Social Security Disability: Efforts to Improve Claims Process	 
Have Fallen Short and Further Action is Needed (11-JUN-02,	 
GAO-02-826T).							 
                                                                 
This testimony discusses Social Security Administration (SSA)	 
improvements in the claims process for its two disability	 
programs, Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security	 
Income (SSI). Managing its disability caseloads with fair,	 
consistent, and timely eligibility decisions in the face of	 
resource constraints has become one of SSA's most pressing	 
management challenges. SSA has spent more than $39 million over  
the past seven years to test and implement initiatives designed  
to improve the timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of its	 
disability decisions and to make the process more efficient and  
understandable for claimants. These have included efforts improve
the initial claims process as well for handling appeals of denied
claims. The results to date have been disappointing. SSA's two	 
tests to improve the initial claims process produced some	 
benefits; however, both initiatives as tested would have	 
significantly raised costs, and one would have lengthened the	 
wait for final decisions for many claimants. As a result, SSA is 
considering additional changes to one of these initiatives and	 
has shelved the other. One initiative to change the process for  
handling appealed claims in SSA's hearing offices has resulted in
even slower case processing and larger backlogs of pending	 
claims. A second initiative has reduced the processing times for 
a separate group of appealed claims, though far less than	 
expected. Moreover, a cross-cutting initiative to update the	 
SSA's quality assurance program--a goal the SSA has held since	 
1994--is still in the planning stage. Finally, SSA's plans to	 
improve its disability claims process relied upon hoped for	 
technological improvements. However, SSA failed to design and	 
develop a software application to automate the disability claims 
process after a seven year effort.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-826T					        
    ACCNO:   A03573						        
  TITLE:     Social Security Disability: Efforts to Improve Claims    
Process Have Fallen Short and Further Action is Needed		 
     DATE:   06/11/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Claims processing					 
	     Disability benefits				 
	     Disability insurance				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Social security benefits				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Social Security Disability Insurance		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 
	     SSA Appeals Council Process Improvement		 
	     Initiative 					 
                                                                 
	     SSA Disability Claim Manager Initiative		 
	     SSA Hearings Process Improvement			 
	     Initiative 					 
                                                                 
	     SSA Prototype Initiative				 
	     SSA Quality Assurance Initiative			 
	     Supplemental Security Income Program		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-826T
     
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and
Means, House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 3: 30 p. m. Tuesday, June 11, 2002
SOCIAL SECURITY

DISABILITY Efforts to Improve Claims Process Have Fallen Short and Further
Action is Needed

Statement of Robert E. Robertson, Director Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues

GAO- 02- 826T

Page 1 GAO- 02- 826T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me here
to discuss the challenges the Social Security Administration (SSA) faces in
improving the claims process for its two disability programs, Disability
Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Managing its
disability caseloads and delivering high- quality service to the public in
the form of fair, consistent, and timely eligibility decisions in the face
of resource constraints has become one of SSA?s most pressing management
challenges. 1 In the last 7 years, SSA has spent more than $39 million in
efforts to test and implement initiatives designed to improve the
timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of its disability decisions and to
make the process more efficient and easier for claimants to understand. 2
These efforts have included initiatives to improve the initial claims
process as well as the process for handling appeals of denied claims. In
addition, the agency has spent at least $71 million in an attempt to develop
an automated disability claims process intended to provide support for its
redesign efforts.

Today, I will discuss the results and status of five initiatives included in
SSA?s most recent plans to improve the process, SSA?s current plans to
develop an electronic disability system, and the implications of SSA?s
efforts to date for future success. The information I am providing is based
primarily on recent work we did for this subcommittee. 3 (Also see Related
GAO Products at the end of this statement.)

In summary, the results to date from SSA?s redesign initiatives have been
disappointing. The agency?s two tests of initiatives to improve the initial
claims process produced some benefits; however, both initiatives as tested
would have significantly raised costs, and one would have lengthened the
wait for final decisions for many claimants. As a result, SSA is considering
additional changes to one of these initiatives and has shelved the other.

1 U. S. General Accounting Office, Social Security Administration: Agency
Must Position Itself Now to Meet Profound Challenges, GAO- 02- 289T
(Washington, D. C.: May 2, 2002). 2 The $39 million includes expenditures
for contractor support, travel, transportation, equipment, supplies,
services, and rent. It excludes personnel costs, most of which would have
been incurred processing workloads regardless of redesign projects. It also
excludes the costs incurred for all but one initiative tested or implemented
after March 1999, when the commissioner ended disability process redesign as
a separate agency project.

3 U. S. General Accounting Office, Social Security Disability: Disappointing
Results From SSA?s Efforts to Improve the Disability Claims Process Warrant
Immediate Attention,

GAO- 02- 322, (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 27, 2002) and GAO- 02- 289T.

Page 2 GAO- 02- 826T

The situation is less favorable at the appeals level. One initiative to
change the process for handling appealed claims in SSA?s hearing offices has
resulted in even slower case processing and larger backlogs of pending
claims. A second initiative has reduced the processing times for a separate
group of appealed claims, though far less than expected. Moreover, a cross-
cutting initiative to update the agency?s quality assurance program- a goal
the agency has held since 1994- is still in the planning stage. Finally,
SSA?s plans to improve its disability claims process relied in part upon
hoped for technological improvements; however, SSA failed to design and
develop a new computer software application to automate the disability
claims process after a 7- year effort.

On the basis of our recent work, we have recommended that SSA take immediate
steps to reduce the backlog of appealed cases, develop a longrange strategy
for a more permanent solution to the problems at its hearings offices, and
develop an action plan for implementing a more comprehensive quality
assurance program. SSA agreed with our recommendations and is beginning to
make some short- term changes. In addition, SSA has recently announced plans
to accelerate implementation of needed technological improvements. However,
much work remains. The commissioner faces difficult decisions about long-
term strategies for problems at the hearings offices and in the disability
claims process as a whole. It will be important to both learn from the past
and look to the future.

DI and SSI provide cash benefits to people with long- term disabilities.
While the definition of disability and the process for determining
disability are the same for both programs, the programs were initially
designed to serve different populations. 4 The DI program, enacted in 1954,
provides monthly cash benefits to disabled workers- and their dependents or
survivors- whose employment history qualifies them for disability insurance.
These benefits are financed through payroll taxes paid by workers and their
employers and by the self- employed. In fiscal year 2001, more than 6
million individuals received more than $59 billion in DI benefits. SSI, on
the other hand, was enacted in 1972 as an income assistance program for
aged, blind, or disabled individuals whose income

4 The Social Security Act defines disability for adults as an inability to
engage in any substantial gainful activity because of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result
in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous
period of not less than 12 months. Background

Page 3 GAO- 02- 826T

and resources fall below a certain threshold. SSI payments are financed from
general tax revenues, and SSI beneficiaries are usually poorer than DI
beneficiaries. In 2001, more than 6 million individuals received almost $28
billion in SSI benefits. 5

The process to obtain SSA disability benefits is complex and fragmented;
multiple organizations are involved in determining whether a claimant is
eligible for benefits. As shown in figure 1, the current process consists of
an initial decision and up to three levels of administrative appeals if the
claimant is dissatisfied with SSA?s decision. Each level of appeal involves
multistep procedures for evidence collection, review, and decisionmaking.

5 Some DI beneficiaries have incomes low enough to qualify them for SSI;
therefore, they receive benefits from both programs.

Page 4 GAO- 02- 826T

Figure 1: SSA?s Disability Claims Process

Source: SSA Documents

Page 5 GAO- 02- 826T

Generally, a claimant applies for disability benefits at one of SSA?s 1,300
field offices across the country, where a claims representative determines
whether the claimant meets financial and other program eligibility criteria.
If the claimant meets these eligibility criteria, the claims representative
forwards the claim to the state disability determination service (DDS). 6
DDS staff then obtain and review evidence about the claimant?s impairment to
determine whether the claimant is disabled. Once the claimant is notified of
the medical decision, the claim is returned to the field office for payment
processing or file retention. This completes the initial claims process.

Claimants who are initially denied benefits can ask to have the DDS
reconsider its initial denial. If the decision at this reconsideration level
remains unfavorable, the claimant can request a hearing before a federal
administrative law judge (ALJ) at an SSA hearings office, and, if still
dissatisfied, the claimant can request a review by SSA?s Appeals Council.
Upon exhausting these administrative remedies, the individual may file a
complaint in federal district court.

Given its complexity, the disability claims process can be confusing,
frustrating, and lengthy for claimants. Many individuals who appeal SSA?s
initial decision will wait a year or longer for a final decision on their
benefit claims. In fact, the commissioner recently testified that claimants
can wait as long as 1, 153 days from initial claim through a decision from
the Appeals Council. Moreover, the claims process can also result in
inconsistent assessments of whether claimants are disabled; specifically,
the DDS may deny a claim that is later allowed upon appeal. For example, in
fiscal year 2000, about 40 percent of claimants denied at the initial level
filed an appeal and about two- thirds were awarded benefits. This
inconsistency calls into question the fairness, integrity and cost of SSA?s
disability decisions. Program rules, such as claimants? ability to submit
additional evidence and to allege new impairments upon appeal, as well as
the worsening of some claimants? conditions over time can explain only some
but not all of the overturned cases. Other overturned cases may be due to
inaccurate decisions by the DDSs or ALJs or to other unexplained factors.

6 DDSs are state agencies that contract with SSA to determine claimants?
medical eligibility for DI and SSI disability benefits. Although federally
funded and guided by SSA in their decision making, the DDSs hire their own
staff and retain a degree of independence in how they manage their offices
and conduct disability determinations.

Page 6 GAO- 02- 826T

In response to these problems, SSA first announced an ambitious plan to
redesign the disability claims process in 1994, after a period of rapid
growth in the number of people applying for disability benefits. This plan
represented the agency?s first effort to significantly revise its procedures
for deciding disability claims since the DI program began in the 1950?s. The
overall purpose of the redesign was to

 ensure that decisions are made quickly,

 ensure that the disability claims process is efficient,

 award legitimate claims as early in the process as possible,

 ensure that the process is user friendly for claimants and those who
assist them, and

 provide employees with a satisfying work environment. The agency?s initial
plan entailed a massive effort to redesign the way it made disability
decisions. SSA had high expectations for its redesign effort. Among other
things, SSA planned to develop a streamlined decision- making and appeals
process, more consistent guidance and training for decision makers at all
levels of the process, and an improved process for reviewing the quality of
eligibility decisions. In our reviews of SSA?s efforts after 2 and 4 years,
we found that the agency had accomplished little. 7 In some cases, the plans
were too large and too complex to keep on track. In addition, the results of
many of the initiatives that were tested fell far short of expectations.
Moreover, the agency was not able to garner consistent stakeholder support
and cooperation for its proposed changes.

In 1999, we recommended that SSA focus attention and resources on those
initiatives that offer the greatest potential for achieving the most
critical redesign objectives, such as quality assurance, computer support
systems, and initiatives that improve consistency in decision- making. In
addition, because implementing process changes can be even more difficult
than testing them, we recommended that SSA develop a comprehensive and
meaningful set of performance measures that help the agency assess and
monitor the results of changes in the claims process on a timely basis. We
have also pointed out the need for effective leadership and sustained

7 U. S. General Accounting Office, SSA Disability Redesign: Focus Needed on
Initiatives Most Crucial to Reducing Costs and Time, GAO/ HEHS- 97- 20,
(Washington, D. C.: Dec. 20, 1996); and SSA Disability Redesign: Actions
Needed to Enhance Future Progress,

GAO/ HEHS- 99- 25, (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 12, 1999).

Page 7 GAO- 02- 826T

management attention to maintain the momentum needed to effect change in
such a large and complex system.

SSA?s five most recent initiatives were designed to improve claims
processing at all levels of the service delivery system. These redesign
initiatives continue to experience only limited success. A brief summary of
the status, results and problems experienced in implementing each of the
five initiatives follows.

 The Disability Claim Manager initiative, which began in November 1997 and
ended in June 2001, was designed to make the claims process more user
friendly and efficient by eliminating steps resulting from numerous
employees handling discrete parts of the claim. It did so by having one
person- the disability claim manager- serve as the primary point of contact
for claimants until initial decisions were made on their claims. 8 The
managers assumed responsibilities normally divided between SSA?s field
office claims representatives and state DDS disability examiners. After an
initial training phase, SSA tested the concept in 36 locations in 15 states
from November 1999 through November 2000. While the test resulted in several
benefits, such as improved customer and employee satisfaction and quicker
claims processing, the increased costs of the initiative and other concerns
convinced SSA not to implement the initiative.

 The Prototype changed the way state DDSs process initial claims, with the
goal of ensuring that legitimate claims are awarded as early in the process
as possible. This initiative makes substantial changes to the way the DDS
processes initial claims. The Prototype requires disability examiners to
more thoroughly document and explain the basis for their decisions and it
gives them greater decisional authority for certain claims. The Prototype
also eliminates the DDS reconsideration step. It has been operating in 10
states since October 1999 with mixed results. Interim results show that the
DDSs operating under the Prototype are awarding a higher percentage of
claims at the initial decision level without compromising accuracy, and that
claims are reaching hearing offices faster because the Prototype eliminates
DDS reconsideration as the first level of appeal. However, interim results
also indicate that more denied claimants would appeal to administrative law
judges (ALJ) at hearings offices, which would increase both administrative
and program costs (benefit payments) and lengthen

8 The Disability Claim Manager initiative excluded claims for SSI children?s
benefits. SSA?s Recent

Redesign Initiatives Have Had Limited Success

Page 8 GAO- 02- 826T

the wait for final agency decisions for many claimants. As a result, SSA
decided that the Prototype would not continue in its current form. In April,
the commissioner announced her ?short- term? decisions to revise certain
features of the Prototype in order to reduce processing time while it
continues to develop longer- term improvements. It remains to be seen
whether these revisions will retain the positive results from the Prototype
while also controlling administrative and program costs.

 The Hearings Process Improvement initiative is an effort to overhaul
operations at hearings offices in order to reduce the time it takes to issue
decisions on appealed claims. This was to be accomplished by increasing the
level of analysis and screening done on a case before it is scheduled for a
hearing with an ALJ; by reorganizing hearing office staff into small

?processing groups? intended to enhance accountability and control in
handling each claim; and by launching automated functions that would
facilitate case monitoring. The initiative was implemented in phases without
a test beginning in January 2000 and has been operating in all 138 hearings
offices since November 2000.

The initiative has not achieved its goals. In fact, decisions on appealed
claims are taking longer to make, fewer decisions are being made, and the
backlog of pending claims is growing and approaching crisis levels. The
initiative?s failure can be attributed primarily to SSA?s decision to
implement large- scale changes too quickly without resolving known problems.
For example, problems with process delays, poorly timed and insufficient
staff training, and the absence of the planned automated functions all
surfaced during the first phase of implementation and were not resolved
before the last two phases were implemented. Instead, the pace of
implementation was accelerated when the decision was made to implement the
second and third phases at the same time. Additional factors, such as a
freeze on hiring ALJs and the ALJs? mixed support for the initiative, may
also have contributed to the initiative?s failure to achieve its intended
results.

SSA has recently made some decisions to implement changes that can be made
relatively quickly in order to help reduce backlogs and to streamline the
hearings process, and they are preparing to negotiate some of these changes
with union officials before they can be implemented. These changes include
creating a law clerk position and allowing ALJs to issue decisions from the
bench immediately after a hearing and including them in the early screening
of cases for on- the- record decisions. They also include decisions to
enhance the use of technology in the hearings process, as well as other
refinements.

Page 9 GAO- 02- 826T

 The Appeals Council Process Improvement initiative combined temporary
staff support with permanent case processing changes in an effort to process
cases faster and to reduce the backlog of pending cases. The initiative was
implemented in fiscal year 2000 with somewhat positive results. The
initiative has slightly reduced both case processing time and the backlog of
pending cases, but the results fall significantly short of the initiative?s
goals. The temporary addition of outside staff to help process cases did not
fulfill expectations, and automation problems and changes in policy which
made cases with certain characteristics more difficult to resolve hindered
the initiative?s success. However, SSA officials believe that recent
management actions to resolve these problems should enhance future progress.

 Improving or revamping its quality assurance system has been an agency
goal since 1994, yet it has made very little progress in this area, in part
because of disagreement among stakeholders on how to accomplish this
difficult objective. In March 2001, a contractor issued a report assessing
SSA?s existing quality assurance practices and recommended a significant
overhaul to encompass a more comprehensive view of quality management. We
agreed with this assessment and in our recent report to this subcommittee
recommended that SSA develop an action plan for implementing a more
comprehensive and sophisticated quality assurance program. 9 Since then, the
commissioner has signaled the high priority she attaches to this effort by
appointing to her staff a senior manager for quality who reports directly to
her. The senior manager, in place since mid- April, is responsible for
developing a proposal to establish a qualityoriented approach to all SSA
business processes. The manager is currently assembling a team to carry out
this challenging undertaking.

9 GAO- 02- 322.

Page 10 GAO- 02- 826T

SSA?s slow progress in achieving technological improvements has contributed,
at least in part, to SSA?s lack of progress in achieving results from its
redesign initiatives. As originally envisioned, SSA?s plan to redesign its
disability determination process was heavily dependent upon these
improvements. The agency spent a number of years designing and developing a
new computer software application to automate the disability claims process.
However, SSA decided to discontinue the initiative in July 1999, after about
7 years, citing software performance problems and delays in developing the
software. 10

In August 2000, SSA issued a new management plan for the development of the
agency?s electronic disability system. SSA expects this effort to move the
agency toward a totally paperless disability claims process. The strategy
consists of several key components, including (1) an electronic claims
intake process for the field offices, (2) enhanced state DDS claims
processing systems, and (3) technology to support the Office of Hearing and
Appeals? business processes. The components are to be linked to one another
through the use of an electronic folder that is being designed to transmit
data from one processing location to another and to serve as a data
repository, storing documents that are keyed in, scanned, or faxed. SSA
began piloting certain components of its electronic disability system in one
state in May 2000 and has expanded this pilot test to one more state since
then. According to agency officials, SSA has taken various steps to increase
the functionality of the system; however, the agency still has a number of
remaining issues to address. For example, SSA?s system must comply with
privacy and data protection standards required under the Health Information
Portability and Accountability Act, and the agency will need to effectively
integrate its existing legacy information systems with new technologies,
including interactive Web- based applications.

SSA is optimistic that it will achieve a paperless disability claims
process. The agency has taken several actions to ensure that its efforts
support the agency?s mission. For example, to better ensure that its
business processes drive its information technology strategy, SSA has
transferred management of the electronic disability strategy from the Office
of Systems to the Office of Disability and Income Security Programs. In
addition, SSA hired a contractor to independently evaluate the electronic

10 U. S. General Accounting Office, Social Security Administration: Update
on Year 2000 and Other Key Information Technology Initiatives, GAO/ T- AIMD-
99- 259, (Washington, D. C.: July 29, 1999). Problems

Implementing Technological Improvements Have Long Undermined SSA?s Redesign
Efforts

Page 11 GAO- 02- 826T

disability strategy and recommend options for ensuring that the effort
addresses all of the business and technical issues required to meet the
agency?s mission. More recently, the commissioner announced plans to
accelerate implementation of the electronic folder.

In spite of the significant resources SSA has dedicated to improving the
disability claims process since 1994, the overall results have been
disappointing. We recognize that implementing sweeping changes such as those
envisioned by these initiatives can be difficult to accomplish successfully,
given the complexity of the decision- making process, the agency?s
fragmented service delivery structure, and the challenge of overcoming an
organization?s natural resistance to change. But the factors that led SSA to
attempt the redesign- increasing disability workloads in the face of
resource constraints- continue to exist today and will likely worsen when
SSA experiences a surge in applications as more baby boomers reach their
disability- prone years.

Today, SSA management continues to face crucial decisions on its
initiatives. We agree that SSA should not implement the Disability Claim
Manager at this time, given its high costs and the other practical barriers
to implementation at this time. We also agree that the Appeals Council
Process Improvement initiative should continue, but with increased
management focus and commitment to achieve the initiative?s performance
goals. Deciding the future course of action on each of the remaining three
initiatives presents a challenge to SSA. For example, SSA continues to face
decisions on how to proceed with the Prototype initiative. Although SSA has
recently decided to revise some features of the Prototype in the near term,
it also is considering long- term improvements. As such, SSA continues to
face the challenge of ensuring that the revisions it makes retain the
Prototype?s most positive elements while also reducing its impact on costs.

We are most concerned about the failure of the Hearings Process Improvement
initiative to achieve its goals. Hearing office backlogs are fast
approaching the crisis levels of the mid- 1990?s. We have recommended that
the new commissioner act quickly to implement short- term strategies to
reduce the backlog and develop a long- term strategy for a more permanent
solution to the backlog and efficiency problems at the Office of Hearings
and Appeals. The new commissioner responded by announcing her decisions on
short- term actions intended to reduce the backlogs, and the agency is
preparing to negotiate with union officials on some of these planned
changes. It is too early to tell if these decisions will have their
Implications for

Future Progress

Page 12 GAO- 02- 826T

intended effect, and the challenge to identify and implement a long- term
strategy for a more permanent solution remains. It is especially crucial
that the Office of Hearings and Appeals make significant headway in reducing
its backlog quickly, as it faces in the next several months a potentially
significant increase in Medicare appeals due to recent legislative changes
in that program.

In addition to the changes the agency is currently considering, it may be
time for the agency to step back and reassess the nature and scope of its
basic approach. SSA has focused significant energy and resources over the
past 7 years on changing the steps and procedures of the process and
adjusting the duties of its decision makers, yet this approach has not been
effective to date. A new analysis of the fundamental issues impeding
progress may help SSA identify areas for future action. Experts, such as
members of the Social Security Advisory Board, have raised concerns about
certain systemic problems that can undermine the overall effectiveness of
SSA?s claims process, which in turn can also undermine the effectiveness of
SSA?s redesign efforts. 11 The Board found that SSA?s fragmented disability
administrative structure, created nearly 50 years ago, is ill- equipped to
handle today?s workload. Among other problems, it identified the lack of
clarity in SSA?s relationship with the states and an outdated hearing
process fraught with tension and poor communication. As the new commissioner
charts the agency?s future course, she may need to consider measures to
address these systemic problems as well.

Regardless of the choices the agency makes about which particular reform
initiatives to pursue, SSA?s experience over the past 7 years offers some
important lessons. For example, sustained management oversight is critical,
particularly in such a large agency and with such a complex process. We have
found that perhaps the single most important element of successful
management improvement initiatives is the demonstrated commitment of top
leaders to change. In addition, some initiatives have not enjoyed
stakeholder support or have contributed to poor morale in certain offices,
both of which may undermine the chances for success.

11 See Social Security Advisory Board, How SSA?s Disability Programs Can Be
Improved

(Washington, D. C.: SSAB, Aug. 1998); Selected Aspects of Disability
Decision Making

(Washington, D. C.: SSAB, Sept. 2001); and Charting the Future of Social
Security?s Disability Programs: The Need for Fundamental Change (Washington,
D. C.: SSAB, Jan. 2001). The Board is an independent, bipartisan Board
created by the Congress and approved by the President and the Congress. Its
purpose is to advise the President, the Congress, and the Commissioner of
Social Security on matters related to SSA?s programs.

Page 13 GAO- 02- 826T

While it is probably not possible for the agency to fully please all of its
stakeholders, it will be important for the agency to involve stakeholders in
planning for change, where appropriate, and to communicate openly and often
the need for change and the rationale for agency decisions. Moreover,
because SSA has experienced problems implementing its process changes, the
agency will need to continue to closely monitor the results of its decisions
and watch for early signs of problems. An improved quality assurance process
and a more comprehensive set of performance goals and measures can help the
agency monitor its progress and hold different entities accountable for
their part in implementing change and meeting agency goals. Thus, we are
concerned about SSA?s lack of progress in revamping its quality assurance
system. Without such as system, it is difficult for SSA to ensure the
integrity of its disability claims process.

Finally, because SSA has had mixed success in implementing information
technology initiatives in the past, it is vital that the agency look back at
its past problems and take the necessary steps to make sure its electronic
disability system provides the needed supports to the disability claims
process. It is imperative that the agency effectively identify, track, and
manage the costs, benefits, schedule, and risks associated with the system?s
full development and implementation. Moreover, SSA must ensure that it has
the right mix of skills and capabilities to support this initiative and that
desired end results are achieved.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to
any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Robert E.
Robertson, Director, or Kay E. Brown, Assistant Director, Education,
Workforce, and Income Security at (202) 512- 7215. Ellen Habenicht and
Angela Miles made key contributions to this testimony on the status of the
five initiatives, and Valerie Melvin was the key contributor to the section
on information technology. Contacts and

Acknowledgments

Page 14 GAO- 02- 826T

Social Security Administration: Agency Must Position Itself Now to Meet
Profound Challenges. GAO- 02- 289T. Washington, D. C.: May 2, 2002.

Social Security Disability: Disappointing Results From SSA?s Efforts to
Improve the Disability Claims Process Warrant Immediate Attention.

GAO- 02- 322. Washington, D. C.: February 27, 2002.

Information Technology Management: Social Security Administration Practices
Can Be Improved. GAO- 01- 961. Washington, D. C.: August 21, 2001.

Social Security Disability: SSA Has Had Mixed Success in Efforts to Improve
Caseload Management.? GAO/ T- HEHS- 00- 22. Washington, D. C.: October 21,
1999.

Social Security Administration: Update on Year 2000 and Other Key
Information Technology Initiatives. GAO/ T- AIMD- 99- 259. Washington, D.
C.: July 29, 1999.

SSA Disability Redesign: Actions Needed to Enhance Future Progress.

GAO/ HEHS/ 99- 25. Washington, D. C.: March 12, 1999.

Social Security Disability: SSA Must Hold Itself Accountable for Continued
Improvement in Decision- making. GAO/ HEHS- 97- 102. Washington, D. C.:
August 12, 1997.

SSA Disability Redesign: Focus Needed on Initiatives Most Crucial to
Reducing Costs and Time. GAO/ HEHS- 97- 20. Washington, D. C.: December 20,
1996. Related GAO Products

(130171)
*** End of document. ***