Social Security Disability: Commissioner Proposes Strategy to	 
Improve the Claims Process, but Faces Implementation Challenges  
(29-MAR-04, GAO-04-552T).					 
                                                                 
Delivering high-quality service to the public in the form of	 
fair, timely, and consistent eligibility decisions for disability
benefits is one of SSA's most pressing challenges. This testimony
discusses (1) the difficulties SSA faces managing disability	 
claims processing; (2) the outmoded concepts of SSA's disability 
program; and (3) the Commissioner's strategy for improving the	 
disability process and the challenges it faces. 		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-552T					        
    ACCNO:   A09592						        
  TITLE:     Social Security Disability: Commissioner Proposes	      
Strategy to Improve the Claims Process, but Faces Implementation 
Challenges							 
     DATE:   03/29/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Claims processing					 
	     Decision making					 
	     Disability benefits				 
	     Eligibility determinations 			 
	     Persons with disabilities				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Timeliness 					 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-552T

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on the Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 9:00 a.m. EST SOCIAL SECURITY

Monday, March 29, 2004

DISABILITY

    Commissioner Proposes Strategy to Improve the Claims Process, but Faces
                           Implementation Challenges

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

GAO-04-552T

Highlights of GAO-04-552T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on the
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District
of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

Delivering high-quality service to the public in the form of fair, timely,
and consistent eligibility decisions for disability benefits is one of
SSA's most pressing challenges. This testimony discusses (1) the
difficulties SSA faces managing disability claims processing; (2) the
outmoded concepts of SSA's disability program; and (3) the Commissioner's
strategy for improving the disability process and the challenges it faces.

This testimony, which is based on prior GAO reports and testimonies, does
not contain recommendations. However, these previouslyissued products
contained a number of recommendations to SSA aimed at addressing concerns
about (1) implementation of the electronic disability folder and the
automated case processing systems and (2) human capital challenges such as
high turnover, recruiting difficulties, and gaps in key knowledge and
skills among disability examiners.

March 29, 2004

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY

Commissioner Proposes Strategy to Improve the Claims Process, But Faces
Implementation Challenges

SSA is at a crossroads in its efforts to improve and reorient its
disability determination process. Although SSA has made some gains in the
short term in improving the timeliness of its decisions, we found that:

o  	SSA's disability decisions continue to take a long time to process.
Despite some recent progress in improving the timeliness of disability
decision-making, individuals who initially are denied disability benefits
and who appeal still have to wait almost an additional year before a final
hearing decision is made. In addition, evidence suggests that
inconsistencies continue to exist between decisions made at the initial
level and those made at the hearings level.

o  	SSA's disability programs are grounded in an outdated concept of
disability that has not kept up with medical advances and economic and
social changes that have redefined the relationship between impairment and
the ability to work. Furthermore, employment assistance that could allow
claimants to stay in the workforce or return to work-and thus to
potentially remain off the disability rolls-is not offered through DI or
SSI until after a claimant has gone through a lengthy determination
process and has proven his or her inability to work.

o  	The Commissioner has developed a strategy to improve the disability
determination process, including the timeliness and consistency of
decisions. While this strategy appears promising, we believe that several
key challenges have the potential to hinder its progress, including risks
to successfully implementing a new electronic disability folder and
automated case processing systems; human capital problems, such as high
turnover, recruiting difficulties, and gaps in key knowledge and skills
among disability examiners; and an expected dramatic growth in workload.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-552T.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robert E. Robertson as (202)
512-7215 or [email protected].

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss one of the Social Security
Administration's (SSA) most pressing challenges-delivering high-quality
service to the public in the form of fair, timely, and consistent
eligibility decisions for disability benefits. SSA administers two of the
largest federal disability programs, Disability Insurance (DI) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). In calendar year 2003, SSA paid over
$85 billion in cash benefits to about 8.6 million beneficiaries (ages 18
to 64) with disabilities.1 In addition, SSA has spent more than $100
million since the first half of the 1990s to address long-standing
challenges concerning the timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of its
disability decisions. However, continuing difficulties with claims
processing-together with a program design that is out of synch with
technological and medical advances that have increased the potential for
some people with disabilities to work-led us in 2003 to designate
modernizing federal disability programs, including DI and SSI, as a
high-risk area urgently needing attention and transformation.2

Today, I will discuss some of the difficulties SSA is experiencing in its
disability determination process and challenges the agency is facing as it
attempts to address these issues. The information I am providing today is
based primarily on work we have conducted over the last several years.

In summary, we believe that SSA is at a crossroads in its efforts to
improve and reorient its disability determination process. SSA continues
to experience lengthy processing times for disability decisions and
inconsistencies in these decisions. In addition, SSA's disability programs
are grounded in an outdated concept of disability that has not kept up
with medical advances and economic and social changes that have redefined
the relationship between impairment and the ability to work. To address
these concerns, the Commissioner has developed a strategy to improve the
disability determination process. While this strategy appears promising,
we believe that several key challenges have the potential to hinder its
progress, including risks to successfully implementing a new electronic

1Excludes dependents and survivors who receive DI benefits. Also excludes
persons 65 and over and children under 18 who receive SSI payments. SSI
beneficiaries include recipients of federal SSI, federally-administered
state supplementation, or both. In calendar year 2003, 833,269 DI workers
also received SSI benefits because of low income and assets. The number of
beneficiaries is based on draft SSA data.

2U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003).

disability folder and automated case processing systems; human capital
problems, such as high turnover, recruiting difficulties, and gaps in key
knowledge and skills among disability examiners; and an expected dramatic
growth in workload.

                                   Background

To be considered eligible for benefits for either SSI or DI as an adult, a
person must be unable to perform any substantial gainful activity by
reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is
expected to result in death or that has lasted or can be expected to last
for a continuous period of at least 12 months. Work activity is generally
considered to be substantial and gainful if the person's earnings exceed a
particular level established by statute and regulations.3

The process of determining eligibility for SSA disability benefits is
complex, fragmented, and expensive. The current decision-making process
involves an initial decision and up to three levels of administrative
appeals if the claimant is dissatisfied with the decision. The claimant
starts the process by filing an application either online, by phone or
mail, or in person at any of SSA's 1,300 field offices.4 If the claimant
meets the nonmedical eligibility criteria, the field office staff forwards
the claim to one of the 54 federally-funded, but primarily state-run
Disability Determination Service (DDS) offices. DDS staff-generally a team
composed of disability examiners and medical consultants-obtains and
reviews medical and other evidence as needed to assess whether the
claimant satisfies program requirements, and makes the initial disability
determination. If the claimant is not satisfied with the decision, the
claimant may ask the DDS to reconsider its finding.5 If the claimant is
dissatisfied with the reconsideration, the claimant may request a hearing
before one of SSA's

3The Commissioner of Social Security has the authority to set the
substantial and gainful activities level for individuals who have
disabilities other than blindness. In December 2000, SSA finalized a rule
calling for the annual indexing of the nonblind level to the average wage
index of all employees in the United States. The 2004 nonblind level is
set at $810 a month. The level for individuals who are blind is set by
statue and is also indexed to the average wage index. In 2004, the level
for blind individuals is $1,350 of countable earnings.

4SSA permits DI, but not SSI, applicants to file for benefits online.

5In her September 2003 testimony before the House Committee on Ways and
Means, the Commissioner said that she intended to revise the disability
determination process. For example, she proposed eliminating the
reconsideration and the Appeals Council stages of the current process.

  SSA Faces Difficulties Managing Disability Claims Processing

federal administrative law judges in an SSA hearing office. If the
claimant is still dissatisfied with the decision, the claimant may request
a review by SSA's Appeals Council.6 The complex and demanding nature of
this process is reflected in the relatively high cost of administering the
DI and SSI programs. Although SSI and DI program benefits account for less
than 20 percent of the total benefit payments made by SSA, they consume
nearly 55 percent of the annual administrative resources.

SSA has experienced difficulty managing its complex disability
determination process, and consequently faces problems in ensuring the
timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of its disability decisions.
Although SSA has made some gains in the short term in improving the
timeliness of its decisions, the Commissioner has noted that it still has
"a long way to go."7 Over the past 5 years, SSA has slightly reduced the
average time it takes to obtain a decision on an initial claim from 105
days in fiscal year 1999 to 97 days in fiscal year 2003, and significantly
reduced the average time it takes the Appeals Council to consider an
appeal of a hearing decision from 458 to 294 days over the same period.
However, the average time it takes to receive a decision at the hearings
level has increased by almost a month over the same period, from 316 days
to 344 days.8 According to SSA's strategic plan, these delays place a
significant burden on applicants and their families and an enormous drain
on agency resources.9

Lengthy processing times have contributed to a large number of pending
claims at both the initial and hearings levels. While the number of
initial disability claims pending has risen more than 25 percent over the
last 5 years, from about 458,000 in fiscal year 1999 to about 582,000 in
fiscal year 2003, the number of pending hearings has increased almost 90
percent

6If the claimant is not satisfied with the Appeals Council action, the
claimant may appeal to a federal district court. The claimant can continue
legal appeals to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately to the
Supreme Court of the United States.

7Statement of the Honorable Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social
Security Administration: Testimony before the Subcommittee on Social
Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means, September 25, 2003.

8Beginning with fiscal year 2000, the basis for calculating the average
elapsed time of hearings level cases was changed from those cases
processed only in September of the fiscal year to those processed
throughout the fiscal year.

9Social Security Administration, Strategic Plan 2003-2008.

over the same time period, from about 312,000 to over 591,000.10 Some
cases that are in the queue for a decision have been pending for a long
time. For example, of the 499,000 cases pending in June 2002 at the
hearings level, about 346,000 (69 percent) were over 120 days old, 167,000
(33 percent) were over 270 days old, and 88,500 (18 percent) were over 365
days old.

In addition to the timely processing of claims, SSA has also had
difficulty ensuring that decisions regarding a claimant's eligibility for
disability benefits are accurate and consistent across all levels of the
decisionmaking process. For example, the Social Security Advisory Board
has reported wide variances in rates of allowances and denials among DDSs,
which may indicate that DDSs may be applying SSA standards and guidelines
differently.11 In fiscal year 2000, the percentage of DI applicants whose
claims were allowed by a DDS ranged from a high of 65 percent in New
Hampshire to a low of 31 percent in Texas, with a national average of 45
percent.12 In addition, the high percentage of claimants awarded benefits
upon appeal may indicate that adjudicators at the hearings level may be
arriving at different decisions on similar cases compared to the DDSs. In
fiscal year 2000, about 40 percent of the applicants whose cases were
denied at the initial level appealed, and about two-thirds of those who
appealed were awarded benefits.13 Awards granted on appeal happen in part
because decision-makers at the initial level use a different approach to
evaluate claims and make decisions than those at the appellate level. In
addition, the decision-makers at the appeals level may reach a different
decision because the evidence in the case differs from that reviewed by
the DDS. We are currently reviewing SSA's efforts to assess consistency of
decision-making between the initial and the hearings levels.

10The number of pending hearings includes Medicare hearings.

11Social Security Advisory Board, Charting the Future of Social Security's
Disability Programs: The Need for Fundamental Change (Washington, D.C.:
January 2001).

12A 2002 study found that adjusting for economic, demographic, and health
factors cuts the variation in allowance rates among states in half. See
Strand, Alexander, "Social Security Disability Programs: Assessing the
Variation in Allowance Rates," ORES Working Paper No. 98, Social Security
Administration, Office of Policy.

13U.S. General Accounting Office, Social Security Disability: Efforts to
Improve Claims Process have Fallen Short and Further Action is Needed,
GAO-02-826T (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002).

  SSA's Disability Programs Currently Grounded in Outmoded Concepts

Moreover, in 2003, we reported on possible racial disparities in SSA's
disability decision-making at the hearings level from 1997 to 2000 between
white and African-American claimants not represented by attorneys.14
Specifically, among claimants without attorneys, African-American
claimants were significantly less likely to be awarded benefits than white
claimants. We also found that other factors-including the claimant's sex
and income and the presence of a translator at a hearing-had a
statistically significant influence on the likelihood of benefits being

15

allowed.

In addition to difficulties with the timeliness, accuracy, and consistency
of its decision-making process, SSA's disability programs face the more
fundamental challenge of being mired in concepts from the past. SSA's
disability programs remain grounded in an approach that equates impairment
with an inability to work despite medical advances and economic and social
changes that have redefined the relationship between impairment and the
ability to work. Unlike some private sector disability insurers and social
insurance systems in other countries, SSA does not incorporate into its
initial or continuing eligibility assessment process an evaluation of what
is needed for an individual to return to work.16 In addition, employment
assistance that could allow claimants to stay in the workforce or return
to work-and thus potentially to remain off the disability rolls-is not
offered through DI or SSI until after a claimant has gone through a
lengthy determination process and has proven his or her inability to work.
Because applicants are either unemployed or only marginally connected to
the labor force when they apply for benefits, and remain so during the
eligibility determination process, their skills, work habits, and
motivation to work are likely to deteriorate during this long wait.

14U.S. General Accounting Office, SSA Disability Decision Making:
Additional Steps Needed to Ensure Accuracy and Fairness of Decisions at
the Hearings Level, GAO-04-14 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 2003).

15Due to the inherent limitations of statistical analysis, one cannot
determine whether these differences by race, sex, and other factors are a
result of discrimination, other forms of bias, or variations in currently
unobservable claimant characteristics.

16U.S. General Accounting Office, SSA Disability: Other Programs May
Provide Lessons for Improving Return-to-Work Efforts, GAO-01-153
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2001).

  Commissioner's New Strategy for Improving the Disability Determination Process
  Appears Promising, but Faces Several Challenges

In SSA's most recent attempt to improve its determination process, the
Commissioner, in September 2003, set forth a strategy to improve the
timeliness and accuracy of disability decisions and foster return to work
at all stages of the decision-making process. SSA's Commissioner has
acknowledged that the time it now takes to process disability claims is
unacceptable. The Commissioner has also recognized that going through such
a lengthy process to receive benefits would discourage individuals from
attempting to work.17 To speed decisions for some claimants, the
Commissioner plans to initiate an expedited decision for claimants with
more easily identifiable disabilities, such as aggressive cancers. Under
this new approach, expedited claims would be handled by special units
located primarily in SSA's regional offices. Disability examiners employed
by the DDSs to help decide eligibility for disability benefits would be
responsible for evaluating the more complex claims. To increase decisional
accuracy, among other approaches, the strategy will require DDS examiners
to develop more complete documentation of their disability determinations,
including explaining the basis for their decisions. The strategy also
envisions replacing the current SSA quality control system with a quality
review that is intended to provide greater opportunity for identifying
problem areas and implementing corrective actions and related training.

The Commissioner has predicated the success of her claims process
improvement strategy on enhanced automation. In 2000, SSA issued a plan to
develop an electronic disability folder and automated case processing
systems. According to SSA, the technological investments will result in
more complete case files and the associated reduction of many hours in
processing claims. SSA also projects that the new electronic process will
result in significantly reduced costs related to locating, mailing, and
storing paper files. SSA is accelerating the transition to its automated
claims process, known as AeDib, which will link together the DDSs, SSA's
field offices, and its Office of Hearings and Appeals. According to the
Commissioner, the successful implementation of the automated system is
essential for improving the disability process.

Beyond steps to improve the accuracy and timeliness of disability
determinations, the Commissioner's strategy is also consistent with our
1996 recommendations to develop a comprehensive plan that fosters

17Statement of the Honorable Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social
Security Administration: Testimony before the Subcommittee on Social
Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means, September 25, 2003.

return to work at all stages of the disability process and integrates as
appropriate: 1) earlier intervention in returning workers with
disabilities to the workplace, 2) identifying and providing return-to-work
services tailored to individual circumstances, and 3) structuring cash and
medical benefits to encourage return to work.18 The Commissioner has
proposed a series of demonstrations that would provide assistance to
applicants to enhance their productive capacities, thus potentially
reducing the need for long-term benefits for some. The demonstrations
include early interventions to provide benefits and employment supports to
some DI applicants, and temporary allowances to provide immediate, but
shortterm, cash and medical benefits to applicants who are highly likely
to benefit from aggressive medical care. In addition, demonstrations will
provide health insurance coverage to certain applicants throughout the
disability determination process.

While the Commissioner's proposed approaches for improving the disability
determination process appear promising, challenges, including automation,
human capital, and workload growth, have the potential to hinder its
success.19

Automation. We have expressed concerns about AeDib, which could affect
successful implementation of the Commissioner's strategy. Our recent work
noted that SSA had begun its national rollout of this system based on
limited pilot testing and without ensuring that all critical problems
identified in its pilot testing had been resolved.20 Further, SSA did not
plan to conduct end-to-end testing to evaluate the performance of the
system's interrelated components. SSA has maintained that its pilot tests
will be sufficient for evaluating the system; however, without ensuring
that critical problems have been resolved and conducting end-toend
testing, SSA lacks assurance that the interrelated electronic disability
system components will work together successfully.

18U.S. General Accounting Office, SSA Disability: Return-to-Work
Strategies from Other Systems May Improve Federal Programs,
GAO/HEHS-96-133 (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 1996).

19These are problems that have been well established in our previous
reports. We currently have a study underway that, among other issues, is
reviewing challenges to implementing the new strategy.

20U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Disability Claims Processing:
SSA Needs to Address Risks Associated With Its Accelerated Systems
Development Strategy,

GAO-04-466 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2004).

Additionally, while SSA has established processes and procedures to guide
its software development, the agency could not provide evidence that it
was consistently applying these procedures to the AeDib initiative.
Further, while SSA had identified AeDib system and security risks, it had
not finalized mitigation strategies. As a result, the agency may not be
positioned to effectively prevent circumstances that could impede AeDib's
success. To help improve the potential for AeDib's success, we have made a
number of recommendations to SSA, including that the agency resolve all
critical problems identified, conduct end-to-end testing, ensure user
concurrence on software validation and systems certifications, and
finalize AeDib risk mitigation strategies.

Key human capital challenges. We have also expressed concerns about a
number of issues surrounding human capital at the DDSs that could
adversely affect the Commissioner's strategy. The more than 6,500
disability examiners in the DDSs who help make initial decisions about
eligibility for disability benefits are key to the accuracy and timeliness
of its disability determinations. The critical role played by the DDS
examiners will likely be even more challenging in the future if the DDSs
are responsible for adjudicating only the more complex claims, as
envisioned by the Commissioner. Yet, we recently found that the DDSs face
challenges in retaining examiners and enhancing their expertise.21

o  	High examiner turnover. According to the results of our survey of 52
DDSs, over half of all DDS directors said that examiner turnover was too
high. We also found that examiner turnover was about twice that of federal
employees performing similar work. Nearly two-thirds of all directors
reported that turnover had decreased overall staff skill levels and
increased examiner caseloads, and over one-half of all directors said that
turnover had increased DDS claims-processing times and backlogs.
Two-thirds of all DDS directors cited stressful workloads and
noncompetitive salaries as major factors that contributed to turnover.

o  	Difficulties recruiting staff. More than three-quarters of all DDS
directors reported difficulties in recruiting and hiring enough people who
could become successful examiners. Of these directors, more than
three-quarters reported that such difficulties contributed to decreased
accuracy in disability decisions or to increases in job stress, claims

21U.S. General Accounting Office, Social Security Administration:
Strategic Workforce Planning Needed to Address Human Capital Challenges
Facing the Disability Determination Services, GAO-04-121 (Washington,
D.C.: Jan. 27, 2004).

processing times, examiner caseload levels, backlogs, and turnover. More
than half of all directors reported that state-imposed compensation limits
contributed to these hiring difficulties, and more than a third of all
directors attributed hiring difficulties to other state restrictions, such
as hiring freezes.

o  	Gaps in key knowledge and skill areas. Nearly one-half of all DDS
directors said that at least a quarter of their examiners need additional
training in areas critical to disability decision-making, such as
assessing symptoms and credibility of medical information, weighing
medical opinions, and analyzing a person's ability to function. Over half
of all directors cited factors related to high workload levels as
obstacles to examiners receiving additional training.

o  	Lack of uniform staff standards. SSA has not used its authority to
establish uniform human capital standards, such as minimum qualifications
for examiners. Currently, requirements for new examiner hires vary
substantially among the states. Over one-third of all DDSs can hire new
examiners with either a high school diploma or less.22

Despite the workforce challenges facing them, a majority of DDSs do not
conduct long-term, comprehensive workforce planning. Moreover, SSA's
workforce efforts have not sufficiently addressed current and future DDS
human capital challenges. SSA does not link its strategic objectives to a
workforce plan that covers the very people who are essential to
accomplishing those objectives. While acknowledging the difficulties SSA
faces as a federal agency in addressing human capital issues in DDSs that
report to 50 state governments, we have recommended that SSA take several
steps to address DDS workforce challenges to help ensure that SSA has the
workforce with the skills necessary for the Commissioner's strategy to be
successful. These include developing a nationwide strategic workforce plan
addressing issues such as turnover in the DDS workforce, gaps between
current and required examiner skills, and qualifications for examiners.

Future workload growth. According to SSA's strategic plan, the most
significant external factor affecting SSA's ability to improve service to

22Some DDSs may have higher educational requirements for some applicants
or may use standards other than or in addition to education. The minimum
educational requirements described do not necessarily reflect the actual
credentials of DDS examiners hired by the DDSs.

disability applicants is the expected dramatic growth in the number of
applications needing to be processed. Between 2002 and 2012, SSA expects
the DI rolls to grow by 35 percent, with applications rising as baby
boomers enter their disability-prone years.23 Over the same period, more
modest growth is expected in the SSI rolls. SSA estimates that, between
2002 and 2012, the number of SSI recipients with disabilities will rise by
about 16 percent.24

The challenges SSA faces in keeping up with its workload have already
forced agency officials to reduce efforts in some areas. For example, the
Commissioner explained that in order to avoid increasing the time
disability applicants have to wait for a decision, she chose to focus on
processing new claims rather than keeping current with reviewing
beneficiaries' cases to ensure they are still eligible for disability
benefits, called Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs). In fiscal year
2003, SSA did not keep current with the projected CDR caseload. The
Commissioner says that this situation will continue in fiscal year 2004,
despite the potential savings of $10 for every $1 invested in conducting
CDRs.25 However, in reducing the focus on CDRs, not only is SSA forgoing
cost savings, but the agency is also compromising the integrity of its
disability programs by potentially paying benefits to disability
beneficiaries who are no longer eligible to receive them.

In closing, as stated earlier, SSA is at a crossroads and faces a number
of challenges in its efforts to improve and reorient its disability
determination process. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would
be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the
subcommittee may have at this time.

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Robert E.
Robertson, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security at (202)
512-7215, or Shelia Drake, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7172. Michael

Contacts and

                                Acknowledgments

23Social Security Administration, Strategic Plan 2003-2008.

24Social Security Administration, Annual Report of the Supplemental
Security Income Program, May 2002.

25Statement of the Honorable Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social
Security Administration: Testimony before the Subcommittee on Social
Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means, February 26, 2004.

Alexander, Barbara Bordelon, Kay Brown, Beverly Crawford, Marissa Jones,
Valerie Melvin, Angela Miles, and Carol Dawn Petersen made key
contributions to prior work covered by this testimony.

Related GAO Products

Electronic Disability Claims Processing: SSA Needs to Address Risks
Associated With Its Accelerated Systems Development Strategy. GAO-04466.
Washington, D.C.: March 2004.

Social Security Administration: Strategic Workforce Planning Needed to
Address Human Capital Challenges Facing the Disability Determination
Services. GAO-04-121. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2004.

SSA Disability Decision Making: Additional Steps Needed to Ensure Accuracy
and Fairness of Decisions at the Hearings Level. GAO-04-14. Washington,
D.C.: November 12, 2003.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-03-119. Washington, D.C.: January 1,
2003.

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Social Security
Administration. GAO-03-117. Washington, D.C.: January 2003.

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 2002.

Social Security Disability: Efforts to Improve Claims Process Have Fallen
Short and Further Action is Needed. GAO-02-826T. Washington, D.C.: June
11, 2002.

SSA Disability: Other Programs May Provide Lessons for Improving
Return-to-Work Efforts. GAO-01-153. Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2001.

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: Return-to-Work Strategies from Other Systems May Improve
Federal Programs. GAO/HEHS-96-133. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 1996.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud,	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***