
paralegals, do not have the legal training necessary to
properly compose ALJ decisions. Experience has demonstrated
that many decisions written under similar conditions require
significant revision by Staff Attorneys or Administrative Law
Judges in hearing offices resulting in a significant loss of
productivity. Additionally, these writers will have no contact
with the ALJs for whom they write and given the part time basis
of their decision drafting duties, they are not likely to
establish a rapport with the ALJ that significantly contributes
to a good decisional product.
NTEU recommends that:
1. SSA reaffirms its commitment to the judicial process at
OHA and the decisional independence of its adjudicators. SSA
must recognize that maintaining the due process hearing
procedures is essential to retaining the faith of the American
public in the SSA disability adjudication system.
2. Attempts to de-legalize the OHA process must stop and it
must be recognized that the maintenance of a credible
disability adjudication system demands retention of highly
qualified legal professionals--administrative law judges,
attorneys and qualified and properly trained and certified
paralegals.
3. SSA must remove the composing of ALJ decisions from the
responsibilities of employees in the Flexible Disability Units.
A Short History Lesson on How Not to Improve the System
As the administrative procedures are appropriate for the
initial determination, the judicial procedures with the
emphasis on the due process hearing are appropriate at the
hearings level. Recognition and acceptance of the fundamental
differences between the administrative and judicial processes
is essential to understanding and appreciating the value of the
entire process. Unfortunately, there are many in SSA who do not
appear to understand or appreciate the significance and
importance of the judicial nature of the hearings portion of
the process. SSA, through the efforts of the Disability Quality
Branch, exercises considerable control over the decision making
process at the State Agency level; a level of control not
present at the OHA level. Many in SSA see this lack of control
over OHA decision making as a major weakness. They believe that
if SSA could control the decision making of the ALJs, they
could better control the workload at OHA leading to a more
efficient processing of cases. It is the apparent goal of many
in SSA to de-legalize the hearing process. This has led to a
number of SSA conceived schemes to ``improve OHA'' by
denigrating the legal and professional character of the OHA
work product and work force. SSA took advantage of a crisis
that its inaction created or at least exacerbated to levy its
most serious attack on the due process hearing.
In the early 1990's SSA experienced a significant increase
in disability receipts, for which SSA was not properly prepared
and to which SSA did not timely respond, leading to a
disastrous increase in the number of cases pending, the
``dreaded disability backlog.'' While both the initial and
appellate workloads increased dramatically, the administrative
actions that permitted increased production at the initial
level were entirely inappropriate to the due process hearings
required at the Office of Hearings and Appeals. By the time SSA
decided to respond, the situation was entirely out of control
with the OHA backlog increasing by as many as 10,000 cases a
month and with processing times at the OHA level reaching
unconscionable levels.
SSA responded by hiring significant numbers of new
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and support staff.
Subsequently, additional ALJs were hired to adjudicate
temporary workloads imposed by changes in the law involving
Child's Supplemental Security Income (Disability) and Drug and
Alcohol Abuse cases. However, the ``learning curve'' guaranteed
that little additional ALJ production was realized for the next
several years. Finally, by late 1993 SSA realized the magnitude
of the disaster caused by its inaction, and began to
investigate potential alterations in the process that would
facilitate increased productivity. Unfortunately, the
individuals charged with the task of dealing with the
disability backlog used the opportunity to forward their
philosophical agenda to de-legalize the Office of Hearings and
Appeals. This investigation culminated in the formulation of
the Disability Process Redesign (DPR).
The DPR was a massive and expensive program designed to
fundamentally change the Social Security Disability
adjudication process. It was an enterprise involving the
expenditure of millions of dollars in its formulation and
execution. A significant bureaucracy was established to
administer the program, often drawing some of SSA's most
talented employees from their usual roles thereby imposing
considerable hardship upon the component from which they came.
Unfortunately, the DPR was fundamentally flawed from the
outset. The basic underlying premise of DPR was that claimants
would not avail themselves of the entire appeals process
because those not found to be disabled at the initial stage,
would be so impressed with the quality and timeliness of the
process that they would recognize they were not disabled and
accept the initial determination. This ignored the fact that
most people applying for disability benefits really believe
they are disabled and cannot work. They are not working;
whether or not they receive benefits will be a major and
perhaps the major determinate in their quality of life. They
either need a job or these benefits to survive, and most
believe that they cannot work. The SSA disability process is
extremely user friendly; pursuing a claim through the Appeals
Council level is by design a process that does not intimidate
the average citizen. Consequently, they will pursue their
claim.
Additionally, the scope of the project was so large and so
poorly planned and executed that Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Director
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues Health,
Education, and Human Resources Division of the General
Accounting Office testified before the Subcommittees on Social
Security and Human Resources on October 21, 1999 that ``The
agency's first ambitious redesign plan in 1994 yielded little.
When the agency scaled back its plan in 1997, progress was
slow, in part because even the scaled-back plan proved to be
too large to be kept on track.'' GAO was being overly kind, the
Disability Process Redesign has been a magnificent and
expensive failure. NTEU fears that the Hearings Process
Improvement Initiative will meet a similar fate.
The Senior Attorney Program
In stark comparison to the massive and expensive Disability
Process Redesign and the Hearings Process Improvement
initiatives, stands the Senior Attorney Program. The Senior
Attorney Program was the centerpiece of the Short Term
Disability Program (STDP). STDP was conceived by a small inter-
component workgroup in 1994, at the height of the disability
backlog problem of OHA. It was designed to directly and in real
time attack the backlog problem at OHA with a minimum
expenditure of resources and with minimal organizational
changes. The Senior Attorney Program as originally operated,
involved approximately 475 of OHA's experienced Staff Attorneys
who in addition to drafting ALJ decisions, would now review
receipts before the receipts were assigned to an ALJ to
determine whether the case could be paid on the record or
whether an ALJ hearing was necessary to fully adjudicate the
case. If the evidence indicated that the case was likely to
result in a finding of disability, the Senior Attorney would
complete development of the case, including securing additional
medical evidence and appropriate medical and vocational
expertise. If after such development the case was not likely to
be favorably decided without a hearing, the case was forwarded
to an ALJ for a hearing. However, if the record established
that the claimant was in fact disabled, the Senior Attorney
would draft and issue under his/her authority a fully favorable
decision. The average processing time for Senior Attorney
decisions was just over 100 days. This was at a time when
processing time at the OHA hearing level was 386 days--more
than 1 whole year.
As a result of the Senior Attorney Program, disabled
claimants received their benefits nearly 9 months earlier than
otherwise would have been the case.
From its inception until the Program was sharply curtailed
in 1999, the Senior Attorney Program resulted in approximately
50,000 fully favorable decisions per year. The level of success
is particularly significant in the face of the opposition and
obstructionism of many Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law
Judges who used their managerial authority to diminish the
scope and effectiveness of the program in their Hearing
Offices. None of these cases required the expenditure of time
and effort of ALJs, permitting them to concentrate on those
cases requiring a hearing. Approximately 250,000 Senior
Attorney Decisions have been issued since its inception. During
its pendancy the OHA backlog has fallen from approximately
570,000 to as low as 310,000. The correlation is obvious.
Additionally, it should be noted that during this time period
there was also a significant increase in ALJ productivity.
There are a number of reasons that the Senior Attorney
Program has been so successful at improving the level of
service to the public. Some cases that come to OHA were
improperly decided by the State Agency; many more were not
fully developed. Senior Attorneys have been very successful in
developing cases because oft-times it is the claimant's
attorney representative who performs the actual development.
These representatives quickly realized that when they were
contacted by a Senior Attorney for additional evidence, there
was a good likelihood that a favorable decision would be
forthcoming. This likelihood of a favorable decision is a
powerful incentive for that attorney to quickly secure and
forward the necessary medical and other evidence. Of course the
success of the Senior Attorney Program, like the success of the
ALJ due process hearings, ultimately rests on the competence of
the highly trained legal professionals who serve as
adjudicators. These individuals are experienced OHA Staff
Attorneys who have many years experience advising ALJs and
composing ALJ decisions. They are attorneys well versed in the
law, and they are experienced disability practitioners. Over
the past 5 years they have proven by their performance that
pre-ALJ decision making in the OHA hearing office significantly
improves the quality of service provided to the public.
In every respect the Senior Attorney Program has been a
resounding success. It materially improved the quality of
service provided to the public, especially those individuals
who are disabled and entitled to timely granting of their
benefits. Despite its success, the Senior Attorney as an
independent adjudicator is being eliminated as part of the HPI
Plan. The Senior Attorney Program has always been
controversial. It has been bitterly opposed by a variety of
factions within SSA. Some of the opposition has been driven by
the ``turf wars'' that are endemic in SSA; some by the
previously discussed antipathy for legal practitioners and the
legal process. Service to the public has been of little
concern; but that is often the case in SSA when the disability
process is at issue. The tragedy is that the Senior Attorney
Program is ideally suited for incorporation into the HPI
Process.
Indeed, under HPI a new permanent position called the
Senior Attorney Advisor has been created whose prime
responsibility is to review cases for possible on the record
decisions. However, unlike the current program, HPI requires
that the case be forwarded to an ALJ who will determine if an
on-the-record decision is justified; the case would then be
returned to the Senior Attorney for drafting; then returned to
the ALJ for review and hopefully signing. This involves many
more hand-offs and requires that an ALJ spend considerable time
reviewing a case (duplicating the effort of the Senior
Attorney) that in all likelihood will result in a favorable
decision. This reduces the number of other cases an ALJ can
adjudicate. This is not an administratively efficient process,
but worse, it significantly degrades the level of service
provided to the public. Retaining the decisional authority of
the Senior Attorney would provide the HPI process with a tested
mechanism for efficiently dealing with claimants who are
entitled to disability benefits at virtually no additional
cost.
NTEU recommends that:
All experienced OHA Attorney Advisors should be Senior
Attorneys and given the authority to issue fully favorable
decisions in those cases in which the documentary evidence
demonstrates that the claimant is disabled.
Hearings Process Improvement Plan
NTEU is profoundly skeptical that the Hearings Process
Improvement Plan will materially improve disability
adjudication at the hearings level. The failure to retain the
decisional authority of Senior Attorneys dooms HPI to failure.
Additionally, the creation of non-attorney supervisors to
supervise the work of attorneys raises operational and ethical
problems. The Canons of Ethics applicable to nearly all
licensed attorneys place severe constraints on the supervision
of an attorney's work product and evaluation of that product.
Operationally, the creation of non-attorney supervisors has
resulted in supervisory personnel who have no experience in
decision drafting supervising many individuals with years of
experience in drafting. It simply does not make sense.
This plan, much like the Disability Process Redesign, is
primarily the product of SSA rather than a product of OHA.
While widely touted as an OHA plan, most of the individuals
charged with its creation did not work at OHA. Many of the
fundamental misconceptions about the hearings process that
doomed DPR are retained in HPI. That is not a comforting
thought. HPI like DPR has been administered from Baltimore
rather than Falls Church where OHA is located. While this made
sense for DPR that dealt with the entire disability process, it
makes little sense for HPI which deals specifically with OHA's
hearing offices. More disturbing, despite the already proven
inability of Baltimore to manage hearings level adjudication,
OHA's national management appears to have a significantly
diminished role in creating and implementing HPI. The
individuals in OHA chiefly responsible for implementing HPI are
its Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges and an ad hoc
organization known as the Process Action Team. While NTEU
recognizes the knowledge, level of commitment, and dedication
of the Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges, it questions
whether their traditional responsibilities and lack of adequate
staff (the very capable regional office staff personnel cannot
have much time from their usual duties to support HPI
activities) permit the level of concentration and attention to
detail necessary to coordinate and administer such an ambitious
project.
Additionally, NTEU questions whether such an arrangement
can result in the level of uniformity between the Regions that
is advisable and necessary in administering a national program.
Much is being made of the HPI promise to implement a ``National
Workflow Model'' standardizing hearing office procedures and
taking advantage of previously identified best practices.
Removing central office direction from implementation and
management of HPI seems an odd way to achieve national
uniformity. However, the practice of permitting numerous
``local options'' has already allowed each Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge (HOCALJ) to craft a process
inexplicably different from the model. In some offices the
HOCALJs have simply told their staff that only position titles
have (or will) change; the hearing office will operate as it
has before. There is no measure of uniformity of process.
One of the persistent complaints about the current Hearing
Office process is the lack of accountability by one individual
for the processing of a case. HPI touts the concept of team
accountability as the panacea for that problem. There are no
teams, only groups. Team accountability without teams (and
perhaps with teams) means no one individual is accountable.
This lack of accountability by individuals for the work product
will eventually result in a further degradation of service.
It should also be recognized that HPI has had little
success in convincing hearing office staff, ALJs, and any of
the stakeholders that it can succeed. This lack of commitment,
combined with the lack of confidence and poor morale caused by
the fear and uncertainty about the future is not conducive to
bold advances in productivity.
HPI is not likely to be the unmitigated disaster that was
DPR, but that is not a very high standard. Nonetheless, HPI
does hold some promise for a more efficient process within the
confines of the due process hearing model. To realize this
promise SSA must:
1. Reinstate the original Senior Attorney Program with
decisional authority vested in the nearly 500 experienced OHA
Staff Attorneys. (Without the additional 50,000-75,000
decisions a year, OHA, even with HPI, will suffer a serious
degradation in the quality of service it provides).
2. Retain the Supervisory Attorney Advisor whose primary
duty is the supervision of all the subordinate attorneys in the
Hearing Office.
3. Cease and desist its attempts to de-legalize OHA.
4. Recognize that the ALJ decision is a legal work product
requiring the skills of qualified legal professionals such as
administrative law judges, attorneys and paralegals with proper
legal training.
5. Eliminate decision drafting responsibility in the
Flexible Disability Units.
6. Re-establish OHA Central Office in operational control
of HPI and hearing office operations.
7. Ensure the existence of a viable ``National Workflow
Model'' that takes advantage of the talents and abilities of
hearing office staff.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you.
Mr. Korn?
STATEMENT OF STEVE KORN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL
SECURITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIONS, INC., VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Korn. Chairman Shaw and members of the subcommittee, my
name is Steve Korn and I am here as President of the National
Association of Social Security Management Associations. I thank
you very much for giving me the opportunity to come before you
today to talk about SSA's readiness to meet current and future
service delivery challenges from the perspective of the front-
line managers and supervisors who are directly responsible for
delivering service to the American public.
The Social Security program has always had a special
relationship with the American people. Perhaps no other Federal
program has been more successful at achieving its vision, that
of ensuring Americans a reliable and compassionate place to
turn for help when facing major life challenges such as
retirement, disability, or the death of a loved one. I have
been proud of this agency in my 24 years of service, not only
because of the importance of the programs we administer, but
also because of the caring and professional manner in which we
deliver our services. I firmly believe that this commitment to
service is greatly responsible for the overwhelming support
enjoyed by the Social Security program in this country.
Last month, this committee heard from Stanford Ross,
Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board, about their
recent report on how the Social Security Administration can
improve its services to the public. Recently, a field office
manager with over 39 years of experience called me simply to
say that he believed that this report was the most accurate,
honest, and inspiring analysis of the Social Security
Administration he has seen in his entire career. And I have to
tell you that the vast majority of managers and supervisors
that I represent share that viewpoint.
The Advisory Board made an array of recommendations on how
Social Security could improve its services, from development of
a service delivery plan, to improvements in the agency's
service delivery practices, to addressing longstanding
institutional problems. Yet, despite the best efforts of our
executive leadership, many of the most pressing problems simply
cannot be addressed within the current resource constraints
facing the agency.
Most of the problems identified by the Advisory Board did
not appear overnight. Commissioner Apfel earlier testified that
the agency staff has been cut 22 percent since 1985. This hit
was particularly hard on our field offices, and, in fact,
whereas in the early 1980s only 16 percent of our field offices
had 15 or fewer employees, today 40 percent have 15 or fewer
employees.
A look at one of our field offices in the Dallas area
illustrates the difficulties we face. Despite an increasing
workload, the staff of this office declined nearly 50 percent
since 1982. The influx of immigrants in the area requires that
the staff speak at least seven languages. So many people come
to their office each day that on a recent morning, an early-
morning visitor thought there was a fire drill in progress
because of the size of the crowd that had gathered outside.
Constraints on agency staffing levels, coupled with severe
reductions in field office supervisory staff since 1993, are
leading to severe pressures to close field offices. In my area
of the country, many managers have opted to close an office
simply because the size of the staff has declined to the point
where it is too difficult to manage.
Unfortunately, pressures on the agency to maintain service
levels will only get worse in the future. First, the aging of
the baby boom generation will cause SSA workloads to explode.
The number of Social Security beneficiaries is expected to grow
55 percent between now and 2020, and disability beneficiaries
alone will grow by 47 percent just in the next 10 years.
Second, SSA is facing an unprecedented wave of retirements
from its experienced workforce during the same 10-year period.
Because of the complexity of our programs, it generally takes
new front-line employees 3 years to learn their jobs.
Experienced employees are needed to teach these new employees
the job and to maintain productivity while they are learning.
I am very pleased that Commissioner Apfel has recognized
these trends. He has submitted his own independent budget
request for $222 million more than is contained in the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget request, and this
additional money will allow SSA to begin to add the staff
necessary to deal with the retirement wave as well as the
increasing demand for our services by the aging baby boomers.
Finally, both Commissioner Apfel and the Advisory Board
have gone on record as supporting the need to remove SSA's
administrative budget from discretionary spending caps. We
believe this is essential to our ability to adequately serve
the baby boom generation in the future. This was aptly
demonstrated in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation process that
saw Social Security take a $130 million cut from the bare-bones
present budget simply due to spending cap constraints. Among
other things, this has forced SSA to reduce the level of
service to those calling our 800 number.
I strongly urge that this committee express support to the
Appropriations Committee for the Commissioner's budget, as well
as support for the removal of the agency's administrative
budget from spending caps.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you
again for this opportunity to appear before you and I would be
happy to answer any of your questions.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Steve Korn, President, National Council of Social Security
Management Associations, Inc., Vallejo, California
Chairman Shaw and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Steve Korn and I am here today representing the National
Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA). I
am also the manager of the Social Security office in Vallejo,
California, and have worked for the Social Security
Administration for 24 years. On behalf of our membership, I am
very honored that the NCSSMA was selected to testify at this
hearing on the SSA's readiness for the impending wave of Baby
Boomer beneficiaries.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the NCSSMA is a membership
organization of 3000 Social Security Administration managers
and supervisors who work in SSA's 1400 field offices and
teleservice centers throughout the nation. It is most often our
members who your staffs work with when problems and issues
arise with Social Security recipients in your Congressional
Districts. Since our organization was founded thirty years ago,
the NCSSMA has been a strong advocate of locally delivered
services nationwide to meet the variety of needs of
beneficiaries, claimants, and the general public. We, like you,
consider our top priority to be a strong and stable Social
Security Administration, which delivers quality services to our
clients and your constituents.
The Social Security managers take great pride in their
work. We were pleased to learn recently that, once again, the
SSA was one of only two government agencies to receive an
overall agency grade of ``A'' from the Government Performance
Project which is administered by Syracuse University. But as
proud as we are of our record, I must acknowledge, Mr. Chairman
that each year becomes increasingly challenging to maintain
this tradition of excellence.
The managers and supervisors of the SSA field offices and
teleservice centers are grateful that this Subcommittee--as
demonstrated by this hearing--recognizes the seriousness of the
impact that the retirement of the Baby Boom generation will
have on the operations of the agency. While there are many
facets of the SSA's services that I could discuss today that
will be affected by the impending wave of beneficiaries, they
all point back to one specific concern, which is the need not
only for additional staff resources, but staff who will have
the appropriate experience to effectively deliver the services
of the SSA.
Last fall, the Social Security Advisory Board issued a
report on ``How the Social Security Administration Can Improve
Its Service to the Public.'' The Board found that staff
resources in offices all over the country have declined to the
point where their ability to provide quality service to the
community is threatened. The managers and supervisors who I
represent have characterized this Report as the most accurate,
honest, and inspiring analysis of the Social Security
Administration that they have witnessed in their entire careers
with the SSA. After feeling that there was not a comprehensive
understanding of the administrative needs and concerns of those
on the front lines of the SSA, we now have a thorough,
objective review of those needs and concerns by a
Congressionally-mandated bi-partisan entity.
The Advisory Board report made several recommendations that
I would like to highlight for the Subcommittee. First, that the
SSA urgently needs to develop a service delivery plan that
describes how it will deliver service over the short term and
the long term; second, that the SSA should work to ensure that
it will have the human resources it needs to carry out its
plan; third, that major improvements need to be made in a
number of the agency's service delivery practices and strategy;
and fourth, that the agency address longstanding institutional
problems. We agree with the Report's findings and applaud its
recommendations.
I would wager that if Members of this Subcommittee called a
Social Security office in their District -and I would urge each
of you to do so--you would find their responses reflected in
the Advisory Board's Report. The concerns focus on the
resources of the SSA, or lack thereof, to serve the increasing
numbers of the public in need of assistance. The field offices
not only serve those seeking retirement benefits, but also
those receiving Medicare; Disability; Survivors; SSI for the
blind, aged and disabled; and information and referral
activities to other state, federal and local benefit programs.
In addition, our field offices will soon serve new clients as a
result of the ``Ticket to Work Act'' who will require even more
coordinated and hands-on services not only in the offices, but
in coordination with other community-based vocational
rehabilitation providers. To put the situation into context,
this growth in responsibility has been occurring at the same
time that staff and management in the field offices has
declined by more than 30 percent.
What does this decline in resources mean in real life
situations? I would like to provide you with a few
illustrations of what our members face when they go to their
offices each day. The Waukegan, Illinois office, which is a
growing service area with increasing new claims receipts office
had a staff of 45 twenty years ago and today it has 31. The
situation has become so extreme that the office has to ship
work to other locations for completion. About six years ago,
Waukegan began to lose experienced staff to retirement, which
is a precursor of what most offices will begin to experience in
the next several years. Since that time Waukegan has trained
and/or hired 13 individuals to fill these positions, ten of
whom have already left the office. In the past, career
employees dominated the SSA; today early and mid-career changes
are commonplace. At least a dozen of the Waukegan trainees have
already left due to job pressures, better jobs, better pay, and
different career choices. And the issue is much more complex
than a simple replacement, as it takes at least three years for
a new employee to become fully trained.
In one of our field offices in the Dallas area there has
been nearly a 50% staff reduction since 1982 even though the
workload has increased significantly. The influx of immigrants
in the area now requires that the staff speak at least seven
languages and last year the office processed over 83,000 Social
Security card applications. The staff regularly visits refugee
centers and homeless shelters due to transportation problems in
the area and because their waiting room cannot accommodate the
number of people they must serve on a daily basis. Last fall
when a visitor arrived at the office early in the morning he
thought there was a fire drill in process because of the crowd
that had gathered outside.
In Wausau, Wisconsin, one third of the staff will retire in
the next five years and two-thirds will retire in the next ten
years. The Field Representative in that particular office has
an extraordinary outreach program to serve rural and isolated
communities; he conducts retirement seminars at area companies
and appears regularly on local radio and television stations to
discuss Social Security programs. The Field Representatives
play a vital role in their communities but they have become an
endangered species -15 years ago nearly every one of the 1300
field offices had at least one of these representatives; today
only 25% of our offices have Field Representatives. When my
colleague in Wausau retires within the next several years the
SSA will likely lose a vital community connection forever.
The Advisory Board Report also indicated that:
Phone calls to field offices are often unanswered
since there is not enough staff to serve the visiting public
and also answer the phones;
Post-eligibility benefit delays of 90 days or more
have become commonplace as staff in the program service centers
are diverted to answer calls to the SSA 800 number;
Failure to fully document information needed to
make more accurate disability determinations has become
commonplace;
Front-line employees cannot take the time to
ensure that customers understand eligibility rules, their
rights and responsibilities;
Customers, especially in urban areas, must wait up
to four hours to see a SSA official;
Inadequate oversight of representative payees,
such as people appointed to receive benefits for those not
capable of managing their own.
This situation did not occur overnight nor do we associate
it with any particular administration, but it has been a
continual challenge to maintain quality delivery services with
a shrinking workforce. To exacerbate the situation, in 1993 the
SSA, acting on a government-wide recommendation from the
National Performance Review, set a goal of one manager for
every fifteen staff by 1999. Although this goal was, perhaps,
well-intentioned as a means to a less bureaucratic and more
efficient workplace, its result for the field offices has had
the opposite effect and speaks to the old adage that ``if it
ain't broke, don't fix it.''
In 1982 only about 16% of field offices had 15 or
fewer employees compared to 40% today. About 15% of SSA's 1300
field offices have ten or fewer employees while less than 3%
were this small in 1982
Because SSA field offices have never been
integrated into SSA's 800 system, growing telephone workloads
are handled by assigning fewer staff to field offices
As America ages, Social Security workloads continue to
grow. Soon there will be large increases in disability and
retirement claims, which will occur at about the same time as
the most experienced SSA employees will, themselves, reach
retirement. We hear a great deal about the Social Security
Trust Fund, but the unspoken crisis in the national debate is
whether the SSA will be up to the task of meeting future public
services needs.
The downsizing and increased workload of the past 18 years
have had a chilling effect on our ability to deliver services,
but they will pale by comparison to the ``train wreck'' we see
coming in the next ten years. A number of variables will
contribute to this problem:
First, SSA has an aging workforce, whose average
age is almost 50. This situation is also a result of downsizing
and restrictions on hiring in the 1980's and 1990's. Over the
next decade they will begin to retire and must be replaced with
less experienced employees. We anticipate annual losses of six
to seven percent of experienced managers between 2004 and 2008,
and five percent of experienced claims representatives between
2006 and 2010. Focus groups with experienced employees indicate
that job stress and work overload make it unlikely they would
stay after they become eligible for retirement
Second, between now and 2020, while the general
population is expected to grow by about 16 percent, the number
of Social Security beneficiaries is expected to grow by 55
percent
Third, even before the oldest of the baby boomers
reach 65 in about 2011, the number of disability beneficiaries
is expected to grow by 47%
Fourth, the SSI program, which is even more
complex and labor-intensive than Social Security, grew by 43%
over the past ten years and is expected to climb
This Subcommittee has very accurately identified what may
be the ``sleeper'' issue of the national debate about Social
Security--how the Baby Boomers will affect service delivery of
the SSA. As I mentioned earlier, the key to the equation is
adequate staff resources, which translates into adequate
funding to support those staff needs. We at the SSA are
fortunate that the law allows the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration to submit a budget request independent
of the President's. For Fiscal Year 2001 the Commissioner
recommended $7,356,000,000, which is $222 million more than the
President's request and $784 million more than what was enacted
in Fiscal Year 2000. While we are not aware of every detail of
the Commissioner's request, we wholeheartedly endorse
additional funding that would address the need for the SSA to
increase staff resources in preparation for the wave of
disabilities and retirements expected over the next ten years.
To keep this funding in perspective, the administrative
expenses to manage and administer the programs under Social
Security--the Limitation on Administrative Expenses--represents
only 2% of the overall Social Security Administration budget.
One of the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory
Board, which we strongly endorse, is to remove the LAE from the
budget caps. As you are aware, the Social Security program,
from which the LAE is funded, is a self-financed trust fund
that is already off budget. While we understand that removing
the LAE from the caps does not guarantee additional funds for
staff in the field offices, it would at least provide Congress
the flexibility to do so, rather than being held captive to
predetermined budget constraints.
One of the ways, particularly in the short term, the SSA
can address its staff resource issues and at the same time
continue to ensure an excellent work product is through the use
of technology. In the last five years all SSA field offices
have received new computers to help process work. Many tasks
that previously required human intervention have now been
automated which has helped increase quality and improve
productivity. However, technology is in a constant state of
change and the SSA struggles to keep current with its
infrastructure. For example, when I was the manager of the
Fairfield, California field office in 1993, we were one of the
first offices to receive the new IWS-LAN workstations. Seven
years later in 2000, some field offices have yet to receive
this equipment. The Commissioner's budget requests $40 million
for a capital investment fund, which is a mechanism that
private industry successfully employs to stay current
technologically. We strongly support the Commissioner's
recommendation.
We are appealing to the Appropriations Committee to
consider the Commissioner's budget request as the baseline for
its Fiscal Year 2001 appropriation for SSA's administrative
expenses. We are requesting that this Subcommittee also express
support to the Appropriations Committee for the Commissioner's
budget as well as support for the removal of the agency's
administrative budget from the budget caps.
Mr. Chairman, to a great extent, the managers and field
offices of the SSA are the face of government to millions of
Americans. Of all Federal employees, we are the ones who most
often interact directly with the public. We take this
responsibility very seriously. We do our best to reach out to
our communities and to provide them with the information and
guidance they expect of their government. But, in order to do
our jobs in the professional manner that the public has
rightfully come to expect, we need to ensure that we have the
necessary staff resources in the SSA field offices. We look to
your Subcommittee to help us meet that objective.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to
appear before this Subcommittee. I would welcome any questions
that you and your colleagues may have.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you.
Mr. Matsui?
Mr. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want
to thank you very much for calling these hearings, the one a
few weeks ago and this one today. I think it is very timely,
and obviously one that we have to really begin to focus on,
given the baby boom population retirement and the aging problem
within the Social Security Administration. So I just want to
commend you for putting together these hearings.
I don't have any questions to ask any of the six panelists,
but I would like to just make a couple of observations. GAO at
the last hearing indicated that if the workforce level does not
change, the Social Security Administration would have to have a
27-percent increase in productivity by the year 2010 in order
to accommodate the additional workload. Obviously, that is
probably not doable under any circumstances, and certainly we
have our challenge ahead of us, given the tight constraints in
terms of the budget cap issue as well.
And, secondly, I just want to point out if one looks from
fiscal year 1993 to 1999, I think Mr. Apfel indicated that
there was a 2-percent reduction in overall staffing in those
years, in the Social Security Administration. Unfortunately--I
don't want to use the word ``misleading'' because Mr. Apfel did
not intend to mislead anybody, but the figures are somewhat
distorted when one looks at it that way because from 1985 to
1993, there was a 16-percent staffing reduction. And if one
goes from 1985 to 1999, there is a 17-percent drop.
It basically tells me that after 1993, there was a
significant reduction in the Social Security Administration,
and that was probably the baseline and any other cut since then
has really affected the ability of the agency to perform its
responsibilities. Somehow, we have to come to grips with that
if, in fact, we want to deal with disability problems, and
obviously the day-to-day functions of the agency as well.
And so I have no questions. It is an issue that undoubtedly
we are going to be all working closely together on over the
next few years, and certainly I look forward to working with
the chairman on this as well.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Bob, and I would like to just
make a point here. When I came to Congress almost 20 years ago,
I was back in my old law office one day and there was a legal
problem that I wanted to look up. And I went to the library and
pulled down a couple of books and I noticed that the advance
sheets had not been updated for years and years. And I asked
one of my old partners, I said what kind of a law office are
you running? He says, oh, we don't even use these books
anymore. He says, we are all online now.
Twenty years ago the faxes were just beginning to come out,
and there have been tremendous advances made in technology. But
having said that, I don't have the ability to sit here and
figure out or make any definitive statement as to how much of
the workload has been taken over by technology. I am sure there
is some difference of opinions out there.
But the 17 percent that Mr. Matsui talks about, is the
increase of productivity because of the advances in technology
taking up the slack? I don't know the answer to that, but I
think that you as witnesses have certainly put up some caution
flags that we should be very concerned about.
One of the areas that is constantly on my mind and I am
very troubled by is the tremendous delay in SSI claims. In
order to be eligible for SSI, you have to be disabled and you
have to be poor, and for people to have to wait almost a year,
or 200 days, I believe, as the Commissioner said, to me, is
painful and it is something that these people shouldn't have.
Obviously, we want proper screening to take place, but those
that are truly disabled and truly needy, we want to be sure
they get in the system as quick as they possibly can.
Ms. Augustus, you spoke on this area first, talking about
the backlog and what not. Is the question of the backlog the
big problem or is the question as to the process by which
people are brought through the system the problem? In answering
the question, I would say suppose there is no backlog, suppose
the first customer is coming in the door today. What is a
reasonable time for somebody to get through the system?
Ms. Augustus. Mr. Chairman, are you speaking of an initial
disability claim?
Chairman Shaw. Yes, I am just strictly on disability.
Ms. Augustus. I think a reasonable amount of time would be
6 weeks, but that certainly doesn't happen. And I think you
pointed out that with an SSI claim, in addition to the
disability claim, they have to do the income and asset
investigation which takes a long time. And as I said, too, a
lot of the SSA employees can't translate those complex rules
into plain language for the beneficiary, and so there is a lot
of miscommunication about how do they figure out what is a
resource, how do they calculate what is earned and unearned
income. So, that takes up a lot of time on both the part of the
SSA staff and the understanding of the potential beneficiary.
It just adds to the processing time.
Chairman Shaw. Well, is the backlog the problem?
Ms. Augustus. The backlog is a huge problem.
Chairman Shaw. Is it the problem?
Ms. Augustus. I think it is not the problem. I think you
have issues on the front end and then you have issues on the
back end. So when you finally get somebody onto the rolls, you
have another whole set of post-entitlement issues, and that is
making sure somebody maintains their financial eligibility for
the SSI program, as well as all the over-payments and under-
payments that happen as a result of people going back to work
or having other types of income. So there are backlogs on both
ends and it is a huge problem.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Skwierczynski, you talked about the
problems that you saw of people being face-to-face rather than
having online applications, and your testimony talks about the
online applications. That also tells us that there may be some
flexibility in working conditions, such as some of the
employees working at home. Do you see this in the future, or
how do you see as far as the necessity to have the employees in
the workplace rather than working out of their homes, as so
many offices are beginning to branch out in that area?
Mr. Skwierczynski. One of the biggest issues with our
workforce when they come to the union and we ask them, you
know, what kind of improvements would you like in your working
conditions, is work at home. Our workforce is demanding work at
home and wants it a lot, and I think as technology increases
work at homes becomes more feasible.
We just went through some lengthy contract negotiations in
1999, and unfortunately the Administration's position at the
table was very much against work at home to any large degree.
So we have to get through that problem of changing the mind set
of management with regard to the issue of work at home.
I think, you know, there is a variety of things that can be
done to streamline the process. The union certainly isn't
against claims on the Internet. However, there are issues about
the use of the Internet that need to be addressed. There are
issues of privacy and there are also issues of once someone
does file an application on the Internet, what happens with
that work.
The retirement claims are very complex and there are a
number of issues that may arise in the course of a claim. The
proposals that the agency has discussed with us about doing
work on the Internet would indicate that they expect a large
percentage of these claims to have a human interaction because
in the course of going through the screens, if questions arise
the complexity of the issues becomes such that it is thought
that you will need human interaction. And our concern is where
is that human interaction going to be.
Every survey and every focus group the agency has ever done
indicates that the clients prefer a community-based worker to
deal with them than somebody in some centralized place
thousands of miles away, and that is truly a concern of ours.
When claims are done on the Internet, I think we ought to ask
the public, would they prefer someone in their community
dealing with issues that arise on that application or would
they prefer someone in a centralized site thousands of miles
away who really cannot deal with other community-based services
that they may desire or need. That is some of the concerns we
have.
The deputy commissioner, Mr. Mesterharm, of the systems
within SSA has indicated that some of these cases would require
90 screens. We think that, you know, there needs to be a lot
more thought put into doing applications on the Internet which
would require a client to go through 90 screens. I don't think
a lot of people are going to want or desire to do that.
And so, you know, those are just a few of the concerns I
have. I think, you know, our workers believe that some of the
work can be done at home. Obviously, you can't have people come
to your house for an interview. You would have to have a
telephone operation or maybe an Internet operation, but we
think that work at home is certainly feasible and we would hope
that the agency would change their attitude about that.
Chairman Shaw. Ms. Spurgeon, it is worth noting that the
Disability Determination Service work is within not only the
Federal budget constraints, but also State budget constraint.
Would you describe to us some of the budget constraints that
you deal with at home? I assume that would be in Louisiana.
Ms. Spurgeon. Dealing with the hiring issues, once the
State puts a freeze on hiring, we are restricted whether we
have been released to do that or not, And the fights that we
have to go through to obtain an exemption. We are restricted on
the hiring pool that we can hire from, transfers, layoffs, and
different things that go on within the interagency actions in
my State.
Chairman Shaw. Okay. Well, I want to thank this panel for
being with us this morning, now this afternoon, and sticking
with us through the good part of the day. I think it has been
very helpful for this committee in order to fulfill our
oversight responsibility.
[The responses of Mr. Skwierczynski, Mr. Korn, Ms.
Augustus, and Mr. Hill, to questions submitted by Chairman
Shaw, follow:]
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
SSA FIELD OPERATIONS LOCALS
April 25, 2000
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
United States House of Representatives
2408 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Shaw:
Subject: SSA Internet Claims-Your letter of April 12, 2000
This is in response to your letter of April 12, 2000 which requests
further information regarding my assertion that security of SSA's
Internet claims initiative is inadequate.
My concerns about the security of the online application process
are partially satisfied by the agency's decision to use encryption
technology during the transmission of personal data collected in the
online application form. Data transmitted from the claimant to Social
Security will be received into and temporarily stored in a separate
database. Only later will it be merged with the Social Security claims
processing system. This will be done only under the supervision of
Social Security employees.
The issue of authentication remains a matter of concern.
Authentication was a fatal flaw in the initial deployment of online
PEBES. It does not appear that Social Security has learned the lessons
of the 1997 PEBES experience.
On June 10, 1997, Mary J. Culnan, Ph.D., Commissioner, President's
Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, provided testimony to
SSA in a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia, which drew the following
conclusions about PEBES and authentication issues:
SSA can not insure the person requesting PEBES online is
the record subject
Authentication data is known to others or available
commercially
There are no other facts known solely to SSA and the
record subject that could be used to ensure unauthorized access could
not occur. The costs of assigning passwords exceed the benefits.
A casual surfer is unlikely to be able to gain
unauthorized access; however, the same is not true for a determined
individual.
The only bulletproof method of authentication is a digital
identity. However, there is currently no infrastructure in place for
issuing digital identities to the general public and for managing their
use, nor is it likely such a system will be implemented in the short
term.
Dr. Culnan cautioned that if PEBES were to again be offered online
the Agency should take the following action:
Set a low threshold for the number of failed
authentication attempts before blocking a record.
A critical issue for SSA is less about privacy and more
about public confidence. SSA must insure that the public has confidence
in the privacy of their interaction with SSA. If the public does not
have confidence they can do business electronically with SSA, these
perceptions are likely to further decrease public confidence in the
Federal government overall, and to poison the water for other federal
agencies who plan to offer electronic services to the public.
Appoint a privacy advisory board and make privacy part of
the business case for all new electronic commerce applications
involving personal information.
The same methods for authentication used for online PEBES are to be
used for the online application process. Neither ``password/personal
identification number'' nor ``public key infrastructure (PKI)''
authentication technology will be used.
To answer your two questions: The evidence of inadequate safeguards
is contained in the body of evidence developed in 1997 as part of the
discussion surrounding the first PEBES experiment.
The point I am making is that valid concerns about security and
authentication raised in 1997 have not been resolved and Social
Security is about to repeat the same mistakes. It appears that despite
the serious concerns raised in 1997 about security and authentication
of public Internet transmissions, this issue will not be resolved
unless Congress intervenes. SSA is about to repeat the same mistakes
that resulted in widespread public criticism of the online PEBES
debacle.
Respectfully,
Witold Skwierczynski
President
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
SOCIAL SECURITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.
April 25, 2000
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Social Security
1Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
B-316 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw:
I am writing to provide answers to the questions you raised with
regard to my recent testimony relating to Social Security's readiness
for the impending wave of baby-boomer beneficiaries. I appreciate your
continued interest. I hope this will not only help clarify the issues
presented in my testimony, but will reinforce the need to ensure that
Social Security receives a level of resources sufficient to meet its
obligations to current and future beneficiaries.
1. You asked whether some of the future demands on SSA could be met
with improved automation or through more efficient use of resources.
Not only is this possible, but it will in fact be essential given the
scope of the projected workload increase coupled with federal spending
limitations. Automation, in particular, offers significant potential
for reducing the resource levels needed to serve the expanded
beneficiary base. However, in evaluating the potential of future
automation to reduce human resource needs at SSA, it is important to
understand these three points:
Significant gains in automation require a significant
commitment of resources. Software development itself is extremely labor
intensive. While the eventual payoffs would exceed the immediate
investment, SSA currently has had to table several software
improvements simply because there are not enough employees available to
handle all projects. The old saying ``it takes money to make money''
can aptly be applied to automation improvements. It takes an investment
in resources today to provide the improvements in software that will
save the resources tomorrow. In addition to software, SSA will
continually need to upgrade its hardware to ensure it has the platform
necessary to take advantage of the improvements in timesaving
technology. This is why we believe the Commissioner's idea to establish
a capital fund to flexibly fund future hardware needs is a good one.
The timing and magnitude of savings produced by automation
are often difficult to predict. Certainly, Congress and the American
taxpayer have a right to expect that investments in hardware and
software development will result in some combination of service
enhancements and service efficiencies at least equivalent to the level
of investment. However, in today's fast-paced climate of rapidly
expanding technology, the best organizations (public or private) cannot
afford to wait until all factors are known prior to investing in
significant software development. Like the private sector where
investors put their trust in well-managed companies, Congress must
invest in agencies with a history of prudent management, with some
degree of faith that said investment will result in tangible, long-term
improvements. Not only has SSA's management rated among the best by
organizations both inside and outside the government, but we believe
our current executive leadership is up to the task.
Automation will not eliminate the need for additional
human resources. Many of those we serve, especially the aged and the
disabled, will require personalized face-to-face service regardless of
advances in technology. While we must make maximum use of technology to
reduce our need for human resources, it would be a mistake to believe
that SSA can meet the full challenge of the baby-boom wave without
additional human resources.
With regard to other areas where SSA can use its resources more
effectively, our association continually works with SSA's Executive
Staff to identify such efficiencies. I can honestly tell you that the
current team of SSA executives has been open to many of our ideas. As
long as the commitment to frequent and honest communication between
those of us on the front-line and those in headquarters remains, we
believe SSA will continue to be able to identify and act upon such
efficiencies.
2. I testified that it generally takes a new claims representative
(CR) three years to be fully trained. You asked why learning the job at
SSA is much more challenging than adapting to other comparable jobs
such as at a bank or a doctor's office. The claims representative is
the primary technical position in SSA's field offices. While CRs do
many of the same daily functions as the aforementioned private sector
employees, such as deal with members of the public and answer
inquiries, unlike these private sector employees, their primary
function is to accurately administer a complex set of laws and
regulations. As such, their responsibilities are probably more closely
related to attorneys and others in the legal profession, rather than
employees in general office work. CRs must be able to deal with any
potential set of client circumstances, and make an accurate ``legal''
determination as to entitlement. In addition, the CR must understand
how to properly document the decision, including securing necessary
documentary evidence, and how to effectuate the decision using SSA's
complex automated systems. The Program Operations Manual, that contains
most (but not all) of the instructions that a CR is responsible to
carry out, contains literally dozens of volumes, and in its paper form
barely fits in three large bookcases. Given this complexity, it is not
hard to understand how it can take three years of experience before a
new CR has a journeyman's understanding of program administration.
3. You asked how we could justify SSA's request for $47 million in
information technology without a specific promise as to what this $47
million will buy for the taxpayer. First let me say that in my position
as a field manager and representative of SSA's field management
organization, I am not in a position to specify what this money will
specifically buy. However, drawing upon my answer to your first
question, a certain level of investment in automation is warranted
simply to ensure that SSA has the resources needed to invest in
technology on a just-in-time basis. If there is one automation lesson
to learn from those companies in the private sector who have been
successful, it is the need to be able to act quickly to take advantage
of emerging technologies, such as the Internet. The old way of
identifying a potential opportunity, studying it for a year or two and
then spending an additional year or two securing the necessary
resources is simply non-competitive. SSA must have resources ready and
available to pounce on technological opportunities. I believe that
today's taxpayer would not only support a flexible automation
improvement capital fund in a well managed agency such as SSA, but
would think it as a wise and responsible way of doing business.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide these
clarifications as part of the hearing record. We appreciate your
support for a strong, viable, and efficient SSA, and hope you and the
entire subcommittee will be successful in helping us obtain the
resources we need to remain so.
Sincerely,
Steve Korn
President, NCSSMA
SSI COALITION
April 24, 2000
E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Social Security
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Hearing to Examine Social Security's Readiness For the Impending
Wave of Baby Boomer Beneficiaries
Dear Chairman Shaw:
This letter is in response to your letter of April 12, 2000, asking
me to respond to the following questions:
1. Is SSA addressing the training problem?
In my opinion, SSA is trying to address the training problem,
although I believe it will take a long time to properly train all the
field office and teleservice staff. SSA hopes that the new Employment
Support Representative (ESR) position, that SSA is piloting this summer
across the country, will help with training local staff on the work
incentives programs. These ESRs, however, will not be fully in place
for a couple of years, which means that the training will not reach all
the staff for at least that long. My other concern, in addition to the
training issue, is that SSA's culture at the local office must also
change, and that will take even longer. The local offices,
historically, have prioritized taking applications for benefits and
paying out benefits accurately and timely. We are now asking them to
also encourage disability beneficiaries to work by giving them accurate
information on work incentives and to accurately and timely record the
earnings of beneficiaries who report them. This will take time.
2. Are there specific aspects of the SSI program that can be
simplified? Would simplification of the program help my clients, as
well as help alleviate staffing and training pressures on the agency?
I believe that the SSI in-kind support and maintenance rules should
be eliminated. From my experience, it is difficult for beneficiaries to
understand the in-kind income reporting requirements, especially as
this type of income can vary from month to month. The $2,000 resource
limit for an individual, and $3,000 limit for a couple should be
raised. The deeming rules are also very confusing. The administrative
time that it takes to process the notices and verify these income and
resource rules seems to outweigh any cost savings to the general
revenue fund.
I refer the committee to the Final Report of the Experts of the SSI
Modernization Project from August, 1992. This report made some cogent
suggestions for simplifying the SSI program with negligible costs.
Unfortunately, most of the report's recommendations have not been
translated into any legislation. These recommendations would greatly
improve the efficiency of the administration of the SSI program and
assist SSI beneficiaries to better understand their SSI reporting
responsibilities.
3. Please elaborate on your statement that there frequently is little
or no investigation of family members who serve as representative
payees. Also, what are the most serious issues of fraud and abuse?
I have represented several beneficiaries over the past few years
who have alleged that their family members, who also served as their
representative payees, were improperly using their SSI funds. I have
also heard anecdotally of many other instances. Many of these cases
involved individuals who were suffering from psychiatric disabilities.
I believe that it is difficult for these individuals to lodge
complaints about their representative payees because of their perceived
lack of credibility, and because, for many, there are no alternative
representative payees available. Unfortunately, there is not much that
SSA can do for individuals who need representative payees. The fact is
that it is difficult to find people willing to serve as representative
payees, and when SSA chooses a representative payee, it often involves
a subjective assessment of their ability to serve. Thus, willing family
members are usually selected, even if they are not the best
alternative. A suggested solution would be to have SSA, in conjunction
with a group like AARP for example, recruit and train volunteers, such
as retirees, to serve as representative payees.
There is fraud and abuse in every corner of our society, and it is
not limited to, or more prevalent in, the SSI program. The most serious
issue, in my opinion, is encouraging a culture at SSA that presumes
that every SSI beneficiary is committing fraud and abuse. As I already
mentioned, the elaborate income and resource rules are truly confusing
to many SSI beneficiaries, as well as their families and advocates. It
would help if SSA field office staff could spend more time explaining,
in understandable terms, the reasons for their decisions, and do that
in a respectful manner, rather than interrogating people. SSA must do
more to create better written notices that are understandable. It would
also help if SSA would have the ability to make more timely decisions
about overpayment issues, so that beneficiaries do not incur such large
overpayments. More timely decisions about overpayments would also
identify those situations where fraud is involved more quickly.
4. Questions about extended office hours. Do some SSA offices keep
evening or Saturday hours? How would such a change be received? How
widespread a practice is it for SSA to do a mobile office? Should SSA
do it more? In general, would customers be better served by more SSA
employees going out into the community, rather than maintaining field
offices?
I do not know of any SSA offices that keep extended office hours. I
believe that evening and Saturday hours would be a huge benefit for
people. Many people cannot afford to take off a day of work to go to an
SSA office. Of course, SSA would have to have additional staff, as I
understand that Saturday is when many SSA employees catch up on work
they could not attend to during the week.
Again, I do not know how often SSA takes a laptop computer out into
the community. SSA does it in Chicago, and it has been very well
received. With better use of technology, SSA could reach far more
people, far more efficiently, than they do at present. I do not know
that customers would be better served by having SSA employees go out
into the community, but it would help many folks who could not make it
to an SSA office during regular office hours. I think that SSA must
maintain field offices, as some people would not feel comfortable
discussing SSA business in any setting other than an SSA office. It
will also help when people will be able to use the Internet to transact
business with SSA, instead of going to a local office.
I want to thank the committee again for the opportunity to present
my thoughts on these issues. I also want to reiterate my hope that the
committee will recommend increased funding for SSA so that SSA can
provide more accurate and more efficient service to the public.
Sincerely,
Sue Augustus
Associate Director
Response of Mr. James A. Hill
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the questions
you forwarded in your letter of April 12, 2000.
De-Legalization of OHA
``Delegalizing'' is the process of eliminating or reducing
the use, independence and effectiveness of attorneys, whether
ALJs, staff attorneys or claimant's representatives, in the SSA
disability decision process. Understanding the attempts of the
Social Security Administration (SSA) to ``de-legalize'' the
adjudication process at the Office of Hearings and Appeals
(OHA) requires recognition of the hostility manifested by many
officials and employees of the Social Security Administration
(and State Agencies) towards the OHA and the ``legal system''
it represents. The driving force behind the repeated attempts
by SSA to ``de-legalize'' OHA is a fundamental unhappiness with
the number of ``reversals'' of initial and reconsideration
decisions issued by OHA's adjudicators which is attributed to
the independence enjoyed by these decision makers. Establishing
control over the process (and the OHA decision makers) is the
underlying purpose of the ``delegalizing'' effort. SSA is not
delegalizing to become more efficient; in fact, it has and will
make SSA less efficient.
Examples of ``delegalization'' include:
1. The dismantling and destruction of the Senior Attorney
Program;
2. The establishment of a Hearing Process system where most
OHA staff attorneys will be supervised by non-attorney
paralegals;
3. The change to paralegals (who are paid at the same rate
as staff attorneys) as the primary decision writer and advisor
to the ALJ on individual cases in OHA;
4. The removal of the ALJ from the pre-hearing development
process;
5. The establishment of non-attorney, non-OHA, writing
units to draft decisions for the ALJs;
6. The diminished control over OHA by the Associate
Commissioner and Chief Administrative Law Judge (both of whom
must be attorneys) and the increased control of the Deputy
Commissioner for the Office of Disability (a non-attorney);
Simple steps to improve the efficiency of OHA would
include:
1. Return to the original Senior Attorney Program where
senior attorneys not only drafted and issued fully favorable
decisions but were also the primary decision drafters and legal
advisors to ALJs;
2. Return attorneys, supervised by attorneys, to their
former role as primary legal advisor and decision drafter for
the ALJ;
3. Improve the quality of non-attorney decision writers by
requiring a minimum level of education/training and recognized
paralegal certification;
4. Return direction of the pre-hearing development process
to the ALJ;
5. Eliminate writing units outside of OHA; and
6. Return control of the OHA to the Associate Commissioner
and Chief Administrative Law Judge.
These simple steps would do much to reverse the SSA
missteps that have contributed to the backlog of cases at OHA
and slowed our progress in decreasing processing time.
An Efficient Adjudicative System
While the bifurcated adjudication process meets all of the
needs of both the Agency and the claimants it serves, there are
several improvements in the process at the initial and
reconsideration levels that would increase the efficiency of
the appeals process.
1. Apply the same criteria and factors for determining
disability at the initial level as are applied in the appellate
process including subjective factors.
2. Permit adjudicators at the initial level to exercise a
greater degree of independent judgment thereby favorably
determining cases at the initial level that will eventually be
favorably decided at OHA.
3. Ensure that each case is properly and fully developed at
the initial level. The additional time required for development
of the record at hearing offices is a major factor in the
untimely decision making process which plagues the current
disability adjudication system.
4. The quality assurance at the initial level should be
more directed at accurately determining which applications
should receive favorable determination avoiding the necessity
and expense of favorably deciding substantial numbers of cases
at the OHA level.
5. The quality assurance program should focus on ensuring
that cases are properly developed before being forwarded to
OHA.
The current SSA disability adjudication process, which is
bifurcated into an initial (and reconsideration) phase
characterized by a purely administrative adjudication process,
and an appellate phase, characterized by a judicial process, is
an efficient adjudicative system for the Social Security
Disability Program.
Given their vast numbers, processing initial application
through judicial procedures would require an organization many
times the size of the current OHA. The expense would be
enormous and unnecessary. Judicial proceedings are unnecessary
to establish disability for many applicants. Currently, the
initial and reconsideration phases pay approximately 35% of the
applications made. Approximately 25% of those who receive
unfavorable determinations decline to appeal to the OHA level.
There can be no doubt that the current administrative process
is more efficient than any judicial process, but it does not
provide the level of due process to which Social Security
taxpayer are entitled. Americans expect their day in court.
The adjudication process at the initial level is conducted
with minimal participation by the claimant. The decisional
product, the ``Disability Determination,'' is a three-page form
letter from the Regional Commissioner (who played no role in
the decisional process) that contains almost no specific
information as to why the claimant's application was denied. No
rationale is provided describing why the decision was made,
leaving the recipient with the impression that the decision was
arbitrary and perhaps even capricious. That impression is not
entirely unjustified. Preparation of such a determination
consumes little time, requires few assets, and requires no
legal expertise on the part of the preparer. Of course, were
these determinations appealed to the District Court as the
final decision of the Commissioner, every single case would be
reversed or remanded back to the Agency -every single case.
The judicial process at OHA is designed to afford each
individual claimant the opportunity to present his/her case
directly to the decision maker in a face-to-face setting via
the due process hearing. For the claimant, it is in fact his/
her day in court. Each claimant can directly participate in the
proceedings and receive the individualized attention normally
associated with trial proceedings. For those individuals who
are not disabled, the final product of the judicial procedure
is an ALJ decision that explains in detail why the individual
is not entitled to disability. This decision, which must be
capable of withstanding judicial review, does require extensive
legal expertise in its preparation.
By paying deserving cases at the earliest possible time
(thereby reducing the number of appeals to OHA) and ensuring
that cases are properly developed when received by OHA (thereby
reducing the processing time for the remainder of the cases),
the State Agencies can significantly improve the efficiency of
the entire adjudication system.
The Senior Attorney Program
Since its inception in 1995 the Senior Attorney Program has
made a significant contribution to the substantial reduction in
the disability backlog at OHA. Nonetheless, the program has
always provoked fervent but unfounded opposition. Provoking
controversies was the method by which those who opposed the
Program hoped to prevent its implementation and, after
implementation, prevent its success and precipitate its demise.
Unfortunately, it appears that SSA will sacrifice the Senior
Attorney Program in order to secure the cooperation of those
parties who have so long opposed and even sabotaged the Program
in implementing the Hearings Process Improvement Plan.
The Senior Attorney Program was controversial because it:
1. It threatened the decision making monopoly of the
Administrative Law Judges at the hearing level;
2. It threatened the control that the quality control
bureaucracy held over non-ALJ decisions in SSA;
3. It challenged the widespread belief in SSA that
operational problems in OHA could not be solved internally, and
that a massive reorganization of the disability process was
required to solve those problems;
4. The Senior Attorney Program was inconsistent with the
Agency's policy to ``de-legalize'' the appellate process at
OHA.
Administrative Law Judges vigorously opposed the Senior
Attorney Program because it challenged their role as the sole
decision makers in OHA hearing offices.
1. Many ALJs and the Association of Administrative Law
Judges resented the intrusion of Staff Attorneys into the field
of decision makers in the OHA hearing offices.
2. Many ALJs feared that the Senior Attorney Program was
the first step in the elimination of ALJs as decision makers at
OHA. While such a concern is unreasonable, considering the
hostility that many in SSA and OHA hold for the ALJs, such a
fear is understandable.
3. Administrative Law Judges in management positions failed
to implement the Program properly in many hearing offices. The
Chief Administrative Law Judge, the Deputy Chief Administrative
Law Judge and many Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges
were either unwilling or unable to ensure that many Hearing
Office Chief Administrative Law Judges properly implement the
Program consistent with national directives
4. Many ALJs and the Association of Administrative Law
Judges proclaimed that the Senior Attorney Program was merely a
method to pay down the backlog. They continued this theme long
after hard data demonstrated its falsity. Approximately 25% of
the cases reviewed by Senior Attorneys resulted in favorable
determinations. ALJs have historically paid a much higher
percentage of cases, and in fact, paid a higher percentage of
Senior Attorney Program cases than did Senior Attorneys.
5. ALJs also complained that the Senior Attorney Program
deprived them of their best decision writers. From its
inception in 1995 until July 1, 1998, all of OHA's Staff
Attorneys with at least three years experience at OHA were
Senior Attorneys. While they were required to spend at least
25% of their time performing Senior Attorney work, they were
available for the remainder of their time to draft ALJ
decisions if hearing office management deemed it advisable.
However, on July 1, 1998 SSA significantly downsized the number
of Senior Attorneys and restricted the remainder of Senior
Attorneys to performing only Senior Attorney work. SSA
management made these changes unilaterally over the strenuous
objections of the National Treasury Employees Union. It was
only at this point that ALJs may have lost some of their best
decision drafters.
The Disability Process Redesign Program (DPR) and Hearings
Process Improvement Teams have vigorously opposed the Senior
Attorney Program because it represented an inexpensive and
effective alternative to the extensive program changes proposed
by either program.
1. At the time of the inception of the Senior Attorney
Program, the massive Disability Process Redesign (DPR) was also
in its design and initial testing phase. The initial impetus
for DPR was the huge backlog that had accumulated at OHA. DPR
demonstrated that SSA was committed to ``improving'' the
appellate process through the implementation of massive, multi-
component reorganizations that substantially de-legalized the
appellate process at OHA. One of the key DPR positions, the
Adjudication Officer (AO), was created specifically to de-
legalize the appellate process. The Senior Attorney Program
challenged the prevalent theory that OHA's production problems
could not be solved without a fundamental reorganization.
2. Even today SSA is unwilling to accept that OHA's
productivity problems were being solved within OHA without
significant interference from the remainder of SSA. The
Hearings Process Improvement Plan is merely the latest
reincarnation of the big fix'' philosophy so prevalent in SSA.
HPI appears more intended to disguise the failure of DPR than
improve the hearings process. The Senior Attorney Program
represents the same threat to HPI as it did to DPR.
3. DPR viewed the Senior Attorney Program as competition
and sought to avoid competition by eliminating the Senior
Attorney Program rather than competing with it. However, since
the Senior Attorney Program offered immediate relief to the
backlog situation and DPR could offer only a vague future
impact, the Senior Attorney Program was implemented. The
competition proved rather one sided. The Senior Attorney
Program was a resounding success, while the DPR was an equally
resounding failure.
4. The success of the one program made it impossible to
hide the failure of the other which has caused embarrassment to
the SSA officials responsible for and committed to the DPR. SSA
officials do not want to risk a similar fate for HPI. By
eliminating the Senior Attorney Program they avoid the
unfavorable comparison between the small, focused program that
works and an untried experiment designed to de-legalize OHA.
5. The continuation of the Senior Attorney Program is
inconsistent with an underlying theme of SSA mandating the
``de-legalization'' of the appellate process at OHA.
The Office of Program Integrity (OPIR) now the Office of
Quality Assurance (OQA) also had reason to oppose the Senior
Attorney Program.
1. OPIR maintained rigid control of the decision making
process at the state agencies and was resigned to its inability
to control the ALJs who had the iron clad protection of the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The AO and the Senior
Attorney were new classes of decision makers beyond the control
of OPIR. It takes little imagination to theorize that
eventually the state agencies, after observing the decisional
freedom of the AO and Senior Attorney, would eventually seek
their own independence from the oppressive hand of OPIR.
2. When OPIR failed to prevent the birth of the Senior
Attorney Program, it raised the specter of poor decisional
accuracy. OPIR in conjunction with OHA established a forum
through which ALJs, and for a while Senior Attorneys, and
OPIR's disability examiners would review ALJ and Senior
Attorney on-the-record decisions. Given the level of opposition
of ALJs and OPIR to the Senior Attorney Program, this review
process took on all the characteristics of a Star Chamber. In
fact so biased were the reviews, that OHA established a
procedure whereby the Appeals Council would independently
review a sample of Senior Attorney and ALJ decisions.
Decisional accuracy of ALJs and Senior Attorneys was
essentially identical. No statistically valid study has ever
demonstrated decisional accuracy significantly less than that
of ALJ decisions. Yet the specter of poor decisional accuracy
was a threat to the continued existence of the Senior Attorney
Program.
The National Treasury Employees Union strongly recommends
that the Social Security Administration reinstate the original
Senior Attorney Program in which Senior Attorneys not only
drafted and issued fully favorable decisions but were also the
primary decision drafters and legal advisors to ALJs. Without
the reinstatement of this program, OHA cannot delivery the
service expected by SSA and Congress.
Addendum
I believe that the suggestions made here, if carried out,
will significantly reduce the disability backlog, reduce
processing time and improve the quality and accuracy of SSA
decision making. SSA can implement these changes without any
additional legislation, funding or staffing.
However, I believe that two further changes would markedly
improve the level of service delivered to the American public
consistent with the Agency's goal of world class service. The
National Treasury Employees Union strongly recommends that SSA:
1. Improve the quality and quantity of its ALJ decisions by
hiring as ALJs those attorneys who are experts in Social
Security disability law. Many such experts exist in the federal
government and in private practice, yet their expertise is not
considered in the ALJ rating and ranking process. No single
action will do more to improve the system than bringing in as
ALJs those attorneys who have shown a life long commitment to
learning and practicing disability law, whether that experience
was gained as a federal employee or in private practice.
2. Improve the quality and quantity of its ALJ decisions by
instituting a Magistrate program to handle that workload which
cannot be disposed of by a Senior Attorney yet still does not
require the expense and time of an ALJ decision maker and a
full blown hearing. These cases can include: cases in which the
claimant waives the right to a hearing and requests an on the
record decision and cases where the claimant consents to the
jurisdiction of the magistrate.
Both of these changes require Congressional action. NTEU is
ready to work with your Subcommittee staff to prepare such
legislation.
Chairman Shaw. I am very concerned about what is happening,
particularly with the baby boomers coming on line. This
committee will continue to work with the Social Security
Administration with a single purpose, and that is toward
improving the delivery system for the retirees as well as the
disabled.
Thank you very much, and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
March 16, 2000
Mr. A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representative
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Singleton:
Re: Readiness for Impending Wave of Baby Boomer Beneficiaries
The Social Security Administration's (SSA) readiness for the
impending wave of baby boomers will mainly be determined by how they
train and utilize their current employees especially those employees in
the lower grades. SSA has over 20,000 employees in the lower grades
i.e. below the GS-9 grade levels that have not been trained to handle
all aspects Title II or Title XVI programs. Most of these employees are
women and individuals with disabilities who could perform the full
range of SSA's program work if given the opportunity and proper
training. SSA needs to remission itself in order to provide better
service to our customers including baby boomers and to empower our
employees at the same time. SSA workers are ready, willing and able to
have ``one stop shopping'' in each workstation. A simple remission of
SSA could make it the best Federal Agency if all employees were
utilized to their fullest potential. Proper training could empower each
employee with the skills; knowledge and ability to offer our customers
one stop shopping. One stop shopping is the tools to truly empower
SSA's workers and provide world class service to our customers.
Remissioning is not new to SSA. The Albuquerque and Salinas Data
Operation Centers were remissioned in early 1995 to TeleService
Centers. Before remissioning, these Centers had many GS-4/5 grade level
employees who posted wages to beneficiaries earning records and issued
Social Security cards. This remissioning has been a benefit to the
agency, the employees (promoted up to GS-8) and the public. However, a
TSC is not yet one stop shopping because some work still has to be
passed off to other employees. So why stop there when we have employees
in every component capable of processing the entire action if given the
training and the opportunity. I believe a bold step towards
remissioning could work throughout SSA because of the talented
employees. In the States' Disability Determination Section, most of
14,000 employees are Examiners of support staff for the examiners.
Unlike the DDS, job functions in SSA especially at the lower grade
levels seem to be segregated to control classification. This is why SSA
should be remissioned to empower all employees with the opportunity to
provide one stopping for our customers.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to perform the work here in
SSA. Who has the right to say that if I work in the Data Operation
Center the average grade that I will obtain will be a GS4/5? Who has a
right to say that if I work in Office of Central Record Operations the
highest grade that I can obtain is a GS5/6? Who has a right to say that
if I work in OHA (field) the highest grade that I can obtain is a GS7/
8? Who has a right to say that if I work in a TSC the highest grade
that I can obtain is a GS8? Who has a right to say that if I work in a
PSC the average grade that I will obtain is a GS9? If I work in a Field
Office the highest grade that I can obtain 's a GS11? No one has that
right. I believe we should be able to advance as far as our skills and
talent will allow us to go individually. With proper training, we are
smart enough and we have enough computers and program knowledge to be
able to perform all aspects of SSA's work.
Training employees to process an entire action, especially those in
the lower grades, is one solution to make SSA ready for the impending
wave of baby boomer beneficiaries. There are over 20,000 such
employees. If these employees were empowered to provide one stop
shopping to our customer, I believe SSA will be more than ready to
handle all of our customers including the baby boomers.
If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me. I can be
contacted at P. O. Box 1954, Chicago, Illinois 60690. My telephone
number is 312/575-6105 or by fax at 312/575-6031.
Sincerely,
Earl Tucker
Chair
AFGE EEO Committee in SSA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
February 29, 2000
SUBJECT: SSA's QUALITY ASSURANCE WORKERS SAVE TAXPAYERS BILLIONS
Social Security Quality Assurance (QA) workers save taxpayers
billions of dollars in General Revenue and Trust funds while striving
to ensure that the public receives the benefits due them in a courteous
manner.
Through internal reviews, controls and audits in SSA we as workers
save the taxpayers billions of dollars. It's a shame that some of the
savings are never transferred to SSA's administrative budget for
continuous improvement in these programs that save big bucks. In many
of these money saving areas there is very little staff to process these
workloads if they are processed at all. However, currently we are about
one half the size we once were. In spite of our staffing shortage, we
have continued to help SSA deliver world class service to the public
and its, internal and external customers by accurately reporting on the
health of the SSA programs Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
Disability Insurance (DI), and Retirement and Survivors Insurance
(RSI).
The Regional Offices of Quality Assurances (ROQA) [formerly known
as the Regional Office of Program and Integrity reviews] are crucial to
SSA efforts to save money by maintaining and increasing quality. ROQA
employees have over 25 years of experience in recording and reporting
statisticallyvalid data on a timely basis to interested parties both
inside and outside SSA. In the process, they have maintained good
relations with a variety of other offices: Field.Offices, Regional
Offices, Headquarters, State Disability Determination Services, Office
of Hearing and Appeals, etc. We have a long history of participation in
onsite reviews of SSA offices in order to help improve their
operations. We have shown flexibility in adapting to new types of
studies (such as payment accuracy of initial claims in the late 1801s),
new court cases (such as Zebley and other Disability cases in the
1901s), and new types of workloads (Disability Process Redesign now).
In short, if the ROQAs did not exist, they would have to be
invented. They are already in place (with no startup costs), ready to
continue their efforts to improve quality and save SSA money.
Our regional component consists of about 800 employees (less than
1.5% of SSA employees) with two major branches i.e. Disability Quality
Branch and Assistance and Insurance Program Quality Branch.
Disability Quality Branch
The quality assurance function for Disability Insurance (DI
Program) is carried out by the Disability Quality Branches (11 DQ911)
of the Office of Quality Assurance (OQA). We save the taxpayer more
than $15 for every $1 it costs us to review a disability case in the
Preeffectuation Review (PER) sample. There is no similar review for
title XVI disability cases. we have developed a profile for targeting
favorable title II and concurrent title II/XVI cases most likely to
contain errors for preeffectuation (PER) review instead of allowing
these cases to be selected by chance. As a result, $317 million has
been saved in cash benefits and/or to the trust fund for FY 1999,
alone. These PER cases are actually reviewed by us before payments can
be effectuated. At the present time we are only reviewing approximately
50% of the Title II cases but we have saved more than $2 billion in
unnecessary trust fund expenditures since 1980. If this effort were
continued and more cases were reviewed including Title XVI, we would
save the taxpayers even more money in the trust funds and general
revenue.
Recently, a targeted error prone profile for PER was revised to
select favorable title II and concurrent title XVI/II cases which will
improve the above figures by 6% (i.e.$50 Millions more dollars).
Headquarters' OQA implemented a new PER review of 5,052 Office of
Hearing and Appeals allowances. Our findings indicated that 440o of
these cases were unsupported and referred to the Office of the Appeals
Council(OAC). The Appeals Council agreed with 92% of these findings and
remanded and/or reversed 65.2%.
We should also be saving billions of dollars by doing more
Continuing Disability Reviews (CDR). These are followup reviews that
should be done after a claimant has received disability benefits for a
certain period of time to see if they are still disabled and unable to
work. SSA has increased these reviews but still more cases should be
reviewed in order to reap additional savings.
A Childhood Disability rereview plan was implemented recently to
monitor the ongoing accuracy determination. These data have enabled the
Administration to provide the States with early feedback on the degree
of uniformity in the adjudication of Childhood Disability cases.
Ultimately, this rereview system should save million of dollars in
litigation cost associated with childhood disability cases.
Assistance and Insurance Program Quality Branch
The quality assurance function for the Retirement and Survivor's
Insurance Program (11RSI Program'') and The Supplemental Security
Income Program (``SSI Program'') are carried out by the Assistance and
Insurance Program Quality Branches (11AIPQ211) of the office of Quality
Assurance (110QA11).
These functions are conducted by means of the Index of Dollar
Accuracy (``IDA'') study of recently adjudicated initial claims, the
IDA study of recently processed post entitlement transactions, and
special studies designed to assess areas of potential vulnerability or
concern.
We developed survey instruments, select samples, conducts surveys,
performs statistical analysis and prepares reports and findings. In
addition to ongoing surveys, we completed nine new market measurement
studies involving over 21,0000 customer contacts.
Our Prisoner initiatives resulted in 100,000 prisoners, who by law
should not receive benefits after being taken off the SSA roles in
FY99.
We also strive to ensure that the public receives benefits to which
they are entitled. We implemented an automated notice to over 600
widow(er)s advising them of the eligibility for about $53.00 per month
each on average, in higher benefits. This means that they will now
correctly receive a total lifetime value of about $1/2 billion dollars
in additional benefits.
We have taken an ambitious program of corrective action process
development. After conducting live corrective action tests, we created
processes that identify and correct millions of errors, pay billions of
dollars in underpayment and prevent large volumes of unnecessary
actions and conserve resources as follows:
Our analysis of 400,000 Automatic Earnings Reappraisal operation
indicated that 150,000 accounts were underpaid. These accounts were
paid and unnecessary work was prevented on 250,000 records as a result.
our analysis of Automatic Reduction Factor/Delayed Retirement
Credit prevented about 340,000 unnecessary/incorrect actions in FY99.
Delinquent Overpayment Actions prototype systems were used to
developed a new workload priority system, which handles over 400,000
actions per year.
We developed a Special Wage Payment process to automate over 40,000
of this workload per year.
A Workers' Compensation Study of the offset provision projects a
total retroactive and estimated future overpayments is about $1
billion.
In FY 99 we improved the SSI high error redetermination profile.
This profile improvement alone resulted in nearly $139 million of
additional HEP benefits compares to FY98.
The following are other examples of ongoing special activities
conducted in the AIPQB, the result of which were either financial
savings or improved service to the public:
The AIPQB conduct ongoing monitoring of the 1800 number
service in order to assess the quality of service to the public in
terms of courtesy and the accuracy of information given to callers.
Additionally, AIPQB make followerup calls to the public to gauge
customer satisfaction.
The AIPQB monitors the quality of phone service to the
public in District offices and recommend improvements were appropriate.
The AIPQB have been involved in testing the quality of
phone service to nonEnglish speaking members of the public.
The efforts of the AIPQB result in billions of dollars in annual
saving to the taxpayers as well as ensuring that the public is
satisfied with our service.
In conclusion, OQA (field) consist of SSA workers in twoquality
assurance branches, i.e. DQB and AIPQB. These workers are skilled
technicians with the necessary autonomy to perform accurate diagnoses
and prescribe cures for many problems in all the programs in SSA. As a
result, billions of taxpayer dollars are saved annually by these
dedicated workers but these savings do not translate into adequate
staffing on the administrative side to do the total job required. More
staffing is needed to provide the public with the service that they
expect from SSA and protect both general revenue and the Trust funds
from unwarranted expenses.
As you know, FY2000 appropriations had a .38% cut across the board
for all Agencies including SSA. This amount should be restored in order
to hire adequate staffing. The funds are essential to deliver the
service that taxpayers expect. This cut amounted to $134 million and is
causing a drastic impact on service to the public this fiscal year. The
public will be impacted by service delays in: answering the 800#,
filing new claims, making changes to their records, doing
redeterminations, processing of appeals, processing of hearings and
other critical workloads. Pending backlogs will grow causing further
processing delays. It is critical that you restore the .38% cut to all
agencies especially the $134 million to SSA for continuous improvement
in public service.
If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me. I can be
contacted at: P.0. Box 1954, Chicago, Illinois 60690. My telephone
number is 312/575-6105 or by fax at 312/575-6031.
EARL TUCKER
President
March 29, 2000
Subcommittee on Social Security
c/o A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Social Security Disability Determination
Dear Committee Members:
The Social Security Administration (SSA) faces grave challenges in
dealing the oncoming wave of baby boomer beneficiaries. They will be
quite similar to the challenges that arose from the sharp rise in
disability workloads during the early 1990's. The Hearing Process
Improvement (HPI) initiative has been developed to help cope with this
expected increase at the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). I will
not repeat my arguments regarding the pros and cons of this effort that
I previously submitted to the Subcommittee last year. I know you have
those letters on file and I respectfully ask that you review them in
conjunction with this series of hearings.\1\ The arguments contained in
those letters retain efficacy and the recommendations contained therein
should be followed. Furthermore, Jim Hill of the National Treasury
Employees Union, in his testimony, addressed many of the problems with
HPI and I concur with his suggestions to reform that program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A copy of my March 1999 letter is attached for ease of
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today my emphasis is on two areas that HPI does not address, the
recruitment of new attorneys for OHA and the recruitment and selection
of new Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). The number of requests for
hearing submitted to OHA has been relatively stable during the past few
years and OHA's pending caseload has markedly decreased. It is
ridiculous to believe that this condition will last much longer. SSA is
going forward with the elimination of the reconsideration step. Even if
it is assumed that redesign programs will increase the number of cases
paid at the initial level to 35% from approximately 32% in 1997 and
that the number of new claimants declined to two million, this would
generate at least 650,000 appeals to OHA.\2\ In contrast, less than
500,000 hearing requests were received in fiscal year 1999. Thus OHA
will soon be facing at least a 30% workload increase, just as it is
finally recovering from the boom in the early 1990's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ I respectfully suggest a much greater increase in OHA workload
will occur during the next few years. 700,000 hearing requests would
not be an unreasonable figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been several years since any entry level Attorney-Advisors
have been hired. It has been even longer since any have been hired as
permanent employees, without first being hired to a temporary
appointment. I respectfully suggest that hiring a new class of
attorneys is absolutely necessary to provide a continuing pool of
applicants for the HPI Senior Attorney-Advisor positions, as well as
Program Group Supervisor and Hearing Office Director positions.\3\ The
current pool of Attorney-Advisors has been markedly shrinking. A number
are being promoted into the HPI Senior Attorney-Advisor, Program Group
Supervisor and Hearing Office Director positions A additional number of
Attorney-Advisors, (most with several years of experience), who had
been hired on temporary appointments were not renewed, in spite of the
need for additional decision writers under HPI.\4\ Furthermore, many
Attorney-Advisors are ``baby boomers'' and are approaching retirement
themselves. Given the fact that the OHA workload is expected to
markedly expand again, it should be obvious to everyone that recruiting
new attorneys is necessary so that they will be trained and in place as
the workload rises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Please refer to my prior correspondence such as my letter dated
April 13, 1999, for my arguments discussing the importance of having
employees with a legal education in these positions.
\4\ SSA and OHA should be compelled to retain and make permanent
the remaining Attorney-Advisors who are still in temporary status. The
opportunity to retain experienced personnel should not be wasted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, there appear to be no plans on the horizon to hire any
new Administrative Law Judges. There are currently less than 1100 ALJ's
with OHA and this number has been steadily declining through attrition.
Attrition logically is expected to increase among the current group as
many of them are already over 65. It has been over three years since
any new ALJ's have been selected. This number has been adequate to keep
up with the current workload. It is ridiculous to believe that this
shrinking corps will be able to keep up with the much greater workload
that is certain to arrive in the next few years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ OPM, which processes ALJ applications and provides certificates
of eligible candidates to agencies for selection, was recently ordered
to overhaul its procedures in the case styled Azdell v. OPM. OPM should
be strongly encouraged to settle this dispute promptly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As most of the witnesses pointed out, it takes years to develop a
newly hired employee into a fully productive one. Please provide SSA
the resources and guidance so that it recruits the necessary legal
personnel to deal with the upcoming workloads now. Let us not repeat
the crisis of the early 1990's where backlogs grew to intolerable
levels.
At the very least, I respectfully request that you schedule a
follow-up hearing to focus on the clear need for additional legally-
trained personnel at SSA.
Sincerely,
James R. Hitchcock
President
[March 25, 1999 e-mail submission to the Subcommittee]
SSA should make the Senior Attorney-Advisor program permanent and
assure that it is integrated intact into the OHA reform plan; 2) assure
the Senior Attorney-Advisor program is expanded as necessary to meet
workload demands; and 3) hire more attorneys at local hearing offices
to provide increased decision writing capacity.
I am currently serving as a Senior Attorney-Advisor in Knoxville,
Tennessee. I have previously served as an Attorney-Advisor in Memphis
and Knoxville, Tennessee and as an Adjudication Officer (AO) in the
West Des Moines, Iowa pilot site. Prior to my joining the Social
Security Administration [SSA] I was in private practice for over six
years.
The Senior Attorney-Advisor program was designed to address the
following issues, 1.) To ensure disability cases appealed to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals [OHA] receive appropriate evidentiary
development before hearing; and 2.) that in cases deserving an award
on-the-record, legally sufficient and defensible written decisions are
issued promptly.
Review of the upcoming SSA workload, test results, and the state of
the combined Federal and State workforces involved in disability
determination, leads to the conclusion the public would be best served
by expanding the Senior Attorney-Advisor program and making it
permanent. Recent statistics have shown that Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) allowance rates have been dropping since the implementation of
the program. There has been little change in the overall allowance
rate.
The Senior Attorney program has been effective in both expediting
case development for cases that go to hearing and in issuing expedited
favorable decisions. The Senior Attorney-Advisor program has thus
helped reduce overall OHA processing time. It develops cases more
efficiently and in a manner useful to the ALJs at OHA. Furthermore, it
does not have a significant negative impact on the other workloads
within the overall process.
In my own experience during the original part-time Senior Attorney-
Advisor program I was able to complete review and preparation of a case
as a Senior Attorney-Advisor much faster than I could as an AO. In
addition, I still had enough time to draft a significant number of
decisions for our ALJs. During the last eight months of my detail as an
AO I processed [i.e. decided on-the-record or certified for hearing]
approximately 136 cases. There were approximately 168 workdays during
that period. I took about 16 days of leave during that period, leaving
about 152 workdays. 136 divided by 152 = .89 cases per day [less than
45% of the original 2 cases per day goal of the Disability Process
Redesign]. This figure was on the high side of the national average for
pilot AOs during that period. During the first eight full months since
I returned to Knoxville as a Senior Attorney-Advisor, I processed 171
Senior Attorney-Advisor cases in 165 workdays. Subtracting 16 leave
days, three training days and three snow days left 143 workdays. 171
divided by 143=1.20 cases per day [60% of the original 2 cases per day
goal of the Disability Process Redesign]. This represents over a 34%
increase in productivity compared an average AO! In addition to this I
also drafted 82 ALJ decisions [about .57 a day]. It is my understanding
that the average non-Senior Attorney-Advisor decision writer does not
average much more than about one case per workday. Thus, the Social
Security Administration effectively gained the production of over one
half a decision writer and a third of an AO merely by converting me
back to the role of part-time Senior Attorney-Advisor. I believe
overall performance statistics will show that my performance as a
Senior Attorney-Advisor is fairly typical.
In July 1998, the new Senior Attorney-Advisor program began and my
adjudicatory duties became full-time. Lack of cases to review has
prevented me from reaching full productivity. However, during the first
three months of the ``new'' program I still processed 150 cases in 63
workdays. Subtracting 6 leave days left 57 workdays. 150 cases divided
by 57=2.14 cases per day [better than the original 1996 target goal for
the AO pilot offices]. Nationwide, during this same period, 285 Senior
Attorney-Advisors reviewed almost 40,000 cases, issuing over 13,000
decisions. Extrapolating these figures over a year yields over 52,000
decisions and additional 160,000 case reviews [a total of about 212,000
cases. This is a much higher production figure than that generated by a
comparable number of AOs [300 AO's .9 cases decided or
reviewed per day 5 days per week 52 weeks per year =
70,200 cases decided or reviewed.
The Senior Attorney-Advisor program accomplishes this level of
productivity at little additional cost to the agency. It does not
require large reallocations of personnel, significant retraining or
capital expenditure. The program did not immediately meet its original
ambitious goals. However, as the GAO reported part of that difficulty
was caused by delays in startup. The program has had to overcome local
resistance and workload imbalances. In any case, the above statistics
show amazing and admirable productivity from a group that has been
reduced from over 500 to approximately 250 people!
Some people in OHA claim the Senior Attorney-Advisor program has
had a negative impact on the capacity for writing ALJ decisions. This
is an improper focus of concern. The productivity measure that is truly
critical is the total number of well-reasoned decisions issued by OHA.
The grade of the author of the decision is irrelevant as long as the
decision is well reasoned and legally defensible. Senior Attorney-
Advisor decisions speed up the overall office processing of those cases
by a factor of months. This eliminates the need for the costly hearing
and post-hearing processing, freeing up personnel to work on other
cases. Considering the overall workload, this more than makes up for
slowing in the issuance of ALJ decisions by a few days. Furthermore,
the evidence shows that overall office productivity is also improved by
the expedited development initiated by Senior Attorney-Advisors in
cases that go forward to the hearing. This reduces the need for
rescheduling hearings, ordering post-hearing evidence and scheduling
supplemental hearings, etc.
Apparently, a decision has already been made to return current
Senior Attorney-Advisors to drafting ALJ decisions on a part-time
basis, in addition to their adjudicatory and case review duties. This
results in a 25% reduction in the capacity for Senior Attorney review
of cases. For the reasons discussed above, it is reasonable to expect
that this change will result in an overall decline in productivity as
the gains from increased decision writing capacity will not make up for
the losses from reduced prehearing work. Thus, I recommend the Senior
Attorney-Advisor program be expanded by at least 40 positions, with
further expansion should workloads increase.
A new proposal to overhaul the hearing office structure of the
Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) has recently been developed. I
believe that this proposal has potential to improve the efficiency of
the process. However, I urge you to review the proposal and support its
adoption, but ONLY with the clarifications and modifications suggested
below.
I believe that this plan, if implemented properly, will eventually
go a long way to build on OHA's successes in reducing the huge backlog
of the early 1990's. However, improper implementation will undercut
those gains and rapidly take us back to the days of burgeoning
backlogs.
Disability determinations are subject to federal court review [42
U.S.C. 405(g)] and must be legally defensible in order to withstand
judicial scrutiny. The current incarnation of the Wright Workgroup
initiative does not acknowledge that in order to make legally
defensible determinations, all determinations must be made in
compliance with the Act and Regulations (See, 20 CFR 404.1615 an 20 CFR
416.1015), and that personnel with legal training are necessary to
ensure such compliance. Instead, there are no positions in this plan
that require any legal education in spite of the fact that the Case
Analyst and Team Leader positions are both expected to adjudicate[on a
part-time basis], the thousands of disability claims currently
adjudicated by our Senior Attorney-Advisors.
This decision ignores our very recent history. In particular it
ignores lessons apparent from the failure of the Adjudication Officer
pilots. There were many problems that lead to the failure of the AO
program, but I believe two areas stand out. First was the lack of legal
education and decision writing experience of the majority of AOs. This
lead to an unacceptably high number of poor quality decisions. It took
extensive remedial training, experience and the assignment of
additional supervisors to improve the quality of AO decisions to
tolerable levels. Second, there are many instances of poor relations
with the representative community that further compromised the
program's effectiveness.
The Case Analyst and Team Leader proposals appear to open the door
to the wholesale hiring/transferring/promoting of employees with no
legal education and little or no legal writing experience. This is
exactly the situation SSA had with the original AO pilots. It appears
to set the stage to replace many attorneys with non-attorneys. This
will be a terrible disservice to the public and OHA.
Our prehearing adjudicators must have experience, education and
ability to interact effectively with ALJs and claimant's
representatives on a daily basis. They must have credibility with the
representatives and the ALJs. Without this confidence the expected
gains will not be realized. ALJs will not depend on under-qualified
prehearing reviewers for adequate case development. They will spend
more of their time on prehearing review. Claimant's representatives are
unwilling to negotiate with people they perceive are lacking in
independence. This was a significant problem with the Adjudication
Officer program! Attorney-Advisors, with their professional standing,
have the training, experience, self-confidence and independence to fill
this role the way it is intended. There is no question that the Senior
Attorney-Advisor program has been much better received by the
representative community than the AO program. Replacing large numbers
of Senior Attorney-Advisors with non-attorney case analysts will
essentially recreate the flawed AO program within OHA.
Selection of personnel for the adjudication position is critical.
First and foremost, these positions involve critical ethical issues in
the exercise of judicial/quasijudicial discretion. Requiring that the
adjudication positions are filled by licensed professionals, bound by a
uniform code of ethical conduct, is a NECESSARY safeguard for the
integrity of the system and public confidence. Licensed attorneys are
already bound by an established code of ethics, which provides for
discipline in case of ethics violations. They have gone through a
rigorous screening procedure in obtaining their license. In contrast,
non-attorney personnel have no such licensing requirements are not
bound by any code of ethical conduct. Discipline when one of these
people yields to temptation will be much more difficult and limited.
Furthermore, this adjudication position requires a person, who is
not only familiar with disability issues, but is familiar with these
issues in a legal context, as well as with the hearing process and
higher levels of appeal. The prehearing adjudicator must also have the
confidence and respect of the ALJs and claimant's representatives.
Without these qualifications and abilities the prehearing review
process could easily devolve into little more than a renamed version of
the admittedly flawed ``reconsideration'' program. It would not
accomplish the goals of identifying and expediting favorable decisions
(especially those where an amended onset date might be appropriate,
e.g. where negotiation with the claimant's representative is
necessary), identifying needed development, and assuring that
procedural aspects are appropriately addressed.
The current Senior Attorney-Advisors are already performing the
prehearing adjudication function that OHA needs and in most cases
already have over three years of experience in adjudication and an
additional three or more years in drafting decisions. Second, they are
licensed attorneys. As licensed attorneys, they are bound by an
established code of conduct and subject to discipline by their State's
Board of Professional Responsibility. Third, the Attorney-Advisors have
the familiarity with both the disability issues and the procedural
requirements of the hearing process. They also are familiar with and
understand the impact of the statutes, regulations, rulings, and
pertinent caselaw. No one else in SSA, other than the Office of General
Counsel, the ALJs and Appeals Council members and staff, has this full
range of knowledge and experience. Other employees may have somewhat
similar knowledge of the disability issues, but they lack the
understanding of the procedural requirements and the legal issues
involved. Furthermore, there are positions that are a much better fit
for their qualifications and experience.
The current Senior Attorney-Advisors and Attorney-Advisors have
considerable experience in communicating/negotiating with other
attorneys and claims representatives (through prior private practice
experience and/or participation in prehearing conferences). Their legal
training and proven negotiating abilities make them perfect for the
prehearing adjudicator task of conferring and negotiating with the
claimant's representatives.
Finally, the Senior Attorney-Advisors and Attorney-Advisors already
have experience in working closely with the ALJs. Attorney-Advisors are
not mere decision writers. They confer with, make suggestions to, and
assist the ALJs in reviewing cases before and after hearings. The level
of this assistance varies from requesting clarification of an ALJ's
instructions, to the situation where the ALJ requests counsel on a
particular case or issue. Attorney-Advisors are often called on by ALJs
to recommend a decision with minimal, if any, further instruction.
Senior Attorney-Advisors and Attorney-Advisors have been assisting in
training/mentoring newly hired ALJs.
No one else in SSA has comparable experience in dealing with ALJs
and claimant's representatives. For these reasons, it is clear that the
prehearing adjudicator positions should be filled from the ranks of our
current Senior Attorney-Advisors and Attorney-Advisors.
I also wish to address the decision writing function of the Case
Analysts and Team Leaders. Greater emphasis on training, both initially
and on a continuing basis will be necessary for these writers. The
district courts will not tolerate abbreviated decisions. The courts
require thorough, well reasoned opinions, and the public deserves no
less. Our current writers are already bearing the brunt of a much
heavier and more complex workload than just a few years ago. A greater
percentage of cases are unfavorable than in the earlier period. The
current dip in case receipts will not last long. Soon more writers will
be necessary and all writers will need and deserve rigorous training to
help them deal with the much more onerous workload. Legal training and
experience in legal and persuasive writing is more valuable than ever
in dealing with this caseload. Entry level attorneys can be hired more
cheaply [GS-9/11, step 1] than non-attorneys would be promoted [GS-11/
12 at a high step]. Anecdotal evidence suggests that all new writers
need at least a year of experience to become proficient. Given this
reality, there is no reason not to increase the hiring of attorneys to
fill our decision writing vacancies.
In conclusion, I encourage you to: 1) support making the Senior
Attorney-Advisor program permanent and assure that it is integrated
intact into the OHA reform plan; 2) assure the Senior Attorney-Advisor
program is expanded as necessary to meet workload demands; and 3) that
more attorneys are hired at local hearing offices to provide increased
decision writing capacity.
Sincerely,
James R. Hitchcock
President
Statement of Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Social Security
Task Force
The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Social
Security Task Force appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the readiness of the Social Security Administration to meet the
needs of the impending wave of baby boomer beneficiaries.
As the Subcommittee Hearing Advisory acknowledges, SSA
workloads are projected to begin increasing rapidly within the
next decade as the baby boom generation begins to reach its
peak disability years just prior to reaching early retirement
age beginning in 2008. In addition, the SSA workforce is also
aging and will begin to lose significant numbers of staff,
including senior and leadership staff. About 3,000 employees
are expected to retire per year from 2007 through 2009.
Finally, SSA is also taking on new or more complex
responsibilities such as providing increased rehabilitation and
employment services for people with disabilities, completing
and maintaining an appropriate schedule of continuing
disability reviews (CDRs) and other eligibility reviews, and
new approaches to prevent fraud and abuse.
In FY 1985, SSA's staffing levels were measured at 80,844
FTEs and 83,406 workyears. The estimates for FY 2000 include
63,350 FTEs and 65,203 workyears, for a reduction of 17,494
FTEs and 18,203 workyears over the last 15 years.
The CCD Social Security Task Force has voiced concern for
some time over the continued long-term downsizing of the SSA
workforce. We believe that failure to conduct appropriate and
timely CDRs and other eligibility reviews could lead to
decreased trust in the integrity of the Social Security and SSI
programs. In addition, the new efforts to assist people with
disabilities to go to work, through the Ticket to Work and Work
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, will require new and
expanded approaches for SSA interaction with beneficiaries.
Adequate staffing levels are critical for these and other
efforts to be successful, especially given the coming
disability and retirement years of baby boomers.
For these reasons, the CCD Social Security Task Force
strongly supports the proposal that the Social Security
Administration's Limitation on Administrative Expenses (LAE)
budget authority should be removed from the domestic
discretionary spending category. While SSA's LAE account is
categorized as discretionary spending, the Social Security
program is considered off-budget and the OASDI portion of the
LAE is also considered off-budget when calculating the overall
budget surplus or deficit. Both the OASDI and SSI programs that
SSA administers are considered as mandatory spending. Yet under
current law, the entire LAE is considered under the domestic
discretionary budget cap. The independent, bipartisan Social
Security Advisory Board has unanimously urged that SSA's
``administrative budget, like its program budget, be explicitly
excluded from the statutory cap that imposes an arbitrary limit
on the amount of discretionary government spending.''
(Testimony of the Honorable Stanford Ross, Chair, Social
Security Advisory Board, February 10, 2000)
The CCD Task Force believes that the entire LAE should be
removed from under the domestic discretionary spending caps so
that SSA's administrative functions can continue to operate
smoothly for beneficiaries. For instance, SSA should have no
artificial constraints in continuing to be able to take a
single individual's applications for Social Security, Medicare,
and SSI.
It is important to note that even if the LAE were removed
from the domestic discretionary caps, SSA's LAE would still be
subject to the annual appropriations process and Congressional
oversight. Currently, SSA's administrative expenses total less
than 2% of benefit payments paid annually. Congress would still
maintain its role in ensuring continued administrative
efficiency.
Most importantly, removal of the LAE from the domestic
discretionary spending caps would remove it from competition
with other programs for limited funds. It would allow for
growth that is necessary to meet the needs of the coming baby-
boomer retirement years (including the retirement of SSA and
state DDS personnel); continue the efforts to improve the
processing time for initial applications and appeals; and
continue the efforts to ensure integrity in the program through
CDRs and other redeterminations. The President's budget request
for FY 2001 includes a healthy 5 percent increase in the LAE.
Yet due to increasing workloads, even with such increases,
performance rates are expected to decline in the following
areas: the 5-minute access rate to the 800 number; number of
initial disability decisions pending; the number of hearings
processed; and the number of CDRs processed.
Annually, the Appropriations Committees need to have the
ability to approve adequate funds for the administration of the
Social Security programs without weakening other human services
programs. Without removal of LAE from the discretionary caps,
any increases in SSA staffing and DDS funding will have to be
offset by reductions in other health, education, and human
needs programs. It is critical that SSA be allowed to make
necessary investments in building the staffing infrastructure
necessary to meet the needs of the population, as well as new
statutory responsibilities such as the Ticket to Work and Work
Incentives Improvement Act.
The CCD Task Force on Social Security urges the Ways and
Means Committee and the Subcommittee on Social Security to
support efforts to remove SSA's LAE from the domestic
discretionary spending caps.
If you have any questions on this statement, please contact
Marty Ford at The Arc, 202-785-3388.
ON BEHALF OF:
Adapted Physical Activity Council
American Association on Mental Retardation
American Network of Community Options and Resources
Association for Persons in Supported Employment
Brain Injury Association
Inter-National Association of Business, Industry and
Rehabilitation
International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation
Services
National Association of Developmental Disabilities Councils
National Mental Health Association
National Organization of Social Security Claimants'
Representatives
NISH
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Research Institute for Independent Living
The Arc of the United States
Title II Community AIDS National Network
United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc.
Statement of Nancy G. Shor, Executive Director, National Organization
of Social Security Claimants' Representatives
This statement is submitted on behalf of the National
Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives
(NOSSCR).
For the past twenty years, I have been the NOSSCR Executive
Director. NOSSCR's current membership is approximately 3,450
attorneys and others from across the country who represent
claimants for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income
benefits. Collectively, we have many years of experience in
representing claimants at every level of the administrative and
judicial process.
NOSSCR is concerned about SSA's readiness to deal with the
impending increase in its workload as the ``baby boom''
generation approaches the peak age for onset of disability and,
subsequently, retirement. Testimony at the Subcommittee
hearings on February 10 and March 16, 2000, painted a bleak
picture regarding SSA's ability to deal with the increased
work, at the same time that its own workforce will reach peak
retirement numbers. To exacerbate this problem, SSA's budget
continues to be cut from levels that would allow it to
adequately address current and future service delivery needs.
SSA's ABILITY TO MEET SERVICE DELIVERY NEEDS
Most cases handled by NOSSCR members are at the hearing or
Appeals Council level. While current processing times at most
Offices of Hearings and Appeals are decreasing, they are still
unacceptably high. Delays at the Appeals Council level are far
worse with, according to SSA, an average processing time of 460
days in FY 1999. In fact, many of our members report far longer
times -frequently up to two years from the time the appeal is
filed. A claimant cannot proceed with an appeal in federal
district court until the Appeals Council has acted. Thus, while
their medical and financial situations are deteriorating,
claimants are forced to wait for many months before receiving a
decision.
Given these lengthy waits at the administrative appeals
levels, NOSSCR strongly believes in strengthening the front end
of the process. The benefit is obvious: the earlier a claim is
adequately developed, the earlier it can be correctly decided.
To address this, SSA needs to emphasize the full development of
the record at the beginning of the claim. Unfortunately, NOSSCR
members report that files for claimants with reconsideration
level denials show that, all too often, the development of the
claim was inadequate. Until this lack of development is
addressed, the correct decision on the claim cannot be made.
Claimants are denied not because the evidence establishes that
the person is not disabled, but because the limited evidence
gathered cannot establish that the person is disabled.
To improve these problems facing claimants, SSA requires
adequate staffing and resources. However, NOSSCR is extremely
concerned about SSA's ability to meet current and future
service needs. The President's proposed SSA budget for fiscal
year 2001 provides for fewer ``workyears'' and indicates that
backlogs will begin to grow again at the initial application
level. As indicated at the March 16 hearing, SSA's work force
has been reduced by nearly 22 percent since 1985. The
Commissioner testified how he is forced to shift resources to
meet new statutory obligations and to deal with particularly
intolerable situations, such as the current state of affairs at
the Appeals Council.
The September 1999 report of the Social Security Advisory
Board echoes these concerns. It notes the ``major decline'' in
the size of the agency's workforce at the same time that it has
``significant problems'' in meeting its current workload
requirements. ``As the workload grows, these problems threaten
to become far more serious in the future.''
SSA REQUIRES ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO MEET CURRENT AND FUTURE
SERVICE NEEDS
NOSSCR strongly agrees with the Social Security Advisory
Board's unanimous and bipartisan recommendation that SSA's
administrative budget, like its program budget, be removed from
the discretionary domestic spending caps. This would allow
Congress to approve funding for SSA that would permit the
agency to address current service delivery needs and planning
for the future.
Currently, SSA's expenses amount to less than 2 percent of
annual benefit payments, a figure substantially below that of
private insurers. Wage-earners pay Social Security taxes with
an expectation that the program will be properly administered
at an adequate level of funding. SSA's administrative budget
should not be forced to fit within an arbitrary level to fit
within discretionary spending caps, forcing it to compete with
other domestic programs for limited funds.
As noted by the Board, removing SSA's budget from
discretionary domestic spending caps would not lead to
unrestrained spending by the agency. The budget would still be
subject to the annual appropriations process and Congressional
oversight.
If you have any questions regarding this statement, please
contact Ethel Zelenske, Director of Government Affairs, NOSSCR,
(202) 216-0030.
March 29, 2000
Dear Members of the House Ways and Means Committee:
Below is the text of a letter I wrote to Honorable Olympia J.
Snowe, Honorable Susan Collins, Honorable Tom Allen, Honorable John
Baldacci, and to Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. on February 18, 2000. The
letter relates to ongoing problems in the Portland, Maine Office of
Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration--problems that I
believe have been poorly addressed by the Agency. It is noteworthy
that, despite recent and past events, the Portland Office of Hearings
and Appeals has always been referred to as the best office in the
region, and often the nation, in quality and production. Offices within
and outside of Region I have relied upon the Portland Office of
Hearings and Appeals to assist in reducing their increasingly high
workloads. Management's failure to deal with these problems has had a
negative effect not only on the employees, but the claimants which we
serve, YOUR constituents. The office has functioned at a progressively
decreasing level of efficiency.
By way of background, I have set out below a brief chronology of
events, which led up to the writing of this letter.
--Over a period of many years Portland OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND
APPEALS employees are subjected to treatment by their Hearing Office
Manager, which they characterize as including:
--harassment
--shouting, screaming and yelling at employees
--making unfounded accusations against employees
--slamming doors
--declining to permit employees to contact the regional personnel
office;
--telling the Hearing Office Chief ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE to shut
up and go back to his office (in the presence of employees)
--preventing a worker from filing a workers' compensation claim
--requesting that certain employees act as ``informants,'' and
report to her the conduct of other employees
--accusing employees of meddling and not minding their own business
--throwing objects
--directing employees to sign backdated performance appraisal forms
--misdirection of union mail
--criticizing employees' attempts to involve the union
--ordering employees not to associate with other employees
--telling employees not to speak to certain other employees
--accusing bargaining unit members of spying on her
--reprimanding bargaining unit members for speaking to agency
officials from outside the office
--rebuking bargaining unit members in the presence of third parties
--yelling at bargaining unit members in the presence of third
parties
--crying in the presence of bargaining unit members
--numerous paranoid statements
--Dates uncertain: The Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge and
the Regional Management Officer for the Office of Hearings and Appeals
in Region I met with the Portland Office of Hearings and Appeals on two
or more occasions, are said to be ``horrified'' at what they hear, and
promise to remedy it. The Regional Management Officer acknowledges
these problems and promises to correct them. He discourages the filing
of grievances, assuring workers that he will take care of everything.
On the later visit he apologizes for not taking action. He once again
promises to do whatever is necessary.
June, 1999: Judge Katherine Morgan is appointed Hearing Office
Chief Administrative Law Judge in the Portland, Maine Office of
Hearings and Appeals office.
Late summer or fall of 1999: Although nothing changes, bargaining
unit members learn that the Regional Office had approved a cash award
of $1000 or more for the Hearing Office Manager.
--October 22, 1999: The Hearing Office Manager is escorted from the
office by two security personnel after engaging in activity that is
alleged to have included shouting, slamming of objects, rudeness,
threatening, irrational behavior, and emotional volatility. Principal
witnesses Cristin Wickham and Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law
Judge Katherine Morgan. Employees are allowed to leave the premises for
their own safety. Some employees are frightened by her conduct. The
Hearing Office Manager is apparently placed on administrative leave by
Judge Morgan.
--October 24, 1999: Judge Anderson becomes Regional Chief
Administrative Law Judge for Region I. The Regional Management Office
subsequently details the Hearing Office Manager to the Regional Office
for a period of time, and then apparently extends her period of
administrative leave indefinitely.
--October 28, 1999: AFGE Local 1164 files a union-management
grievance, arising out of conduct of the Hearing Office Manager on
October 22.
--November 8, 1999: A meeting with regional office management
occurs in the large hearing room at Office of Hearings and Appeals
Portland. All staff who were at work that day are summoned to this
meeting. Mr. Sapienza, the Regional Management Officer, and Judge
Anderson, the Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge, announce to the
bargaining unit members that the Hearing Office Manager will be
returning to the Portland Office of Hearings and Appeals office
forthwith. Judge Anderson denies knowledge of the grievance, although
Judge Morgan has already personally given him a copy of it and has
discussed it with him. Judge Anderson tells the staff that, ``[the
Hearing Office Manager] is coming back.'' He claims that he has no
reason to believe he has the authority to divest her of supervisory
authority; that he has no reason to believe he has the authority to
detail her elsewhere; that he could not force her to undergo a fitness
for duty exam; that because past Regional Chief Administrative Law
Judges had not seen fit to deal with the Hearing Office Manager's past
conduct, he is powerless to investigate it or to deal with it now; that
the Hearing Office Chief Judge Katherine Morgan will have full
authority to issue discipline to the Hearing Office Manager for any
future misconduct; that ``Your Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law
Judge can take whatever action she deems necessary"; that upon the
Hearing Office Manager's return, Regional Office personnel will be in
place in the office one or two days per week; and that ``[the Hearing
Office Manager] has rights,'' including the right to modify her past
conduct. Judge Anderson urges the filing of future grievances should
any additional abuse or intimidation occur. He states that this appears
to be the sole available remedy. He states, ``You can help me by filing
grievances now.'' Nevertheless he insists that the past complaints had
``not reached the Regional Office.'' Mr. Sapienza denies having
discouraged bargaining unit members from filing grievances. He takes
the position that he is now powerless to do anything about the Hearing
Office Manager 's past conduct, because no grievances had been filed in
the past. He maintains that he had kept no records of the past employee
complaints. He states that there were no records in Boston that
reflected that the Hearing Office Manager had ever been given notice of
any inappropriate conduct on her part and an opportunity to correct
that conduct. The bargaining unit members express concerns about the
Hearing Office Manager's alleged abuse of time and leave (but are
informed that this cannot be looked into); about fear of future
intimidation and retaliation; about fear of working in close proximity
to her; about unwillingness to be supervised by her; about her
potential for violence; and about past threats of vengeance. Judge
Anderson listens to these concerns and agrees that the bargaining unit
members will get ample notice of her return and further agrees to put a
second security guard inside the office. He concedes that he is aware
that she is ``trouble'' and ``bad news.''
--November 9, 1999: Judge Anderson meets with the union concerning
the grievance. All negotiations between the union and management
officials apparently take place prior to Wednesday, November 16, 1999.
There are apparently three meetings in all.
--November 15, 1999: The union informs employees that it has met
with Mr. Sapienza and Judge Anderson concerning the grievance. The
Hearing Office Manager is to remain out of the office indefinitely. The
union is advised by Anderson and Sapienza that, when and if the Hearing
Office Manager returns, they will provide sufficient notice to prepare
the office.
--November 29, 1999: Judge Anderson informs the union by e-mail at
12:29 that the Hearing Office Manager will be returning to Office of
Hearings and Appeals Portland on the following day.
--November 30, 1999: For a period of two hours, immediately prior
to the Hearing Office Manager's return to the office, Jim Landrum and
B. J. Thomas of the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge meet
with the Portland Office of Hearings and Appeals staff in the large
hearing room at Office of Hearings and Appeals Portland. All staff who
are at work that day are summoned to this meeting. No answer to the
grievance has been given by management. Landrum and Thomas acknowledge
that there are ``problems with [the Hearing Office Manager].'' Thomas
suggests that whatever has happened in the past, the bargaining unit
members should make peace with it and go on from here. Ms. Thomas says
she believes that the Hearing Office Manager will change and that it
would be unfair not to give her a chance to change. Mr. Landrum says
that she will not be ``tossed'' without being given a chance to
improve. They acknowledge that the employees have a right to work in an
environment free of hostility. They take the position that management
does indeed have authority to continue the Hearing Office Manager on
administrative leave, but that management has exercised its discretion
not to do so. They will not say whether the Hearing Office Manager had
been ``written up'' for her past conduct. They state that it was
management's opinion that the bargaining unit members are not at risk,
but decline to say how this determination has been made. They ask if
the Hearing Office Manager has actually touched anyone. Mr. Landrum
states that there has to be three months of intensive training and
another three months on a performance improvement plan before anything
can be done. They state that a fitness for duty exam cannot be ordered
unless a person had actually been violent; that the Regional Chief
Administrative Law Judge has given his verbal agreement to Hearing
Office Chief Administrative Law Judge Morgan to work with her; and that
none of her authority would be interfered with. They promise support
and training to the staff. They promise a course on how to deal with
difficult people. They promise that an investigation of the hearing
Office Manager 's past conduct will be undertaken. They state that
Judge Anderson will also be looking into the question of Regional
Office management's failure to deal with the problem in the past. Mr.
Landrum states that management had failed to deal with the problem
appropriately. They state that they believe that the office needs an
additional security guard. They concede that the union may not have
been given timely notice that the hearing Office Manager would be
returning this day. They promise that they will be returning to provide
training.
--November 30, 1999: The Hearing Office Manager returns to the
office. An additional security guard arrives and is stationed outside
her office. Additional grievances are later filed relating to her
conduct before and after October 22. Several days later the second
security guard is removed from inside the office to the public area of
the office, without notice to the union.
--January 6, 2000: The Hearing Office Manager agrees to step down
from a supervisory position and is immediately thereafter reassigned to
a non-supervisory position. Judge Morgan is removed from the Hearing
Office Chief Administrative Law Judge position over the strenuous
objections of virtually all of the employees. Her removal is widely
believed to be the result of her attempts to discipline and remove the
Hearing Office Manager.
--January 12, 2000: In spite of having been removed from the
position of Hearing Office Manager, the former Hearing Office Manager
is nevertheless permitted to have unlimited, and possibly exclusive,
access to the personnel files of the Portland Hearing Office, which
files are housed in a filing cabinet in her office.
--January 6, 2000 to January 12, 2000: The former Hearing Office
Manager is observed by bargaining unit members to be shredding and
photocopying documents, some of which are apparently documents she had
removed from employee personnel folders in the Portland Hearing Office.
--January 12, 2000: The union requests that her access to the
office personnel files be terminated immediately, that management
immediately take possession of any other administrative files in her
custody which contained any personnel information or documents, and
that management insist upon reviewing any materials that she proposes
to shred in the future. The union stresses that there are pending
grievances relating to her alleged maintenance of unauthorized
personnel records and that it was entirely inappropriate for her to
have continued access to office personnel records. Approximately an
hour after the meeting referred to above, she is intercepted by
bargaining unit employees as she is completing the shredding of some
personnel documents relating to a number of agency employees.
Management later indicates that it will refuse to investigate this
matter.
The grievance referred to above was essentially denied by
management. Management's actions in dealing with the events outlined
above caused a great deal of anger and a great diminution of morale on
the part of office employees. My letter to you and to the others named
above was in response to a letter she received from Judge Anderson, in
which he set out management's point of view on these events.
In addition to the above-mentioned grievance, there are presently
three unfair labor practices pending with the Federal Labor Relations
Authority, several individual grievances filed by staff, including
three which I have pending, a very serious investigation by an outside
agency, and numerous EEO complaints.
As a footnote, I would like to add that, as of May 8, 2000, I will
be leaving this agency to pursue a position with the Internal Revenue
Service, in Washington D.C. I will be available at (207) 780-3271 until
April 28, 2000, for any questions, concerns, or otherwise. After that
date, you may contact E. James Skillings, Esq., at the same number, for
an updated telephone number. I will be at your disposal for any further
information, and would be willing to testify at any upcoming hearings
which might be scheduled in the future.
Cristin, Wickham
February 18, 2000
Honorable Olympia J. Snowe
United States Senator
Two Great Falls Plaza
Auburn, ME 04210
Dear Senator Snowe:
Pursuant to a telephone conversation with Denise in your office, I
was faxed some material relating to the inquiry I initiated with your
office, namely a letter from Thurman Anderson, Regional Chief
Administrative Law Judge. The following is a compiled response from me
and from other staff members in the office for your clarification. We
feel that Judge Anderson may be ``padding'' the situation, to look more
favorable to him. I would like to request that you make a further
inquiry into this matter, but would prefer that you follow through with
this at either Commissioner Kenneth Apfel's office or Associate
Commissioner Rita Geier. It serves no purpose to inquire through Kurt
Szarnoski, as he forwards the information to Judge Anderson, who is in
the middle of the situation. The letters stop there, and nothing
further is accomplished.
Judge Anderson states in his letter that he issued a response to
the grievance filed by the union on behalf of the Portland Hearing
Office on December 29, 1999. Subsequent to receipt of this response, I
drafted a letter to you, outlining some of the concerns I had with
Judge Anderson's response (copy attached). Several of the items
mentioned in said letter are again mentioned in his most recent January
31, 2000 letter. He addresses the items as action being taken, which is
not the case.
Judge Anderson states that he ``approved a request for reassignment
from the Hearing Office Manager to a non-management position.'' It is
unclear whether this was a temporary reassignment, as he calls it, or
permanent. We have been unable to get any clarification on this issue,
and feel it is important to our safety.
Judge Anderson states that on January 6, 2000, he ``took over as
the Acting Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge of the
Portland Hearing Office.'' It is obviously unclear to anybody, in
reading the letter, as to why he took over. He did not indicate that
the then-permanent Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge
Katherine Morgan, was removed on the same day after refusing to step
down. He also failed to indicate the reasons why he removed her from
this position. In an extremely short staff meeting (which I have also
pointed out below) Judge Anderson indicated that, due to problems in
the Portland Hearing Office, in particular with the management team, he
was removing Judge Morgan from her position, and he would take over as
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge. He neglected to mention that one
of the reasons for removing her was that he could not get along with
her. Judge Morgan was the only person in the office who was protecting
us from the arbitrary and abusive use of power by the Hearing Office
Manager and also by Judge Anderson, the Regional Chief Administrative
Law Judge, who had previously supported the Hearing Office Manager by
restoring her to her position without any investigation whatsoever.
I would like to point out an incident on that same day, January 6,
2000, when Judge Anderson convened a meeting to announce the news to
the office. It is noteworthy that this meeting was called at a time
when the majority of the staff was at lunch, and less than half of the
staff was present. At this meeting, he made his announcement. I then
asked if questions were permitted. He stated that I ``could ask a
question, but . . .'' I proceeded to ask my question. In the middle of
my sentence, he stood up from his chair, looked at his colleague, Al
Sapienza, and walked out of the room. I subsequently filed a grievance
against Judge Anderson for violating the National Agreement, Article 3,
Section 2, Part A, which states, ``in the interest of maintaining a
congenial work environment, both supervisors and employees will deal
with each other in a professional manner and with courtesy, dignity,
and respect.'' Judge Anderson himself refers to this in his grievance
response of December 29, 1999, page 3, paragraph 2. What kind of
example is he setting when he refers to these rules, and then violates
them vehemently?
Judge Anderson states that ``the Employee Assistance Program has
been contacted to set up some workshops in the Portland Hearing
Office.'' He also states that acting HOM Gillis is working with the
union steward and EAP on setting this up. When approached with this
question, our union steward, Suzanne Jeffers, stated she was not aware
of this. On behalf of the bargaining unit employees, she requested said
information from acting HOM Gillis, to which she stated that she was
aware of something happening, but was not sure what. It is interesting
to note that a telephone call was placed to the director of the
Employee Assistance Program shortly after this incident occurred in
October 1999. I inquired as to whether the Program could send a
representative to our office to speak with us as a group and assist in
dealing with the issues at hand. I was advised that the employees could
call the hotline to speak with somebody individually, and if needed,
seek individual counseling services. The director stated that his
establishment would not be able to accommodate our request, as this was
a labor-management issue, and they prefer not to get involved with
issues like that. He again reiterated that employees could call the
hotline at anytime. I would request that you contact Ms. Gillis
directly at (207) 780-3271 to inquire as to what methods are in place
and when these workshops might take place.
Judge Anderson states that he is taking steps and has posted
announcements for the vacant positions of Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge and Hearing Office Director, which is the new
position replacing the HOM in the new HPI (Hearings Process Improvement
Initiative). The Portland Hearing Office is not scheduled to begin the
new HPI plan until Phase II, which is October 2000. The question which
comes to mind is why would they post a HOD position if we have not even
been implemented into the process yet? Will this position be filled
before Phase II is implemented, and if so, what will the HOD do?
Additionally, I would like to know if there are any other Phase II
offices who have posted similar positions.
One of our main concerns now is that Judge Anderson removed Judge
Morgan from the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge position
for failure to ``keep a lid on'' (his words) the situation in Portland.
It is blindingly obvious to all of us that this was done solely in
retaliation for her attempts to initiate an investigation into a long
history of abuses of employees by management, and to correct those
abuses. Judge Morgan was the only management official we have had here
who was truly responsive to the collective needs of the staff. It is
the consensus of the staff that she was unfairly and improperly removed
and that she should be restored to the Hearing Office Chief
Administrative Law Judge position. Additionally, we are concerned about
the outrageous waste of taxpayer money by Judge Anderson. For several
months, the government has been paying to house an Acting Hearing
Office Manager in this area. Expenses, include hotel, meals,
transportation, etc are being paid by the government, when there are
many well-qualified individuals within this office who could perform
the duties of Acting Hearing Office Manager.
By way of illustration of the continuing nature of the problems we
have had with Judge Anderson's manner of dealing with our concerns, I
am enclosing a copy of a grievance that our union recently found it
necessary to file. The grievance concerns the alleged shredding of
personnel files of this office, by our former Hearing Office Manager,
at a time when she should not even have been allowed access to those
files. As nearly as we have been able to discern, Judge Anderson has
displayed no interest whatsoever in this incident, even though it
constitutes a serious violation of the privacy rights of staff members.
We appreciate all the assistance you have given us, and continue to
provide. As I stated above, we would prefer that you request assistance
from either Commissioner Kenneth Apfel or Associate Commissioner Rita
Geier in this matter. I am also forwarding a copy of this letter to
Senator Susan Collins and to Congressmen John Baldacci and Tom Allen.
As a final note, I have attached several statements written by
employees in the office, who wish to have their views clearly stated in
the record. I have also enclosed some additional information concerning
grievances/complaints, which have been filed since October 1999.
Thank you for all the time you have already devoted to this matter,
and in advance, for your continued effort at assisting the Portland
Hearing Office.
Sincerely Yours,
Cristin J. Wickham
On behalf of myself and
Employees listed below:
Susan Sullivan
Robin Gammon
Judie Couture
Linda Bruce
Ellen Munsey
Paula Fenderson
Jim Skillings
Suzanne Jeffers
Raymond Wallace
Cc: Senator Susan Collins, Portland office
Congressman John Baldacci, Lewiston office
Congressman Tom Allen, Portland office
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Committee on Ways and Means for
Social Security Administration
-