Social Security Advisory Board Draft Report On Social Security Hearing Process

The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has issued a draft report on Social Security's hearing process, by which they mean the way in which Social Security claimants get hearings on disputed Social Security claims, usually disability claims.

The report contains the following paragraph demonstrating clearly the bizarre lack of current concern about the enormous current backlog of claimants awaiting hearings, as compared to concern in the past about much lower backlogs:

In 1976, Congress enacted legislation to facilitate an expansion in the number of ALJs. It characterized that legislation as being of an “emergency” nature to address the “tremendous” backlog of approximately 105,000 cases, with the objective of eliminating that backlog and reducing the average processing time for hearings to 90 days. In 1991 SSA was concerned about a 229-day processing time and formed a Strategic Priority Workgroup to deal with the problem. Average hearing offi ce time for SSA cases soared in the mid 1990s, as the wave of initial claims filed in the early 1990s made their way through the system. In 1995 when processing time hit 350 days, SSA launched a Short Term Disability Project. After falling to 274 days in 2000, processing times rose to 415 days in 2005. It should be noted that this average includes dismissals and decisions made on the record without a hearing. The average processing time for a claimant who has a hearing and waits for a decision is closer to 500 days.

The SSAB describes the current situation as "an intolerable burden on claimants and simply unacceptable."

The report includes the following recommendations:

• The selection process for ALJs should be reformed to make it more responsive to the needs of SSA.
• The ALJ pay system should be revised to provide additional incentives to recruit and retain hearing offi ce chief ALJs (HOCALJs). SSA should also explore with the Office of Personnel Management the possible use of pay for performance for ALJs, with due care for the need to protect decisional independence.
• SSA should address the de facto dual management structure for the hearing offi ce process, which results in confusion and lack of accountability and should provide HOCALJs with the tools and supports they need to do their job well.
• SSA’s multilevel appraisal system should be expanded to all parts of the hearing process. Appraisals should be based on quantifi able performance data, including both quality and quantity of work performed.
• There is a need for additional training and ongoing professional development.