SSA Disability Representatives: Fee Payment Changes Show Promise,
but Eligibility Criteria and Representative Overpayments Require 
Further Monitoring (15-OCT-07, GAO-08-5).			 
                                                                 
The Social Security Protection Act of 2004 temporarily expanded  
the practice of paying representatives' fees directly out of a	 
claimant's benefits. This practice, known as fee withholding, was
previously available only to attorneys in Disability Insurance	 
(DI) cases. It has been extended to attorneys in Supplemental	 
Security Income (SSI) cases, and to nonattorneys--who meet	 
eligibility criteria--in both DI and SSI cases. The act also	 
mandated that GAO examine (1) the professional experience of	 
disability representatives, (2) how judges and claimants view	 
representatives' performance, (3) how the implementation of fee  
withholding for nonattorneys has been viewed, and (4) the impact 
of fee withholding in the SSI program. GAO surveyed		 
representatives and judges, and interviewed claimants and Social 
Security Administration (SSA), state, and other officials.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-5						        
    ACCNO:   A77327						        
  TITLE:     SSA Disability Representatives: Fee Payment Changes Show 
Promise, but Eligibility Criteria and Representative Overpayments
Require Further Monitoring					 
     DATE:   10/15/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Claims settlement					 
	     Disability benefits				 
	     Disability insurance				 
	     Eligibility criteria				 
	     Eligibility determinations 			 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Fees						 
	     Lawyers						 
	     Legal fees 					 
	     Overpayments					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Social security benefits				 
	     Statistical data					 
	     Supplemental security income			 
	     Surveys						 
	     SSA 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-08-5

   

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. 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. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

October 2007: 

SSA Disability Representatives: 

Fee Payment Changes Show Promise, but Eligibility Criteria and 
Representative Overpayments Require Further Monitoring: 

SSA Disability Representatives: 

GAO-08-5: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-5, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Social Security Protection Act of 2004 temporarily expanded the 
practice of paying representativesï¿½ fees directly out of a claimantï¿½s 
benefits. This practice, known as fee withholding, was previously 
available only to attorneys in Disability Insurance (DI) cases. It has 
been extended to attorneys in Supplemental Security Income (SSI) cases, 
and to nonattorneysï¿½who meet eligibility criteriaï¿½in both DI and SSI 
cases. The act also mandated that GAO examine (1) the professional 
experience of disability representatives, (2) how judges and claimants 
view representativesï¿½ performance, (3) how the implementation of fee 
withholding for nonattorneys has been viewed, and (4) the impact of fee 
withholding in the SSI program. GAO surveyed representatives and 
judges, and interviewed claimants and Social Security Administration 
(SSA), state, and other officials. 

What GAO Found: 

Nonattorneys who have successfully applied for fee withholding 
eligibility had more experience representing claimants than attorneys 
or ineligible nonattorneys. From our surveys, we estimate that eligible 
nonattorneys had represented on average over 240 disability claimants 
over 2 years, while other representatives had represented on average 
fewer than 90. Eligible nonattorneys were also most likely to 
specialize in disability representation. 

Judges and claimants considered the performance of eligible 
nonattorneys to be generally on a par with that of attorneys, but 
judges rated ineligible nonattorneys less highly. Judges we surveyed 
rated eligible nonattorneys as about equal to attorneys overall, and 
many said a law degree is not necessary for effective disability 
representation. Claimants we interviewed were generally satisfied with 
their representatives, regardless of type. 

Figure: Judges Rated Attorneys and Eligible Nonattorneys Most Highly 
Overall: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: January/February 2007 GAO survey administrators law judges in 
10 SSA hearing offices. 

[End of figure] 

Judges and eligible nonattorneys were generally satisfied with the 
implementation of fee withholding for nonattorneys, including most of 
the eligibility criteria for nonattorneys. However, both groups 
expressed concern about the experience standard, which currently allows 
nonattorneys who have represented as few as five disability claims 
before SSA over a 2-year period to qualify for fee withholding. Most 
judges we interviewed and more than half of the eligible nonattorneys 
considered this insufficient. And, according to an association of 
representatives, fee withholding is attracting more inexperienced 
nonattorneys to the field of disability representation. 

Fee withholding has increased the number of SSI claimants represented 
by attorneys, but has also complicated payments in certain SSI cases. 
In some cases, representatives can now inappropriately receive more 
than the fee authorized by SSA. At least 10 states pay fees to 
representatives of successful SSI claimants, and SSA does not 
coordinate with most of these states to prevent overpayments to 
representatives through fee withholding and state payments. Also, 
claimants eligible for both DI and SSI have experienced delays in 
receiving their benefits as a result of fee withholding in the SSI 
program. SSA has tentative plans to address these delays. 

What GAO Recommends: 

We are recommending that SSA monitor and if necessary adjust the 
nonattorney eligibility criteria, assess the extent of overpayments to 
representatives and if necessary implement solutions, and continue to 
explore options to address benefit payment delays. In its comments on a 
draft of this report, SSA agreed with our findings and recommendations, 
and noted actions it plans to take to address our recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-5]. For more information, contact Daniel 
Bertoni at (202) 512-7215 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Nonattorneys Eligible for Fee Withholding Have the Most Experience 
Representing Disability Claimants and Are Most Likely to Specialize in 
Disability Representation: 

Attorneys and Eligible Nonattorneys Were Regarded about Equally Well 
Overall, while Other Nonattorneys Were Rated Less Highly by Judges: 

While There Is General Satisfaction with the Implementation of Fee 
Withholding for Nonattorneys, the Minimum Experience Requirement May Be 
Insufficient: 

Fee Withholding Has Increased the Number of SSI Claimants Represented 
by Attorneys but Has Complicated Payments in Certain Types of SSI 
Cases: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Nonattorney Representatives' Highest Level of Education: 

Appendix III: Geographic Distribution of Representatives by Type: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Social Security Administration: 

Appendix V: GAO Staff Contact and Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Demonstration Project Applicants and Their Pass Rates, 2005- 
2007: 

Table 2: Dispositions of Representative Survey Nonrespondents for 
Survey of Attorneys and Ineligible Nonattorneys: 

Table 3: Hearing Offices Selected for ALJ Survey: 

Table 4: Total Responses and Response Rate for Survey of ALJs: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: SSA's Disability Claims Process: 

Figure 2: Percentage of Claimants with Representation at Their Hearing, 
Fiscal Years 2000-2006: 

Figure 3: Eligible Nonattorneys Represented More Disability Claimants 
over a 2-Year Period than Other Representatives: 

Figure 4: Representatives Who Specialize in Disability Represented 
Substantially More Disability Cases over a 2-Year Period than Those Who 
Do Not: 

Figure 5: Many Nonattorneys Had Prior Relevant Work Experience: 

Figure 6: Attorneys and Eligible Nonattorneys Are More Likely to Work 
in the Private Sector: 

Figure 7: Judges Rated Most Highly the Overall Performances of 
Attorneys and Eligible Nonattorneys: 

Figure 8: Judges Rated Attorneys Most Highly in Their Performance 
during Hearings: 

Figure 9: Judges Rated Attorneys and Eligible Nonattorneys Equally for 
Other Facets of Disability Representation: 

Figure 10: Many Eligible Nonattorneys Consider Most Eligibility 
Requirements Reasonable or Appropriate: 

Figure 11: Attorneys Include Fewer SSI Cases in Their Caseloads than 
Nonattorneys Do: 

Figure 12: The Extension of Fee Withholding to the SSI Program Has 
Resulted in Later SSI Payments to Claimants Receiving Both SSI and DI 
Benefits in Cases Where SSA Withholds the Representative's Fee: 

Abbreviations: 

ALJ: administrative law judge: 

CPMS: Case Processing Management System: 

DDS: disability determination service: 

DI: Disability Insurance: 

ODAR: Office of Disability Adjudication and Review: 

SSA: Social Security Administration: 

SSI: Supplemental Security Income: 

SSR: Supplemental Security Record: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

October 15, 2007: 

The Honorable Max Baucus: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Finance: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Jim McCrery: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Ways and Means: 
House of Representatives: 

Each year, several million Americans apply for benefits from the 
federal government's two largest disability programs--Disability 
Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The DI program 
provides benefits to individuals with a sufficient amount of work 
experience who become unable to work because of a disability. The SSI 
program is a means-tested program that serves low-income individuals 
with disabilities, regardless of their work history. The disability 
application process begins with the filing of a claim with a Social 
Security Administration (SSA) field office, and may progress to a 
hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) if the claim is 
denied. Since the end of 2003, about 46,000 attorneys and 18,000 
nonattorneys have served as representatives for DI and SSI claimants at 
hearings, and some research indicates that claimants with such 
representation are more likely to be successful in obtaining benefits 
than those without. This may be because claims can be complex, and 
claimants may need help with their applications, with the submission of 
their medical evidence, or with the questioning of an expert witness in 
a formal hearing. 

To encourage representatives to accept disability claim cases, Congress 
has authorized a practice known as fee withholding, which guarantees 
that representatives are compensated for their services when claimants 
are successful. The amount of the representative's fee is set by SSA, 
after the representative files a request. Under fee withholding, SSA 
pays the representative directly from an amount it withholds from the 
claimant's benefits. Until the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 
was passed, only attorneys had access to fee withholding, and only for 
DI cases. The option of fee withholding has been temporarily extended 
to attorneys in SSI cases, and--through a demonstration project--to 
certain nonattorneys in both DI and SSI cases.[Footnote 1] The act 
extended fee withholding to qualified representatives of SSI claimants 
in an effort to promote representation for more SSI claimants. Partly 
because of the absence of fee withholding from the SSI program, the 
representation rate for SSI claimants has historically been lower than 
that for DI claimants. To ensure that nonattorneys who qualify for fee 
withholding are competent, the act established certain eligibility 
criteria for the demonstration project, including passing an exam. More 
than 400 nonattorneys have successfully applied for inclusion in the 
demonstration project so far and--provided they satisfy certain ongoing 
requirements--are eligible for fee withholding. All other nonattorneys 
remain ineligible for fee withholding, although these ineligible 
nonattorneys could apply for inclusion in the demonstration project and 
try to become eligible for fee withholding in the future. These changes 
were implemented in February 2005 for a 5-year period. 

The act also required that GAO assess the implementation of these fee 
withholding changes. Specifically, the mandate directs GAO to examine 
(1) the professional experience of different types of disability 
representatives, (2) how judges and claimants view the quality of 
services provided by the representatives, (3) how judges and 
nonattorneys eligible for fee withholding view the implementation of 
fee withholding for nonattorneys, and (4) how the extension of fee 
withholding to the SSI program has affected claimants and 
representatives. To address these questions, we surveyed the 
nonattorneys eligible for fee withholding at the time of our study. We 
also surveyed random samples of attorney representatives of disability 
claimants and nonattorney representatives who are currently ineligible 
for fee withholding. We are able to make estimates about the entire 
population of attorneys and ineligible nonattorneys at a 95 percent 
level of confidence with calculated sampling errors. We asked ALJs in 
10 hearing offices to rate the performance of all representatives who 
came before them over a 1-month period. We conducted interviews with 
judges in selected hearing offices, other SSA officials, state 
officials, external stakeholder groups, and a small number of 
disability claimants. Finally, we reviewed an analysis SSA performed to 
determine whether sufficient funds were available to pay 
representatives their full fees in certain types of cases. We conducted 
our work between June 2006 and September 2007 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. (See app. I for more 
details on our objectives, scope, and methodology, including our 
response rate for the surveys and our criteria for selecting hearing 
offices to participate in the ratings by judges.) 

Results in Brief: 

Nonattorney representatives who have met the eligibility requirements 
for fee withholding under the demonstration project have more 
experience representing disability claimants and are more likely to 
specialize in disability representation than attorneys or ineligible 
nonattorneys. According to our surveys, we estimate that nonattorneys 
eligible for fee withholding have represented on average over 240 
disability claimants in a 2-year period, whereas other representatives 
have represented on average fewer than 90. Nearly all eligible 
nonattorneys specialize in disability representation, a fact that may 
explain why they have substantially more experience representing 
disability claimants. Although both eligible and ineligible 
nonattorneys lack advanced legal training, many had relevant work 
experience before becoming disability representatives, such as having 
worked at SSA. In terms of current employment, attorneys and eligible 
nonattorneys predominantly work in the private sector, but many 
ineligible nonattorneys work at nonprofit organizations and government 
agencies, which may not charge claimants fees. 

Judges rated attorneys and eligible nonattorneys about equally well 
overall, and more highly than ineligible nonattorneys, while claimants 
did not distinguish substantially among the three groups. In overall 
performance, judges at the 10 sites we surveyed during January and 
February 2007 viewed attorneys and eligible nonattorneys as comparable, 
although they rated attorneys more highly in a few specific areas of 
disability representation. Judges rated about 55 percent of overall 
performances by both attorneys and eligible nonattorneys as above 
average or among the best, and only about 6 percent as below average or 
poor. Many judges also told us they believe that experience in the 
field rather than legal training is the key to effective representation 
of disability claimants. However, judges did rate attorneys somewhat 
more highly than the eligible nonattorneys in certain facets of 
disability representation, such as in questioning of vocational and 
medical experts. By contrast, judges viewed nonattorneys who are 
ineligible for fee withholding as less capable than both attorneys and 
eligible nonattorneys, both in overall performance and in every facet 
of disability representation. Ratings by the limited number of 
claimants we interviewed, on the other hand, did not distinguish 
substantially among the various representatives in their overall 
performance. 

Judges and eligible nonattorneys were generally satisfied with the 
overall implementation of fee withholding for nonattorneys, but they 
expressed some concern about the experience standard for nonattorney 
eligibility. Almost all eligible nonattorney representatives were 
satisfied with SSA's overall management of the program. Eligible 
nonattorneys also report that eligibility for fee withholding has 
benefited them by, for example, allowing them to take on more cases 
because they spend less time trying to collect fees from claimants. We 
found that judges and eligible nonattorneys considered most of the 
eligibility requirements for participation in the demonstration project 
to be reasonable. However, both groups, in addition to advocacy groups 
we spoke with, questioned the adequacy of the experience standard, 
which calls for nonattorneys to have represented at least five 
claimants before SSA over a 2-year period. Most of the judges we 
interviewed and more than half of the eligible nonattorneys considered 
this to be insufficient experience. Judges, and also advocacy groups we 
spoke with, said that the standard would not ensure that eligible 
nonattorneys are well qualified in disability representation. 

Fee withholding has succeeded in encouraging some attorneys to 
represent more SSI claimants, but it has also complicated payments to 
representatives and claimants in certain SSI cases. Attorneys reported 
that before fee withholding was extended to SSI, the possibility of not 
collecting their fees affected their decision to represent SSI 
claimants. Because of the availability of fee withholding, 
approximately one-third of attorneys with disability practices report 
that they are now representing more SSI claimants than in the past. Fee 
withholding, however, has also complicated payments to attorney and 
nonattorney representatives, as well as to claimants. In some cases, 
representatives may inappropriately receive both SSA and state payments 
that may total more than the SSA-authorized fee. Most states provide 
cash assistance to SSI claimants during the application process. At 
least 10 of these states pay fees to representatives of successful SSI 
claimants to encourage representatives to take SSI cases, and therefore 
increase the number of state residents receiving federal rather than 
state assistance benefits. Because SSA does not coordinate with these 
states to prevent overpayments, representatives can collect more than 
the authorized fee through payments from both SSA and the state-- 
something that under the Social Security Act, representatives are not 
allowed to do. In addition, fee withholding in the SSI program has 
delayed benefit payments to claimants. In cases where claimants receive 
benefits from both the SSI and DI programs at the same time, SSA 
performs a calculation to determine the total benefits and the amount 
of the representative's fee. With the extension of fee withholding to 
the SSI program, SSA cannot pay benefits until after it has performed 
this calculation. According to SSA and two disability representative 
associations, this change has led to delays in claimants receiving 
their payments, although SSA has not determined the extent of these 
delays. SSA is tentatively planning to make changes that would address 
this issue. 

We are recommending that the Commissioner of SSA monitor the 
nonattorney eligibility criteria to help ensure that only well- 
qualified representatives receive access to fee withholding, and if 
necessary adjust these criteria; assess the extent of overpayments to 
representatives in cases involving state fees, and if necessary take 
steps to prevent these overpayments; and continue to explore options to 
address benefit payment delays for recipients receiving both SSI and DI 
benefits. In its comments on a draft of this report, SSA agreed with 
our findings and recommendations, and noted actions it plans to take to 
address our recommendations. 

Background: 

SSA administers two programs under the Social Security Act that provide 
benefits to people with disabilities: DI and SSI. Established in 1956, 
the DI program provides monthly cash benefits to workers with 
disabilities (and their spouses and dependents) whose employment 
history qualifies them for disability benefits. In 2006, SSA paid about 
$82 billion in DI benefits to about 8.5 million workers with 
disabilities and their spouses and dependents. On average these 
disabled workers received $946 a month and their spouses and children 
received $248 and $281 a month, respectively. SSI is a means-tested 
income assistance program created in 1972 that provides a financial 
safety net for individuals who are aged or blind or have other 
disabilities and who have low incomes and limited resources. Unlike the 
DI program, SSI has no prior work requirement. In 2006, SSA paid about 
$25 billion in federal SSI benefits to about 5 million people with 
disabilities. These SSI beneficiaries received on average $422 per 
month. To be considered eligible for either program as an adult, a 
person must be unable to engage in substantial gainful activity--work 
that allows the person to earn a certain amount of money each month-- 
because of a physical or mental impairment that is expected to last at 
least a year or result in death. Some disability recipients receive 
both DI and SSI benefits because of the low level of their income and 
resources. 

The disability determination process is complex and multilayered. The 
process begins at a field office where an SSA staff member determines 
whether a claimant meets the programs' nonmedical eligibility criteria. 
Claims meeting these criteria are evaluated by state disability 
determination service (DDS) staff members, who review medical and other 
evidence and determine the initial disability decision. A claimant 
denied at this level may ask the DDS for a reconsideration of its 
finding. If the claim is denied again, the claimant may appeal to SSA's 
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, where an ALJ will review 
the claim during a hearing and render a decision. A claimant whose 
appeal is subsequently denied may request a review by SSA's Appeals 
Council and, if denied again, may file suit in federal court.[Footnote 
2] (See fig.1.) 

Figure 1: SSA's Disability Claims Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: SSA documents. Images, top: Rubberball Productions, bottom: 
GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Representation of Disability Claimants: 

Disability claimants may be represented in their interactions with SSA 
by an attorney or a nonattorney. Claimants who choose to use a 
representative must appoint that individual and notify SSA of this 
appointment. They may be represented at any stage of the disability 
application process, from the initial application to an appeal to the 
federal courts.[Footnote 3] A representative may act on a claimant's 
behalf in a number of ways, including getting information from the 
claimant's Social Security file, helping the claimant obtain medical 
records to support the claim, preparing the claimant and any witnesses 
for a hearing, accompanying the claimant to a hearing, and questioning 
witnesses at a hearing. 

While no data are available on representation at the initial and 
reconsideration stages, the majority of DI and SSI claimants who attend 
hearings before an ALJ have representation at their hearings. DI 
claimants have historically been more likely to have representation at 
their hearings than SSI claimants (see fig. 2). Also, both DI and SSI 
claimants have been more likely to be represented by attorneys than by 
nonattorneys. For example, in fiscal year 2006, 88 percent of DI 
claimants were represented by attorneys and 7 percent by nonattorneys. 
Similarly, 66 percent of SSI claimants were represented by attorneys 
and 10 percent by nonattorneys.[Footnote 4] 

Figure 2: Percentage of Claimants with Representation at Their Hearing, 
Fiscal Years 2000-2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: SSA Case Control System: 

[End of figure] 

SSA has established broad guidelines regarding who may represent 
disability claimants. Attorney representatives must be in good standing 
and be admitted to practice before the highest court of the state or a 
federal court. Nonattorney representatives must be known to have a good 
character and reputation, and must be capable of providing valuable 
help to the claimant in connection with the claimant's disability 
application. The agency also has specific rules of conduct for 
representatives. For example, representatives are required to promptly 
obtain and submit evidence in support of a claim, to help claimants 
respond quickly to requests for information from SSA, and to be 
familiar with relevant laws and regulations. Representatives are 
prohibited from, among other things, knowingly collecting any fees 
except what is specifically allowed by law, and unreasonably delaying 
the processing of a claim. If SSA has any evidence that a 
representative does not meet the qualification requirements or has 
violated the rules of conduct, the agency may file charges with the 
goal of suspending or disqualifying the individual from serving as a 
representative. 

If a claimant's application for benefits is successful, the 
representative may receive a portion of the claimant's past-due 
benefits as a fee,[Footnote 5] provided the representative has received 
authorization from SSA to receive this fee. Representatives typically 
seek such authorization by entering into a fee agreement with the 
claimant, which then must be submitted to SSA for approval. Under an 
approved fee agreement, a representative receives 25 percent of the 
claimant's past-due benefits, up to a maximum of $5,300. In some cases, 
the representative may instead seek this authorization through a fee 
petition, which requires the representative to itemize his or her 
expenses and hourly charges and lets SSA determine a reasonable fee. 
Since 1967, for attorneys representing DI claimants, SSA has withheld 
fees from claimants' past-due benefits and paid the attorneys directly-
-guaranteeing the attorneys payment of their fees. By contrast, 
nonattorney representatives and attorneys representing SSI claimants 
have historically had to collect their fees from the claimants. Some 
organizations, such as legal aid agencies, provide certain disability 
claimants with free representation, rather than charging them a fee. 

Expansion of Fee Withholding: 

The Social Security Protection Act of 2004 expanded the practice of fee 
withholding in two ways. First, it established a demonstration project 
allowing certain nonattorney representatives to also qualify for fee 
withholding. Second, in an effort to promote representation for more 
SSI claimants, it extended fee withholding to qualified representatives 
of SSI claimants--both attorneys and qualified nonattorneys. These 
changes were implemented in February 2005 for a 5-year period. 

To ensure that nonattorneys who qualify for fee withholding are 
competent, the act establishes certain eligibility criteria. Applicants 
must: 

* have a bachelor's degree or the equivalent combination of education 
and work experience, 

* pass an examination that assesses knowledge of the SSI and DI 
programs and relevant law, 

* have liability insurance, 

* pass a criminal background check, and: 

* meet requirements for continuing education. 

The specifics of these criteria--for example, the level of liability 
insurance coverage and the amount and type of continuing education--are 
determined by SSA. SSA has determined that a representative without a 
bachelor's degree must have a combination of education and relevant 
professional experience totaling at least 4 years. The agency has set 
the minimum level of liability insurance coverage between $500,000 and 
$5 million depending on the type of insurance and number of employees 
covered. And SSA has also established that participants must complete 
12 hours of qualifying continuing education courses during an initial 
18-month period and complete 24 hours of instruction in each subsequent 
2-year period. In addition, SSA has added an experience requirement for 
eligibility, namely that a representative must have represented, before 
SSA, at least five claimants in 2 years. 

SSA uses a private contractor, CPS Human Resource Services, to 
administer the process for determining eligibility for nonattorneys, 
and charges nonattorney representatives a fee in the amount of $1,000 
to cover the costs of administering the eligibility process. CPS Human 
Resource Services collects application information from 
representatives, works with SSA to ensure applicants meet the 
eligibility criteria, and administers the examination. CPS Human 
Resource Services also monitors two ongoing eligibility requirements: 
professional liability insurance coverage and continuing education 
requirements. Participants lose eligibility if they let their liability 
insurance lapse or fail to meet continuing education requirements. 

As shown in table 1, 630 nonattorneys applied for inclusion in the 
demonstration project during the first 3 years. The examination has 
been given four times. In total, 460 nonattorneys passed these 
examinations and were deemed eligible for fee withholding, though some 
may have left the program or been dropped if they did not meet ongoing 
eligibility requirements. All other nonattorneys remain ineligible for 
fee withholding. 

Table 1: Demonstration Project Applicants and Their Pass Rates, 2005- 
2007: 

Exam period: Initial applicants; (Applicants who submitted an 
application for inclusion in the project); 
2005 (A)[A]: 242; 
2005 (B)[A]: 124; 
2006: 106; 2007: 158; 
Total: 630. 

Exam period: Exam participants; (Applicants who met the eligibility 
criteria and were scheduled to take the exam); 
2005 (A)[A]: 234; 
2005 (B)[A]: 118; 
2006: 101; 2007: 148; 
Total: 601. 

Exam period: Eligible nonattorneys; (Applicants who passed the exam and 
became eligible for fee withholding); 
2005 (A)[A]: 203; (87%); 
2005 (B)[A]: 83; (70%); 
2006: 71; (70%); 2007: 103; (70%); 
Total: 460; (77%). 

Source: SSA. 

[A] The examination was offered on two occasions in 2005. 

[End of table] 

Nonattorneys Eligible for Fee Withholding Have the Most Experience 
Representing Disability Claimants and Are Most Likely to Specialize in 
Disability Representation: 

Nonattorneys who have met the eligibility requirements for fee 
withholding have more experience representing disability claimants than 
attorneys or nonattorneys who are currently ineligible. On the basis of 
our survey, we estimate that nonattorneys eligible for fee withholding 
have represented on average more than 240 disability claimants in a 2- 
year period.[Footnote 6] In the same amount of time, we found that 
attorneys and ineligible nonattorneys represented an average of 89 and 
55 disability claimants, respectively, according to our surveys (see 
fig. 3).[Footnote 7] 

Figure 3: Eligible Nonattorneys Represented More Disability Claimants 
over a 2-Year Period than Other Representatives: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO surveys of representatives. 

Note: The survey of attorneys and ineligible nonattorneys was 
administered from February to April 2007, and respondents were asked 
how many claimants they have represented over the past 2 years. The 
survey of eligible nonattorneys was administered from November 2006 to 
February 2007, and respondents were asked how many claimants they have 
represented over the past 2 years. The numbers of disability cases 
represented by attorneys and ineligible nonattorneys are population 
estimates and have confidence intervals ranging from 65 to 112 and from 
33 to 77, respectively. Because the survey of eligible nonattorneys was 
not a sample survey, the results are not estimates and have no sampling 
errors. 

[End of figure] 

Eligible nonattorneys may generally have larger disability caseloads 
because they are more likely to specialize in disability 
representation. According to our surveys, nearly all eligible 
nonattorneys specialize in disability representation, but only some 
attorneys and ineligible nonattorneys do so. We found that one-quarter 
of attorneys with disability cases are disability specialists, and they 
have represented substantially more disability claimants than attorney 
representatives who are not disability specialists. One judge told us 
that many attorney representatives work in other areas of the law as 
well. For example, an attorney might primarily represent workers' 
compensation cases but also represent disability claimants on occasion. 
Like attorneys, only some ineligible nonattorneys specialize in 
disability representation. About half of the ineligible nonattorneys 
represent claimants on a professional basis, and some of them 
specialize in disability representation; the other half are claimants' 
relatives and friends. Those ineligible nonattorneys who represent 
claimants professionally have substantial experience representing 
disability claimants, especially those who specialize in disability 
representation. In contrast, relatives and friends of claimants 
generally have very limited representation experience, perhaps just a 
few cases, and according to some judges are generally not competent to 
serve as representatives. During hearings these judges strongly 
discourage relatives and friends from acting as representatives and 
instead encourage them to be witnesses. (See fig. 4 for a comparison of 
caseloads between representatives who specialize in disability and 
those who do not.) 

Figure 4: Representatives Who Specialize in Disability Represented 
Substantially More Disability Cases over a 2-Year Period than Those Who 
Do Not: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO surveys of representatives. 

Note: The survey of attorneys and ineligible nonattorneys was 
administered from February to April 2007, and respondents were asked 
how many claimants they have represented over the past 2 years. The 
survey of eligible nonattorneys was administered from November 2006 to 
February 2007, and respondents were asked how many claimants they have 
represented over the past 2 years. The numbers of disability cases 
represented by both specializing and nonspecializing attorneys are 
population estimates and have confidence intervals ranging from 214 to 
354 and from 12 to 23, respectively. The numbers of disability cases 
represented by ineligible nonattorneys who represent claimants 
professionally and who either specialize or do not specialize are also 
population estimates; specialists' case estimates have confidence 
intervals ranging from 119 to 307 and estimates of nonspecialists have 
confidence intervals ranging from 11 to 37. Estimates of relatives and 
friends have confidence intervals ranging from 0 to 9. Because most 
eligible nonattorneys completed our survey, the number of disability 
cases they have represented is not an estimate and, therefore, is not 
associated with confidence intervals. 

[End of figure] 

Nonattorneys generally do not have advanced legal training, as 
attorneys do. However, most nonattorneys who represent claimants 
professionally have at least a college degree and many had prior 
relevant work experience. (See app. II for more detailed information on 
nonattorneys' levels of education.) For example, before becoming 
disability representatives, the majority of eligible nonattorneys 
worked at SSA or in a law-related occupation such as a paralegal. In 
addition, many ineligible nonattorneys who represent claimants 
professionally had previous careers in social work or health care. (See 
fig. 5.) 

Figure 5: Many Nonattorneys Had Prior Relevant Work Experience: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO surveys of representatives. 

Note: Survey respondents were only permitted to select one response 
regarding their previous occupation. The Other category includes a 
number of professions, such as teacher, accountant, and student. The 
responses provided by ineligible nonattorneys who represent claimants 
professionally regarding their previous occupations are population 
estimates and are subject to sampling errors of no more than plus or 
minus 11 percentage points. However, in some cases the application of a 
general error margin does not provide enough specificity; in the case 
of the estimate for medical or vocational expert/SSA contractor the 
confidence interval starts with 3 and does not exceed 15. Because the 
survey of eligible nonattorneys was not a sample survey, the results 
are not estimates and have no sampling errors. Ineligible nonattorneys 
who do not represent claimants professionally were not instructed to 
provide any information on their previous occupation. Percentages may 
not add up to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

With regards to current employment, attorneys who represent disability 
claimants and eligible nonattorneys predominantly work in the private 
sector, but many ineligible nonattorneys who represent claimants 
professionally work for nonprofit organizations and state and local 
government agencies. On the basis of our survey, we estimate that 
nearly all of these attorneys who represent disability claimants work 
at private law firms or are sole practitioners. Similarly, most 
nonattorneys eligible for fee withholding are sole practitioners or 
work at claimant representative firms other than law firms. We found 
that these privately employed representatives rarely waive or reduce 
fees charged to claimants, but may do so when the fee is a financial 
hardship for the claimant. When attorneys and eligible nonattorneys do 
charge fees, they virtually all elect to have their fees withheld. In 
contrast to other representatives, almost half of the ineligible 
nonattorneys who represent claimants professionally work for nonprofit 
organizations or government agencies. (See fig. 6.) Some nonprofit 
organizations and government agencies do not charge claimants fees, so 
their employees may have no incentive to apply for fee withholding 
eligibility. 

Figure 6: Attorneys and Eligible Nonattorneys Are More Likely to Work 
in the Private Sector: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO surveys of representatives. 

Note: The Other category includes a wide variety of employers, most 
commonly health care organizations. The responses provided by 
ineligible nonattorneys who represent claimants professionally 
regarding their current employment are population estimates and are 
subject to sampling errors of no more than plus or minus 11 percentage 
points. The responses provided by attorneys are also population 
estimates and are subject to sampling errors of no more than plus or 
minus 5 percentage points. However, in some cases the application of a 
general error margin does not provide enough specificity; in the case 
of the estimates for State or local government agency and Other the 
confidence intervals start with 0 and do not exceed 5. Because the 
survey of eligible nonattorneys was not a sample survey, the results 
are not estimates and have no sampling errors. Percentages may not add 
up to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Attorneys and Eligible Nonattorneys Were Regarded about Equally Well 
Overall, while Other Nonattorneys Were Rated Less Highly by Judges: 

Judges viewed attorneys and eligible nonattorneys--those who have 
successfully applied for inclusion in the demonstration project--as 
about equal in their overall performance, and viewed ineligible 
nonattorneys as less capable. Judges we surveyed in 10 hearing offices 
over a 1-month period rated about 55 percent of overall performances by 
both attorneys and eligible nonattorneys as above average or one of the 
best, and about 6 percent of overall performances by these groups as 
below average or poor.[Footnote 8] By contrast, judges rated only about 
30 percent of the overall performances by ineligible nonattorneys as 
above average or among the best, and about 20 percent as below average 
or poor. (See fig. 7.) 

Figure 7: Judges Rated Most Highly the Overall Performances of 
Attorneys and Eligible Nonattorneys: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: January/February 2007 GAO survey of administrative law judges 
in 10 SSA hearing offices. 

[End of figure] 

Similarly, many of the judges we interviewed in eight hearing offices 
told us that overall, the performances of nonattorneys eligible for fee 
withholding are comparable to that of the typical attorney. Most of the 
judges we interviewed had been employed at SSA for at least 5 years, 
and were often familiar with the professional background of specific 
representatives who appear before them. Many of these judges expressed 
the view that experience in disability representation rather than 
formal legal training is the key to effective representation, or that 
it is not necessary to have a law degree to effectively represent 
disability claimants. For example, a judge in Forth Worth, Texas, told 
us that experience is the main factor in determining who is a good 
representative, and that experienced nonattorneys often perform better 
than inexperienced attorneys. Furthermore, judges in most of the eight 
offices told us that ineligible nonattorneys typically do not perform 
as well as either attorneys or eligible nonattorneys. A judge in 
Orlando, Florida, for example, said eligible nonattorneys are more 
experienced and more comfortable with the relevant laws than those who 
are ineligible. 

Judges' opinions of representatives' performance in specific areas of 
disability representation--such as representatives' submission of 
evidence before the hearing and their questioning of claimants during 
the hearing--were generally similar to their opinions of 
representatives' overall performance. Judges we surveyed rated 
attorneys and eligible nonattorneys as about equal in most areas of 
disability representation that we asked about, and they rated 
ineligible nonattorneys as less capable than the other two groups in 
every area of disability representation. 

However, judges did rate attorneys more highly than eligible 
nonattorneys in some areas related to representatives' performance 
during the actual hearing, in particular their opening and closing 
statements and their questioning of medical and vocational experts (see 
fig. 8). Similarly, almost all the judges in the offices that took part 
in interviews told us that attorneys generally perform better than 
eligible nonattorneys during the hearing itself. In particular, many 
judges said attorneys have an advantage in their ability to question 
witnesses during the hearing. For example, judges in Charleston, South 
Carolina, told us that as a result of their legal training and 
courtroom experience, attorneys are better at questioning claimants 
without using leading questions, and at questioning medical and 
vocational experts in a way that points out inconsistencies in their 
testimony. 

Figure 8: Judges Rated Attorneys Most Highly in Their Performance 
during Hearings: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: January/February 2007 GAO survey of administrative law judges 
in 10 SSA hearing offices. 

[End of figure] 

By contrast, in our survey judges rated attorneys and eligible 
nonattorneys equally for submitting evidence before the hearing, 
knowledge of the law and regulations, and knowledge of case-specific 
details (see fig. 9). Several judges we interviewed saw no significant 
difference between attorneys and eligible nonattorneys in these areas. 
However, judges in a few offices told us that attorneys are superior to 
eligible nonattorneys in their knowledge of the law. On the other hand, 
some judges felt that eligible nonattorneys perform better than 
attorneys in their submission of evidence and their knowledge of case 
details. For example, judges in Kingsport, Tennessee, told us that 
eligible nonattorneys tend to be better prepared and more familiar with 
the details of their cases than attorneys, saying that attorneys often 
delegate the collection of case materials to paralegals rather than 
doing it themselves, and that some attorneys from large firms do not 
meet their client until the day of the hearing. 

Figure 9: Judges Rated Attorneys and Eligible Nonattorneys Equally for 
Other Facets of Disability Representation: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: January/February 2007 GAO survey of administrative law judges 
in 10 SSA hearing offices. 

[End of figure] 

Ratings by claimants we interviewed did not distinguish substantially 
among various types of representatives, at least for overall 
performance. The 30 claimants we interviewed rated their 
representatives about equally well for overall performance, and they 
were generally satisfied with their representatives.[Footnote 9] Nine 
of the 10 claimants represented by attorneys, 9 of the 10 represented 
by eligible nonattorneys, and 8 of the 10 represented by ineligible 
nonattorneys were either satisfied or very satisfied with their 
representative overall. There was some divergence in responses, 
however, when we asked claimants about their representatives' 
performance for certain facets of disability representation.[Footnote 
10] While most of the claimants were at least satisfied with their 
representatives' performance in the areas we asked about, the claimants 
represented by attorneys and by ineligible nonattorneys were more 
likely to be very satisfied than those represented by eligible 
nonattorneys. For example, in assessing their representatives' 
performance during the hearing, 6 claimants represented by attorneys 
and 5 represented by ineligible nonattorneys were very satisfied, 
compared to 2 represented by eligible nonattorneys. Similarly, in 
assessing their representatives' responsiveness to their questions and 
concerns, 6 claimants represented by attorneys and 6 represented by 
ineligible nonattorneys were very satisfied, compared to 2 represented 
by eligible nonattorneys. 

While There Is General Satisfaction with the Implementation of Fee 
Withholding for Nonattorneys, the Minimum Experience Requirement May Be 
Insufficient: 

Judges and eligible nonattorneys were generally satisfied with the 
overall implementation of fee withholding for nonattorneys. For their 
part, almost all of the nonattorney representatives who have become 
eligible for fee withholding under the demonstration project were 
satisfied with SSA's overall management of the extension of fee 
withholding to nonattorneys. Specifically, more than 80 percent of 
project participants reported on our survey that they were either very 
or somewhat satisfied with SSA's management of the demonstration 
project. In addition, most of the participants noted that they were 
very satisfied with the contractor's management of the eligibility 
application process. For example, one participant commented that the 
contractor's staff was very professional and prompt in answering 
questions. Officials we spoke with from professional organizations for 
Social Security claimants' representatives also were generally 
satisfied with the implementation of the fee withholding project. 

The eligible nonattorney representatives also report that having 
guaranteed payments through fee withholding had benefited them in 
several ways. A few eligible nonattorneys told us that before the 
extension of fee withholding, they had lost tens of thousands of 
dollars in uncollected fees, and that eligibility for fee withholding 
has helped them to stay in the profession. Nearly half of the eligible 
nonattorneys also reported that their caseloads had increased as a 
result of their eligibility for fee withholding. A few participants 
explained in our survey that this was because they have been able to 
devote more time to their clients and less time to fee collection. 
Finally, officials from the National Association of Disability 
Representatives--a nonprofit organization for professional Social 
Security representatives, most of whom are nonattorneys--reported that 
the availability of fee withholding under the demonstration project has 
been drawing more nonattorneys into the field of disability 
representation. In fact, they reported that as a result of fee 
withholding the organization is allocating more resources than before 
towards educating nonattorneys who have just started their careers as 
disability representatives. 


With regard to the eligibility criteria for nonattorneys, we found that 
both judges and eligible nonattorneys, as well as representatives of 
professional organizations, considered the criteria to be generally 
reasonable. Some of the judges we interviewed said that the criteria 
were reasonable overall, while offering suggestions for additional 
requirements, such as training in legal writing or on the hearing 
process. Most eligible nonattorneys thought that most of the criteria 
were generally appropriate. As shown in fig. 10, almost all eligible 
nonattorneys thought, for example, that the requirement to pass an 
examination was reasonable. In addition, most said that the questions 
on the exam were relevant to the knowledge required to professionally 
represent claimants. Professional organizations we spoke with also 
considered the criteria to be sufficient overall. One official, for 
example, expressed approval of the flexibility in the education 
requirement, which allows either a bachelor's degree or a combination 
of training and work experience that the agency determines to be 
equivalent to a bachelor's degree. 

Figure 10: Many Eligible Nonattorneys Consider Most Eligibility 
Requirements Reasonable or Appropriate: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO survey of representatives. 

[End of figure] 

However, judges, eligible nonattorneys, and professional organizations 
all questioned the adequacy of the experience requirement set by SSA-- 
that applicants must have represented at least five claimants before 
SSA over a 2-year period. This requirement was considered too low by 
most judges we interviewed and more than half of the eligible 
nonattorneys. Advocacy group representatives and judges we spoke with 
expressed the view that this level of experience does not indicate 
sufficient qualification in disability representation, and suggested 
several alternative requirements. Officials from the National 
Association of Disability Representatives suggested that a record of 
wins over time, such as winning 10 cases over 2 years, would be a 
better measure of effectiveness. Officials from the National 
Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives suggested 
that the experience requirement should include some cases at the 
hearing level--for example, a requirement of 10 cases over 2 years, 
with at least 5 at the hearing level. Finally, some judges suggested 
that increasing the requirement to 20 to 25 cases over 2 years would be 
appropriate. They did not specify whether these should be cases that 
are won, but said that a greater number of cases would ensure 
representatives have the necessary experience and knowledge to 
represent claimants effectively. 

In addition to the experience requirement, other aspects of the 
implementation of fee withholding for nonattorneys have raised 
concerns, though SSA has been considering or has taken steps already to 
address them. On the basis of our survey, we estimate that many 
ineligible nonattorneys were unaware of the project, and both the 
National Association of Disability Representatives and some eligible 
nonattorneys raised concerns regarding SSA's outreach to potential 
participants. SSA has advertised the demonstration project through 
several venues, including a notice in the Federal Register, its Web 
site for claimant representatives, and flyers at hearing offices. 
Agency officials said they also added information about the 
demonstration project to certain forms that all representatives 
normally complete, and that these revised forms are expected to be used 
beginning in fall 2007. Finally, over one-quarter of eligible 
nonattorneys reported problems with processing of their fees, which 
they said were sometimes not withheld for them or were significantly 
delayed. Both representatives and SSA officials attributed this problem 
to the fact that eligible nonattorneys were often improperly coded as 
not eligible for fee withholding in SSA databases. However, SSA has 
recently instituted changes to the process that officials told us they 
believe will reduce such problems. 

Fee Withholding Has Increased the Number of SSI Claimants Represented 
by Attorneys but Has Complicated Payments in Certain Types of SSI 
Cases: 

As a result of the extension of fee withholding to the SSI program, 
some attorneys who represent disability cases report including more SSI 
claimants in their caseloads. However, fee withholding has complicated 
payments to representatives and claimants in certain types of SSI 
cases. One of these complications is that representatives can be 
inappropriately paid more than the SSA-authorized fee. Some states pay 
fees to representatives of successful SSI claimants. Because SSA does 
not coordinate payments with these states, representatives could 
collect more than the authorized fee through a combination of SSA fee 
withholding and the state payment--which, under the Social Security 
Act, representatives are not allowed to do. Another complication is 
that the extension of fee withholding has delayed payments to claimants 
when they receive benefits from both the SSI and DI programs at the 
same time. However, SSA is tentatively planning to make changes that 
would address this issue. 

About One-Third of Attorneys Who Represent Disability Cases Have 
Included More SSI Claimants in Their Practices as a Result of Fee 
Withholding: 

Some attorneys are now including more SSI cases in their disability 
practices because fee withholding is available in the SSI program. Most 
attorneys with disability cases reported that before fee withholding 
was an option, the possibility of not collecting their fees affected 
their decision to represent SSI claimants. In fact, before the 
extension of fee withholding to the SSI program, attorneys reported 
that they had not received their full fee in approximately half of 
their SSI cases. Along with problems collecting fees, representatives 
and judges cited other disincentives to representing SSI claimants that 
have contributed to representation rates that have been lower for SSI 
than for DI. For example, fees in SSI cases are generally lower than 
fees in DI cases. In addition, SSI claimants may have characteristics 
that make their cases more difficult to win than DI cases, such as 
problems with substance abuse or a lack of medical records. Despite 
these continued disincentives, approximately one-third of attorneys 
reported that they were representing more SSI claimants in their 
disability practices as a result of the availability of fee 
withholding. Some judges, representatives, and professional 
organizations we spoke with said that if fee withholding were 
permanently extended to the SSI program, the representation rate of SSI 
claimants would increase--fulfilling one of the goals of the act. 

While about one-third of attorneys who represent disability claimants 
reported they were representing more SSI claimants as a result of fee 
withholding, they nonetheless have fewer SSI cases in their disability 
caseloads than nonattorneys do (see fig. 11). While SSI cases made up 
just under 20 percent of the caseloads of attorneys, they made up 
almost 30 percent of the caseloads of eligible nonattorneys, and over 
40 percent of those of ineligible nonattorneys. As previously 
mentioned, the SSI program serves individuals who have low incomes and 
limited resources. SSI claimants have historically been represented 
largely by nonprofit organizations, such as legal aid associations, 
according to some professional organizations we spoke with, and 
ineligible nonattorneys are more likely to work for nonprofit 
organizations. 

Figure 11: Attorneys Include Fewer SSI Cases in Their Caseloads than 
Nonattorneys Do: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO survey of representatives. 

Note: Caseload data were current as of November 2006 to February 2007 
for eligible nonattorneys, and as of February to April 2007 for 
attorneys and ineligible nonattorneys. The responses provided by 
attorneys and ineligible nonattorneys regarding the types of disability 
cases they represent are subject to sampling errors of no more than 
plus or minus 7 percentage points. The responses provided by eligible 
nonattorneys are not subject to sampling errors. See appendix I for 
more information on our methodology. 

[End of figure] 

Lack of Collaboration between SSA and States on Certain Cases Allows 
for Excess Payments to Representatives: 

Now that fee withholding is available in the SSI program, 
representatives may inappropriately receive both SSA and state payments 
that may total more than the SSA-authorized fee. Under the Social 
Security Act, SSA prescribes the maximum fee allowed, and 
representatives may not knowingly collect more than the fee that SSA 
authorizes them to receive for a case. However, we found that in cases 
involving interim assistance payments, representatives may be able to 
collect payments from the state and through fee withholding--and these 
payments may total more than the authorized fee. 

Most states provide cash assistance to SSI applicants, which is known 
as interim assistance, during the SSI application process.[Footnote 11] 
If an SSI claim is successful, SSA uses the claimant's past-due 
benefits to reimburse the state for this interim assistance. Then, in 
cases involving fee withholding, SSA pays the representative out of any 
remaining past-due benefits.[Footnote 12] Finally, SSA pays the 
claimant the remainder of the past-due benefits, subject to some 
conditions (for example, the benefits may be paid in installments). 

At least 10 states also use a portion of the interim assistance 
reimbursements they receive from SSA to pay fees to 
representatives.[Footnote 13] According to state documents, states may 
pay these fees in order to encourage representatives to take SSI cases, 
and therefore increase the number of state residents receiving federal 
rather than state assistance benefits. While SSA reimburses the state 
for interim assistance out of the claimant's past-due benefits, states 
assume the cost of any fees they pay to representatives. 

We found that SSA does not coordinate payments with most states that 
pay fees to representatives. SSA has no systematic process in place to 
inform states when representatives have been paid through fee 
withholding, and SSA does not track which states pay representatives 
fees. As a consequence, representatives could receive dual payments-- 
from the claimant's past-due benefits through SSA, and from the state-
-which would total more than the authorized fee. SSA and many states 
rely on the representative or the claimant to inform them of these 
overpayments. For example, SSA informed us of one case in which a 
claimant complained that their representative had collected fees from 
SSA and the state, and SSA then filed charges against this 
representative. 

If a representative does collect more than the authorized fee through 
SSA and the state, there is no law regarding who should be repaid. If 
SSA becomes aware of the overpayment, its policy is to collect the 
excess payment from the representative, and then pass it along to the 
claimant. If the state finds out about the overpayment first, it can 
ask for the return of the fee that it paid the representative. For 
example, in another overpayment case, a claimant called the state to 
say that his representative had been overpaid through a combination of 
the state payment and SSA's fee withholding. The state then asked the 
representative to return its payment, and the claimant still received 
the full amount of past-due benefits he was owed. 

Some states are making adjustments now to prevent overpayments to 
representatives, such as requiring representatives to submit 
documentation indicating whether their fee was withheld by SSA, and not 
paying the representatives if they are also receiving a fee through 
withholding. Other states are considering eliminating the fee payments 
they make to representatives. Although SSA officials acknowledged that 
this overpayment vulnerability exists, the agency has not yet taken any 
actions to address the problem, because it is not aware of the extent 
of the problem and because it is waiting to see whether the extension 
of fee withholding to the SSI program will be made permanent. SSA 
officials suggested that the agency could address the problem by, for 
example, revising the notice that representatives receive with their 
SSA fee payment to explain that they may not collect more than their 
authorized fee through a combination of SSA fee withholding and a state 
payment, or by amending the alert sent to the state when a case is 
approved to also indicate whether SSA will withhold the 
representative's fee. 

Fee Withholding Has Resulted in Delayed Payments to Claimants Receiving 
Both SSI and DI Benefits: 

Fee withholding in the SSI program has delayed payments to some 
claimants in cases where claimants receive benefits from both the SSI 
and DI programs. In such cases, SSA calculates the total benefits a 
claimant should receive and adjusts the benefits paid from each program 
accordingly.[Footnote 14] Because the representative's fee is a 
percentage of the total past-due benefits owed to the claimant, this 
calculation also affects the fee. In the past, when a claim was 
approved in such a case, SSA paid the claimant the full SSI benefits 
first. Then the agency calculated the total amount of SSI and DI 
benefits owed to the claimant and determined the fee owed to the 
representative. Finally, SSA paid the DI portion of the fee and 
notified the claimant of how much to pay the representative out of the 
past-due SSI benefits he or she received.[Footnote 15] 

However, since the extension of fee withholding to the SSI program, the 
process has changed for cases in which the representative is eligible 
for fee withholding, and payments to claimants have been delayed as a 
result of computer system limitations. Now, SSA generally cannot pay 
the claimant any past-due SSI benefits until after it has calculated 
the total SSI and DI benefits owed to the claimant, and withheld the 
representative's fee. This is because when a claim is approved for a 
case in which the claimant will receive both SSI and DI benefits, SSA's 
computer systems have only two options: to pay the claimant all of the 
SSI past-due benefits or to hold all of the benefits in reserve until 
the representative's fee has been calculated and withheld. In other 
words, the agency cannot pay part of the benefits and hold the rest in 
reserve for the representative's fee. According to SSA and two 
disability representative associations, this change in process has 
resulted in delayed payments to claimants. SSA officials acknowledged 
delays, and speculated that the delays in releasing benefits could be 
more than a month, but said that the agency has not assessed the extent 
of these delays. (See fig. 12 for the process before and after fee 
withholding was extended to SSI cases.) 

Figure 12: The Extension of Fee Withholding to the SSI Program Has 
Resulted in Later SSI Payments to Claimants Receiving Both SSI and DI 
Benefits in Cases Where SSA Withholds the Representative's Fee: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Because fee withholding was previously available in the DI 
program, the timing of DI benefit payments was not substantially 
affected by the extension of fee withholding to the SSI program. 

[End of figure] 

The agency is tentatively planning to make changes to its computer 
systems to address this issue. The changes would allow SSA to reserve 
25 percent of the past-due SSI benefits for the representative's fee-- 
the maximum amount of benefits that would be needed--and release the 
other 75 percent to the claimant more quickly. However, the agency has 
not yet made a final decision on these changes. 

Conclusions: 

The implementation of the fee withholding changes has gone relatively 
smoothly, and according to preliminary evidence, the changes appear to 
be having their intended effects--limiting eligibility for fee 
withholding to well-qualified nonattorneys and providing greater access 
to representation for SSI claimants. The nonattorneys who have met the 
eligibility criteria for fee withholding in SSI and DI cases so far 
appear to be the most experienced and well qualified of the nonattorney 
population, which suggests that the criteria have generally been 
effective in ensuring the quality of the representatives participating 
in the demonstration project. Also, the extension of fee withholding to 
the SSI program has proven an incentive for some attorneys to represent 
more SSI claimants, and may increase the representation rate for SSI 
claimants. 

However, a few potential issues have arisen in the implementation of 
the fee withholding changes that could become more significant if the 
changes are extended permanently. Although the nonattorneys who have 
met the fee withholding eligibility criteria up to now are generally 
well-qualified to represent disability claimants, it may be too early 
to conclude that the criteria will always screen out less qualified 
representatives. To the extent that the availability of fee withholding 
draws more nonattorneys into the field of disability representation for 
the first time, it is possible that in the future some less qualified 
nonattorneys could satisfy the criteria. For example, a number of 
judges and representatives believe that the experience standard set by 
SSA may not be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that representatives are 
well qualified. In addition, there is a risk that without enhanced 
coordination between SSA and the states that pay representatives fees 
out of their interim assistance reimbursements, some representatives of 
SSI claimants will get paid more than their authorized fees and not 
properly return the excess. So far there is only limited evidence that 
representatives are improperly keeping dual payments, but it is 
possible that this problem is more widespread and simply underreported. 
Another problem related to the fee withholding changes is delayed 
benefit payments to individuals who receive both SSI and DI benefits. 
The extent of these delays is not known, but any delays in receiving 
their benefits could be a financial hardship for these low-income 
recipients, who typically rely on the benefits to pay for basic needs. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Commissioner of SSA: 

* Monitor the effectiveness of the nonattorney eligibility criteria in 
continuing to ensure that only well-qualified representatives receive 
access to fee withholding, and if necessary adjust the experience 
standard or other criteria. 

* Assess the extent to which representatives collect more than their 
authorized fee through a combination of state payments and fee 
withholding, and if necessary identify and implement cost-effective 
solutions to ensure that representatives either are not paid more than 
their authorized fee or return anything they receive in excess of their 
authorized fee. 

* Continue to explore cost-effective changes that would address SSI 
benefit payment delays related to fee withholding in cases where 
recipients receive both SSI and DI benefits. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to officials at SSA for their review 
and comment. In its comments, SSA agreed with our findings and 
recommendations. Specifically, SSA indicated that if the fee 
withholding changes are extended permanently, it plans to review the 
eligibility criteria for nonattorneys and make adjustments as 
necessary, and to work with the states to ensure that representatives 
do not receive overpayments. The agency also confirmed that it plans to 
make systems changes to address delays in benefit payments to 
recipients of both SSI and DI benefits. SSA also provided technical 
comments, which were incorporated as appropriate. SSA's comments are 
reproduced in appendix IV. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Commissioner of SSA, 
relevant congressional committees, and others who are interested. 
Copies will also be made available to others upon request. The report 
is also available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any 
questions about this report. Other major contributors to this report 
are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Daniel Bertoni: 

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

We were mandated by the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 to 
assess the extension of fee withholding to certain nonattorneys and to 
representatives of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claimants. 
Specifically, we were directed to examine (1) the professional 
experience of different types of disability representatives, (2) how 
judges and claimants view the quality of services provided by the 
representatives, (3) how judges and nonattorneys eligible for fee 
withholding view the implementation of fee withholding for 
nonattorneys, and (4) how the extension of fee withholding to the SSI 
program has affected claimants and representatives. To address these 
questions, we conducted surveys of disability claimant representatives; 
we surveyed administrative law judges (ALJs) and interviewed a small 
number of judges and disability claimants regarding representatives' 
performance; and we requested information from states that receive 
interim assistance reimbursements from the Social Security 
Administration (SSA). We interviewed officials from SSA, several 
states, the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' 
Representatives, the National Association of Disability 
Representatives, the Association of Administrative Law Judges, and the 
National Association of Disability Examiners. Finally, we also examined 
an analysis that SSA had performed regarding fee withholding and 
representative payments. We conducted our work from June 2006 to 
September 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. 

Surveys of Representatives: 

To learn about the characteristics and opinions of nonattorneys 
eligible for fee withholding, we conducted a survey of all 343 
nonattorneys who had met the eligibility criteria and were 
demonstration project participants as of August 2006. SSA provided us 
with a list of these eligible nonattorneys. We conducted this survey by 
mail, from November 2006 to February 2007, and obtained an 88 percent 
response rate. Because this was not a sample survey, there are no 
sampling errors. The survey included questions on topics such as 
representatives' education, experience with representing disability 
claimants, and current disability caseloads; how they heard about the 
fee withholding demonstration project and their satisfaction with the 
implementation of the project; and how often they waive fees for 
claimants. 

To learn about the characteristics and opinions of attorney 
representatives and of nonattorney representatives who are not 
currently eligible for fee withholding, we surveyed a random sample of 
attorneys and a random sample of ineligible nonattorneys. Like our 
survey of eligible nonattorneys, this survey was voluntary and 
individuals were not required to complete it. We surveyed 985 
individuals who had represented a disability claimant at a hearing--494 
who were labeled as attorneys in SSA's database and 491 who were 
labeled as nonattorneys. We conducted the survey by mail from February 
to April 2007. Our weighted response rate was 47 percent overall, with 
a 46 percent weighted response rate among attorneys and a 49 percent 
weighted response rate among nonattorneys. We sent the same survey to 
all 985 representatives in our sample. This survey included questions 
for all representatives on topics such as their experience representing 
disability claimants and their current caseloads. It also included 
questions specifically for attorneys, on topics such as the impact on 
them of the extension of fee withholding to the SSI program and how 
often they waive fees for claimants.[Footnote 16] In addition, the 
survey included questions specifically for ineligible nonattorneys, on 
topics such as their education and whether they were aware of the fee 
withholding demonstration project. 

Data Source for Survey of Attorneys and Ineligible Nonattorneys: 

To develop our sample of representatives for this survey, we used SSA's 
Case Processing Management System (CPMS), which contains data on 
hearings held at SSA since 2003, including data on the claimant's 
representative if the claimant had a representative. Data on the 
representative includes name, address, and whether the representative 
is an attorney or a nonattorney. Each representative in the database is 
associated with at least one identification number, and possibly more 
than one, because representatives are assigned different identification 
numbers when their information is entered in the system by different 
hearing offices; no identification number is associated with more than 
one representative. For this reason, it is not possible to identify the 
universe of unique representatives using identification numbers. To 
draw our sample, we first developed a list of all unique representative 
identification numbers. This list still contained many cases in which 
multiple identification numbers were associated with the same 
representative name. In an effort to generate a list of unique 
representatives, we developed a list that included only one 
identification number, whenever multiple identification numbers were 
associated with the same representative's first name, last name, and 
state of residence. We also eliminated from this list the names of 
nonattorney representatives who were demonstration project 
participants. This list included 77,413 representatives--60,880 labeled 
as attorneys and 16,533 labeled as nonattorneys--and was our best 
approximation of a list of unique representatives. However, it still 
included some cases in which multiple identification numbers were 
associated with the same representative, for example, because a 
representative's name or address was spelled slightly differently when 
associated with different identification numbers. In other words, even 
though we had taken these steps to eliminate duplicate representatives, 
some representatives still appeared more than once in the list, and had 
a higher probability of being selected in our sample than other 
representatives. We randomly selected a probability sample from this 
list of 500 representatives identified as attorneys and 500 identified 
as nonattorneys, and then eliminated a small number of attorneys and 
nonattorneys from the sample because they were duplicate records or 
there was some other problem with the data associated with them in the 
database. 

Efforts to Increase Response Rate for Survey of Attorneys and 
Ineligible Nonattorneys: 

We received a total of 483 survey responses--248 from attorneys and 235 
from nonattorneys. We took several steps to enhance our response rate: 
We sent reminder postcards to the entire sample after about one and a 
half weeks, conducted follow-up phone calls to nonrespondents 
encouraging them to complete the survey after about 4 weeks, and re- 
sent the survey to nonrespondents after about 5 weeks. In cases where 
CPMS had an incorrect phone number--for example, because the 
information was outdated--and we had not received a survey response, we 
used Internet search tools to try to locate current information for the 
record. If in the course of our phone calling we learned a correct 
address, we sent another copy of the survey to the current address. 
Five hundred and two representatives in our sample did not return the 
survey. We were unable to locate current phone numbers for over 40 
percent of these nonrespondents.[Footnote 17] We attempted to contact 
all the other survey recipients who did not return a survey. We were 
unable to reach many of these nonrespondents; the others either agreed 
to complete the survey but did not do so within the survey time frame, 
refused to complete the survey, or were out of scope. (See table 2.) 
Our response rate on the survey of attorneys and ineligible 
nonattorneys, coupled with our comprehensive nonrespondent follow-up 
efforts, allowed us to generalize our survey results to the population 
of attorneys and ineligible nonattorneys representing disability cases 
before SSA. 

Table 2: Dispositions of Representative Survey Nonrespondents for 
Survey of Attorneys and Ineligible Nonattorneys: 

Category: Incorrect phone number; 
Percentage of nonrespondents: 28. 

Category: Agreed to complete, but did not do so within survey time 
frame; 
Percentage of nonrespondents: 24. 

Category: Left phone message but could not reach individual; 
Percentage of nonrespondents: 21. 

Category: Incorrect mailing address and phone number; 
Percentage of nonrespondents: 15. 

Category: Refused to complete; 
Percentage of nonrespondents: 8. 

Category: Out of scope (e.g., deceased or have not represented a 
disability claimant in past 5 years); 
Percentage of nonrespondents: 3. 

Category: Survey returned, but completion inadequate; 
Percentage of nonrespondents: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

Weighting of Data from Survey of Attorneys and Ineligible Nonattorneys: 

On the basis of the responses to our survey of attorneys and ineligible 
nonattorneys, we were able to calculate the probability of being 
selected for each representative in our sample, and to weight each 
respondent to account statistically for the representatives in our 
population. One element of this weighting was the number of times that 
each representative selected in our sample appears in the overall list 
of representatives from which we drew the sample. To determine this 
part of the weighting, we compared our sample of 985 names against the 
entire list of 77,413 to manually determine the number of duplicate 
records for each representative in the sample. The other factor 
affecting the weighting was that some nonattorneys were incorrectly 
labeled in the CPMS database as attorneys, and some attorneys were 
incorrectly labeled as nonattorneys. These data errors affected the 
size of the attorney and nonattorney populations, and therefore the 
actual probability of being selected. On the basis of the rates of 
duplication and misclassification we found among our survey 
respondents, we estimated the actual number of attorney and nonattorney 
representatives. Using both pieces of information--the number of 
duplicate records associated with each representative, and the 
estimated actual number of attorneys and of nonattorneys--we calculated 
weighted response rates for the attorneys and nonattorneys. 

Possible Errors Inherent in Probability Samples: 

Survey results based on probability samples are subject to sampling 
error. Each of the two samples (attorneys and ineligible nonattorneys) 
is only one of a large number of samples we might have drawn from the 
respective populations. Because each sample could have provided 
different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our 
two particular samples' results as 95 percent confidence intervals. 
These are intervals that would contain the actual population values for 
95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 
percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report 
will include the true values in the respective study populations. 
Unless otherwise noted, the margin of error for questions answered just 
by attorneys is plus or minus 9 percentage points at the 95 percent 
level of confidence. Unless otherwise noted, the margin of error for 
questions answered just by ineligible nonattorneys is plus or minus 10 
percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence. 

Efforts to Minimize Nonsampling Errors: 

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce 
other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For 
example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in 
the sources of information that are available to respondents, or in how 
the data were entered into a database or were analyzed can introduce 
unwanted variability into the survey results. With both surveys--the 
survey of eligible nonattorneys and the survey of attorneys and 
ineligible nonattorneys--we took steps to minimize these nonsampling 
errors. For example, GAO survey specialists designed the questionnaires 
in collaboration with GAO staff with subject matter expertise. Then the 
draft questionnaires were pretested with disability representatives to 
ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to 
comprehend. When the data were analyzed, a second, independent analyst 
checked all computer programs. 

Survey of ALJs: 

To learn how ALJs view the performance of different types of 
representatives, we asked judges in 10 hearing offices to assess 
representatives' performances. We asked the judges to assess the 
performance of all representatives appearing before them over a 1-month 
period. Judges completed a short paper survey on the representative's 
performance after each hearing in which the claimant had representation 
during the survey period. The only identifying information provided to 
GAO on the surveys was the name of the hearing office and the category 
of representative being assessed. Judges did not add their own names or 
the names of representatives to these surveys. Across the 10 sites, we 
received surveys for 68 percent of the hearings that took place during 
the survey period in which the claimant had representation. The hearing 
sites at which we deployed the survey were purposefully selected and 
the results cannot be generalized. Our survey does not assess how 
judges across all of SSA's hearing offices nationally view 
representatives' performance. 

Site Selection Criteria: 

We used several criteria to select 10 offices from the 140 hearing 
offices administered by SSA's Office of Disability Adjudication and 
Review (ODAR). Because we wanted to ensure a sufficient number of 
survey responses on the performance of eligible nonattorneys (those 
participating in the demonstration project), our most important 
criterion was the number of hearings held at each office in which the 
representative was an eligible nonattorney. We used SSA's CPMS database 
and the list of eligible nonattorneys provided by SSA to estimate the 
number of hearings held in each office nationally since late 2003 in 
which the representative was an eligible nonattorney. We then ranked 
the hearing offices according to this estimate. Another key factor in 
our site selection was geographic diversity, and among the hearing 
offices with the most appearances by eligible nonattorneys we chose 
sites in 5 of ODAR's 10 regions. Finally, we also based our site 
selection on input from SSA officials on whether certain hearing 
offices would be well suited to participating in the survey effort--for 
example, we avoided offices that had recently experienced transitions 
in their management. (See table 3 for a list of the 10 selected sites 
and their key characteristics.) 

Table 3: Hearing Offices Selected for ALJ Survey: 

Hearing office: Charleston, South Carolina; 
National ranking in number of hearings in which representative was 
eligible nonattorney, December 2003-October 2006[A] (out of 140 
offices): 10; 
SSA region: 4. 

Hearing office: Charleston, West Virginia; 
National ranking in number of hearings in which representative was 
eligible nonattorney, December 2003-October 2006[A] (out of 140 
offices): 16; 
SSA region: 3. 

Hearing office: Dallas (Downtown), Texas; 
National ranking in number of hearings in which representative was 
eligible nonattorney, December 2003-October 2006[A] (out of 140 
offices): 9; 
SSA region: 6. 

Hearing office: Fort Worth, Texas; 
National ranking in number of hearings in which representative was 
eligible nonattorney, December 2003-October 2006[A] (out of 140 
offices): 2; 
SSA region: 6. 

Hearing office: Kingsport, Tennessee; 
National ranking in number of hearings in which representative was 
eligible nonattorney, December 2003-October 2006[A] (out of 140 
offices): 18; 
SSA region: 4. 

Hearing office: Minneapolis, Minnesota; 
National ranking in number of hearings in which representative was 
eligible nonattorney, December 2003-October 2006[A] (out of 140 
offices): 5; 
SSA region: 5. 

Hearing office: Orlando, Florida; 
National ranking in number of hearings in which representative was 
eligible nonattorney, December 2003-October 2006[A] (out of 140 
offices): 3; 
SSA region: 4. 

Hearing office: San Antonio, Texas; 
National ranking in number of hearings in which representative was 
eligible nonattorney, December 2003-October 2006[A] (out of 140 
offices): 1; 
SSA region: 6. 

Hearing office: Tulsa, Oklahoma; 
National ranking in number of hearings in which representative was 
eligible nonattorney, December 2003-October 2006[A] (out of 140 
offices): 12; 
SSA region: 6. 

Hearing office: Voorhees, New Jersey; 
National ranking in number of hearings in which representative was 
eligible nonattorney, December 2003-October 2006[A] (out of 140 
offices): 23; 
SSA region: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPMS data. 

[A] CPMS includes data on hearings back to December 2003, and we 
obtained the CPMS data available as of October 2006. 

[End of table] 

Before administering the survey, we took several steps to ensure the 
success of the survey instrument and the administration method. For 
example, we pretested the survey with several judges to ensure that the 
questions were comprehensible and covered the major aspects of 
disability representation. Also, we pretested the survey and deployment 
approach at two hearing offices--San Antonio, Texas, and Birmingham, 
Alabama--between December 4 and December 15, 2006. On the basis of the 
results of this initial implementation phase, we adjusted our survey 
instrument and the method of administration used when the survey was 
implemented in all 10 sites. We incorporated the pretest data from San 
Antonio into our final survey results, but did not incorporate the 
pretest data from Birmingham because the way we asked judges to respond 
during that pretest did not match the way we asked judges to respond in 
the final survey. 

Response Rate: 

In general, we implemented the survey in all 10 sites between January 
29 and February 23, 2007.[Footnote 18] We worked closely with hearing 
office directors and other administrative staff to implement the 
surveys. We sent each office blank surveys and a list of eligible 
nonattorneys. Hearing office staff agreed that before each hearing 
during the survey period in which the claimant had representation, 
hearing office staff would determine the type of representative 
(attorney, eligible nonattorney, or ineligible nonattorney), indicate 
the representative type on a blank survey, and provide the survey to 
the relevant judge. After the hearing, judges would complete the paper 
surveys and return them to hearing office staff, who would return the 
surveys to us. Because of the approach we took, individual judges and 
representatives were not identified in our survey data, allowing judges 
more freedom to provide an honest appraisal. We calculated an aggregate 
response rate by comparing the total number of surveys we received from 
all 10 sites during the survey period to administrative data provided 
by SSA on the total number of hearings held in the 10 sites in which 
the claimant had representation (see table 4). 

Table 4: Total Responses and Response Rate for Survey of ALJs: 

Attorneys; 
Responses: 1,606; 
Hearings with representation: [Empty]; 
Response rate: [Empty]. 

Eligible nonattorneys; 
Responses: 194; 
Hearings with representation: [Empty]; 
Response rate: [Empty]. 

Ineligible nonattorneys; 
Responses: 156; 
Hearings with representation: [Empty]; 
Response rate: [Empty]. 

Total; 
Responses: 1,956; 
Hearings with representation: 2,872; 
Response rate: 68%. 

Source: SSA data and GAO analysis. 

Note: Data for hearings by representative category were not provided; 
therefore, response rates were not calculated for individual 
categories. 

[End of table] 

Assessment of CPMS Data Reliability: 

We used data from SSA's Case Processing Management System to draw 
samples of attorneys and ineligible nonattorneys and to select sites 
for the ALJ survey. To assess the reliability of the CPMS data, we 
reviewed SSA documentation such as the data dictionary, interviewed 
knowledgeable agency officials, and performed electronic testing of 
certain data. We found some limitations with the data, for example, the 
lack of a unique identifier with which to generate a unique list of 
representatives. However, we judged the data we used to be sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. 

Interviews with ALJs: 

In addition to asking judges in 10 hearing offices to complete surveys 
on representatives' performance, we also conducted phone interviews 
with judges at some of these same offices. We interviewed 20 judges in 
eight offices: Charleston, South Carolina; Charleston, West Virginia; 
Fort Worth, Texas; Kingsport, Tennessee; Minneapolis, Minnesota; 
Orlando, Florida; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Voorhees, New Jersey. We asked 
these judges about the performance of different types of 
representatives, as well as about other topics, including the 
eligibility criteria for nonattorneys to participate in the 
demonstration project and the implications of extending fee withholding 
to the SSI program. 

Interviews with Disability Claimants: 

To assess disability claimants' satisfaction with different types of 
representatives, we conducted phone interviews with 30 claimants who 
had had representation at their hearings: 10 represented by attorneys, 
10 represented by eligible nonattorneys, and 10 represented by 
ineligible nonattorneys. These claimants had attended hearings at 3 of 
the 10 hearing sites that participated in our survey of judges: the 
hearing offices in Dallas (Downtown), Fort Worth, and Orlando. They 
included individuals applying for DI benefits, SSI benefits, and both 
DI and SSI. We asked claimants about their overall satisfaction with 
their representative and about their satisfaction with their 
representative's performance in specific areas, such as the 
representative's efforts to help them understand the disability 
application process and the representative's responsiveness to their 
questions and concerns. 

We obtained from hearing office staff the names and contact information 
for claimants who had had hearings recently, as well as information on 
the type of representative who had assisted them. We attempted to call 
71 claimants and successfully completed interviews with 30 of them (42 
percent). Reasons we could not complete interviews included that 
claimants refused to participate and that the phone number provided by 
the hearing office was disconnected. Among the claimants who did 
complete interviews, in almost all cases we called soon enough after 
the claimants' hearings that they did not yet know the outcomes of 
their claims. 

Questions for States on Interim Assistance Reimbursement: 

To gain an understanding of fees paid to representatives by states, we 
sent questions regarding these fees by e-mail to state officials. We 
contacted officials in the 38 states and the District of Columbia that 
have interim assistance reimbursements agreements with SSA (agreements 
that allow the state to be reimbursed out of a claimant's past-due 
benefits for interim assistance it provides to the claimant while the 
claim is pending). Twenty-nine states responded to our questions. In 
addition, we interviewed officials in 7 of the states by phone. We 
selected these states based on a variety of factors, including the 
amount paid for interim assistance and whether SSA officials reported 
the existence of informal state efforts to coordinate payments to 
representatives. 

Assessment of SSA's Analysis of Administrative Data: 

To assess the effect of interim assistance reimbursements on SSA's 
ability to pay representatives' fees, we reviewed an analysis performed 
by SSA in January 2005. As noted in the discussion of representative 
overpayments, SSA analyzed a sample of cases from the Supplemental 
Security Record (SSR), which contains administrative data on the SSI 
program. The agency examined whether there were any cases in this 
sample in which, after reimbursing a state for interim assistance 
payments out of the claimant's past-due benefits, there might not be 
sufficient benefits remaining to withhold and directly pay the 
representative's full fee. We found that SSA's approach was logical and 
that the computer program it used to conduct the analysis was sound. We 
also assessed the reliability of the SSR data used in the analysis by 
interviewing agency officials and reviewing related documentation, and 
found these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our 
reporting objective. 

Incomplete Data on Representatives' Compensation: 

The Social Security Protection Act of 2004 directs GAO to study the 
characteristics of different types of disability claimant 
representatives, including the amount and the method of payment of any 
compensation paid to representatives. However, we are unable to provide 
all of the requested information on representatives' compensation. On 
the basis of our surveys, we do report some information on the method 
of compensation--specifically, the extent to which attorneys and 
eligible nonattorneys utilize withholding. But we do not report data on 
the amount of compensation paid to different types of representatives. 
We did not ask questions about the amount of compensation received on 
our surveys of representatives, because we judged that these questions 
would be too sensitive to produce reliable information. Also, complete 
compensation data are not available through SSA's administrative 
databases. SSA collects some data on the amount of fees withheld and 
directly paid to attorneys and eligible nonattorneys, but at the time 
of our study this information was limited in several ways. For example, 
it was not broken out between fees paid to attorneys and fees paid to 
eligible nonattorneys. Furthermore, while SSA also collects some data 
on the amount of fees authorized for representatives, there may be some 
problems with the reliability of these data, and the agency was not 
able to provide us with this information because of limitations in how 
the data are collected. 

Data Not Available to Isolate Impact of Representation on Claim 
Outcomes: 

The Social Security Protection Act of 2004 directs GAO to assess the 
effectiveness of the different types of representatives by examining 
the outcomes of disability claims handled by each representative type, 
adjusted for other factors that also affect claim outcomes. We 
considered using SSA administrative data to perform a regression 
analysis in which we would isolate the impact of different types of 
representatives on claim outcomes, after controlling for claimant 
characteristics and other factors that affect outcomes. However, after 
investigating the data available in several SSA databases, we decided 
that it is not possible to conduct a regression analysis that provides 
useful information on the relative effectiveness of attorneys, eligible 
nonattorneys, and ineligible nonattorneys. The available data do not 
include complete and reliable information on claimant characteristics 
that affect claim outcomes, such as severity of impairment, so it is 
not possible to isolate the impact of representative type from these 
other factors. 

SSA in the past collected data on some of these key claimant 
characteristics. However, this data collection effort has been 
discontinued, and the way in which these data were collected would not 
have permitted the identification of eligible nonattorneys--our group 
of interest. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Nonattorney Representatives' Highest Level of Education: 

Table: Nonattorney Representatives' Highest Level of Education: 

Percent. 

Highest level of education: Graduate degree; 
Eligible nonattorneys: 34; 
Ineligible nonattorneys who represent claimants professionally: 26; 
Ineligible nonattorneys who are claimants' relatives and friends: 12. 

Highest level of education: College degree; 
Eligible nonattorneys: 45; 
Ineligible nonattorneys who represent claimants professionally: 51; 
Ineligible nonattorneys who are claimants' relatives and friends: 32. 

Highest level of education: Some college; 
Eligible nonattorneys: 18; 
Ineligible nonattorneys who represent claimants professionally: 17; 
Ineligible nonattorneys who are claimants' relatives and friends: 28. 

Highest level of education: High school diploma; 
Eligible nonattorneys: 3; 
Ineligible nonattorneys who represent claimants professionally: 6; 
Ineligible nonattorneys who are claimants' relatives and friends: 17. 

Highest level of education: Less than high school; 
Eligible nonattorneys: 0; 
Ineligible nonattorneys who represent claimants professionally: 0; 
Ineligible nonattorneys who are claimants' relatives and friends: 11. 

Source: GAO surveys of representatives. 

Note: The responses provided by both groups of ineligible nonattorneys 
regarding their highest level of education are population estimates and 
are subject to sampling errors of no more than plus or minus 11 
percentage points. Because most eligible nonattorneys completed our 
survey, the data presented are not estimates and, therefore, are not 
subject to sampling errors. Percentages may total more than 100 due to 
rounding. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Geographic Distribution of Representatives by Type: 

Table: Geographic Distribution of Representatives by Type: 

Percent. 

Geographic regions: Midwest; 
Attorneys: 24; 
Eligible nonattorneys: 17; 
Ineligible nonattorneys: 21. 

Geographic regions: Northeast; 
Attorneys: 25; 
Eligible nonattorneys: 9; 
Ineligible nonattorneys: 21. 

Geographic regions: South; 
Attorneys: 39; 
Eligible nonattorneys: 63; 
Ineligible nonattorneys: 34. 

Geographic regions: West; 
Attorneys: 12; 
Eligible nonattorneys: 12; 
Ineligible nonattorneys: 25. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA's list of eligible nonattorneys and the 
CPMS database. 

Note: The four geographic regions (Midwest, Northeast, South, and West) 
are those used by the U.S Census Bureau. Some attorneys and ineligible 
nonattorneys may be misclassified since the data source for this 
analysis incorrectly coded some attorneys as nonattorneys and some 
nonattorneys as attorneys. Percentages may total more than 100 due to 
rounding. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Social Security Administration: 

Social Security: 
The Commissioner: 

September 14, 2007: 

Mr. Dan Bertoni: 
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Bertoni: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "SSA Disability 
Representatives: Fee Payment Changes Show Promise, but Eligibility 
Criteria and Representative Overpayments Require Further Monitoring" 
(GAO-08-5). The attached comments provide specific responses to the 
recommendations and identify technical corrections that should be made 
to enhance the accuracy of the report. 

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Candace Skurnik, 
Director, Audit Management and Liaison Staff, at (410) 965-4636. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Michael J. Astrue: 
Enclosure: 

Social Security Administration: 
Baltimore MD 21235-0001: 

Comments On The Government Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report, 
"SSA Disability Representatives: Fee Payment Changes Show Promise, But 
Eligibility Criteria And Representative Overpayment Require Further 
Monitoring" (GAO-08-5): 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on this 
draft report. We find the report to be well-balanced and very thorough. 

First, we would like to note that we are proud of the innovative work 
that went into the timely implementation of Sections 302 and 303 of the 
Social Security Protection Act (SSPA) of 2004. Particularly with 
respect to the direct pay demonstration project for non-attorneys, the 
Social Security Administration (SSA) had little or no experience with 
many of the activities required to implement this demonstration 
project. We are pleased that all of our efforts have been generally 
well-received. 

We are also pleased that you found that the implementation of the fee 
withholding process has gone well and had the intended effects. We 
would like to note that the statements made by some of the SSA 
interviewees related to representative performance are their opinions 
and do not represent the official position of the Agency. 

Our responses to the specific recommendations are provided below. 

Recommendation 1: 

The Commissioner of Social Security should monitor the effectiveness of 
the nonattorney eligibility criteria in continuing to ensure that only 
well-qualified representatives receive access to fee withholding, and 
if necessary adjust the experience standard or other criteria. 

Comment: 

We agree. We believe that requiring applicants to meet all of the 
eligibility criteria, including passing an examination testing the 
applicant's knowledge of relevant provisions of the Social Security Act 
and regulations, in addition to the representational experience 
requirement, ensures that only well-qualified representatives receive 
access to fee withholding. However, if direct payment to non-attorneys 
is extended beyond March 2010, we will review the eligibility criteria 
to determine if adjustments need to be made. 

Recommendation 2 

The Commissioner of Social Security should assess the extent to which 
representatives collect more than their authorized fee through a 
combination of state payments and fee withholding, and if necessary, 
identify and implement cost-effective solutions to ensure that 
representatives either are not paid more than their authorized fee or 
return anything they receive in excess of their authorized fee.

Comment: 

We agree. Withholding and direct payment of fees to representatives in 
Title XVI claims is scheduled to sunset in March 2010. If direct pay to 
representatives becomes permanent, we will work with the States to 
ensure that representatives do not receive fees in excess of that 
approved by SSA for services performed before SSA. 

Recommendation 3: 

The Commissioner of Social Security should continue to explore cost-
effective changes that would address Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
benefit payment delays related to fee withholding in cases where 
recipients receive both SSI and Disability Insurance (DI) benefits. 

Comment: 

We agree. A proposal to modify SSA systems has been funded for fiscal 
year (FY) 2008 that should reduce the delay currently experienced by 
some Title II and Title XVI beneficiaries in receipt of their Title XVI 
underpayment due to direct payment of fees in Title XVI.

[End of section] 

Appendix V GAO Staff Contact and Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Daniel Bertoni, (202) 512-7215, [email protected]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Melissa Emrey-Arras, Lorin 
Obler, Amy Sweet, Kathryn O'Dea, Kathleen Padulchick, Robert Robertson, 
Brett Fallavollita, Susan Bernstein, Carl Barden, Stuart Kaufman, 
Minette Richardson, Daniel Schwimer, Vanessa Taylor, Walter Vance, and 
Joan Vogel made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Social Security Administration: Agency Is Positioning Itself to 
Implement Its New Disability Determination Process, but Key Facets Are 
Still in Development. GAO-06-779T. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006. 

Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs to Be 
Examined in Light of 21st Century Challenges. GAO-05-626. Washington, 
D.C.: June 2, 2005. 

Social Security Administration: More Effort Needed to Assess 
Consistency of Disability Decisions. GAO-04-656. Washington, D.C.: July 
2, 2004. 

Social Security Disability: Commissioner Proposes Strategy to Improve 
the Claims Process, but Faces Implementation Challenges. GAO-04-552T. 
Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2004. 

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

SSA Disability Decision-Making: Additional Measures Would Enhance 
Agency's Ability to Determine Whether Racial Bias Exists. GAO-02-831. 
Washington, D.C.: September 9, 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. 

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. 

Social Security Administration: Information Systems Could Improve 
Processing Attorney Fee Payments in Disability Program. GAO-01-796. 
Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2001. 

Social Security Administration: Systems Support Could Improve 
Processing Attorney Fee Payments in the Disability Program. GAO-01- 
710T. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2001. 

Social Security Administration: Paying Attorneys Who Represent 
Disability Applicants. GAO/T-HEHS/AIMD-00-166. Washington, D.C.: June 
14, 2000. 

Social Security: Review of Disability Representatives. GAO/HEHS-99- 
50R. Washington, D.C.: March 4, 1999. 

Footnotes: 

[1] Prior to the act, attorneys had access to fee withholding for all 
claims arising under Title II of the Social Security Act, including Old 
Age and Survivors Insurance as well as DI claims. Under the act, 
eligible nonattorneys similarly have access to fee withholding for all 
claims arising under Title II. However, in this report we focus on 
representatives involved in DI and SSI claims. 

[2] In March 2006, SSA issued a final rule establishing a number of 
changes to its disability determination process. These changes include 
the replacement of the DDS reconsideration stage with a review by a 
federal reviewing official and the elimination of the Appeals Council. 
SSA initially implemented these changes only in its Boston region, 
starting in August 2006. However, as of 2007, these changes have been 
put on hold while SSA examines the program to determine which portions 
need to be adjusted and which portions can continue to be implemented. 

[3] Only attorneys may represent claimants in appeals to the federal 
courts. 

[4] Because of the approximately 500-day time lag between requesting a 
hearing and receiving a decision from an ALJ, data on representation at 
hearings in a given fiscal year may not reflect claimants' decisions 
about securing representation during that fiscal year. For example, 
claimants with hearings during fiscal year 2006 may have requested a 
hearing and secured representation during fiscal years 2004 or 2005. As 
the fee withholding changes were implemented in February 2005, any 
effects of these changes on claimants' decisions about securing 
representation would likely be seen in representation data for fiscal 
year 2007 or later. 

[5] n general, past due benefits are the total amount of benefits due 
to claimants (and their spouses and dependents, if eligible) that have 
accumulated from the month in which the claimant was determined to be 
entitled to benefits up to the month before effectuation of a favorable 
disability decision for DI claims and the month of effectuation for SSI 
claims. 

[6] We surveyed all 343 nonattorneys who had met the eligibility 
criteria and were demonstration project participants as of August 2006 
and received an 88 percent response rate. For more detailed information 
on this survey, see appendix I. 

[7] We also surveyed random probability samples of 494 representatives 
coded as attorneys and 491 representatives coded as ineligible 
nonattorneys who represented disability claimants at the hearing level-
-and we received an overall response rate of 47 percent. All percentage 
estimates from the survey have margins of error of plus or minus 10 
percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted. Specific margins of 
error for numerical estimates are described in footnotes and table 
notes. Because only representatives who have appeared at hearings were 
surveyed, representatives who work at the initial and reconsideration 
levels may be underrepresented. While the extent of representation at 
the initial and reconsideration level is unknown, our survey results 
indicate that both attorneys and nonattorneys work on cases prior to a 
hearing. In fact, ineligible nonattorneys who represent claimants 
professionally begin representing the majority of their claimants at 
the initial and reconsideration levels. For more detailed information 
on this survey, see appendix I. 

[8] Administrative law judges from the following hearing offices 
participated in our survey: Charleston, South Carolina; Charleston, 
West Virginia; Dallas (Downtown), Texas; Fort Worth, Texas; Kingsport, 
Tennessee; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, 
Texas; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Voorhees, New Jersey. We asked the judges 
to complete a survey on the representative's performance after each 
hearing they presided over in which the claimant had representation, 
over a 4-week period (January 29 to February 23, 2007, for most 
judges). The surveys we received did not identify either the judge or 
the representative being assessed. We obtained a response rate of 68 
percent. See appendix I for more details on this survey. 

[9] We conducted phone interviews with 30 disability claimants who had 
recently attended a hearing with the assistance of a representative in 
one of three hearing offices: Dallas (Downtown), Texas; Fort Worth, 
Texas; and Orlando, Florida. We were able to complete interviews with 
about 40 percent of the claimants whom we contacted. Of the claimants 
we interviewed, almost all were unaware of the outcome of their claim 
at the time of the interview. SSA conducted over 500,000 hearings 
during fiscal year 2006. We cannot generalize from the results of our 
interviews to the experiences of all claimants who participated in 
hearings nationwide. See appendix I for more details on these 
interviews. 

[10] We asked claimants about their representatives' performance in 
several specific areas of disability representation: helping claimants 
understand the disability application process, collecting medical 
evidence, preparing claimants for their hearing, performance during the 
hearing, and responding to the claimant's questions and concerns. 

[11] This assistance is provided by states to help claimants meet basic 
needs, such as shelter, while their application is pending and is 
distinct from the state SSI supplement. Payments in states where we 
interviewed officials ranged from $100 to over $700 per month. 

[12] According to a January 2005 analysis conducted by SSA, in almost 
all cases, there are enough past-due benefits for SSA to pay the 
representative's full fee even after the state is reimbursed for 
interim assistance. Therefore, any fee paid by the state in a fee 
withholding case would almost always result in the representative 
collecting more than the SSA-authorized fee. 

[13] The fee structure varies from state to state--for example, the fee 
may be the SSA-authorized fee or a percentage of the interim assistance 
reimbursement received by the state. 

[14] SSI benefits are based on a claimant's income, as well as other 
requirements, and DI benefits are considered income. Therefore, when a 
claimant receives DI benefits for all or some of the months for which 
he or she is owed SSI benefits, the SSI benefits must be reduced. This 
is an adjustment known as the windfall offset. In practice, however, 
because receiving SSI benefits makes claimants eligible for the 
Medicaid program, the reverse happens: The agency pays the claimant the 
SSI benefits first, and reduces the amount of DI benefits by the 
windfall offset amount. The claimant still receives the same amount of 
total benefits as if the SSI benefits had been reduced instead of the 
DI benefits. 

[15] In some cases, the full amount of the fee may have been paid out 
of the DI past-due benefits and therefore the claimant may not have 
needed to pay the representative out of the SSI past-due benefits. 

[16] While we asked attorneys if they had represented more SSI 
claimants as a result of the availability of fee withholding, we did 
not ask this same question on our survey of eligible nonattorneys, who 
were newly eligible for fee withholding in both SSI and DI cases. 

[17] When the percentages of nonrespondents with an incorrect phone 
number and those with both an incorrect mailing address and phone 
number are added, the total is 43 percent. 

[18] Judges in the San Antonio hearing office participated in the 
survey for a total of 4 weeks: 2 weeks during the pretest period, and 
then another 2 weeks from February 5 to 16, 2007. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability 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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

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. Government Accountability 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***