Plans Old And New

The written statements for yesterday's Social Security Subcommittee hearing are available online. Here are a few excerpts:

Mary Glenn-Croft, Deputy Commissioner for Budget, Finance and Management, Social Security Administration:

We will use a significant portion of this funding to hire and train new employees and to provide additional overtime so that we can process critical workloads. ...

• Our field operations will hire 1,500 employees in local field offices, teleservice centers, and processing centers;

• Our hearings offices will hire 550 new employees and 35 additional administrative law judges, and

• State disability determination services (DDS) throughout the country will hire 300 additional disability examiners.

Robert Hewell, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Public Building Service, General Services Administration

[Schedule for new National Computer Center]:

• Site Acquisition: 2nd quarter FY2010
• Design-build contract awarded: 2nd quarter FY2011
• Construction completion: 1st quarter FY2014

Valerie Melvin, Director of Information Management and Human Capital Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office:

Finally, a number of initiatives undertaken by SSA to improve the disability process and potentially remedy backlogs have faltered for a variety of reasons, including poor planning and execution. In fact, some initiatives had the effect of slowing processing times by reducing staff capacity, increasing the number of appeals, or complicating the decision process. Several other initiatives improved the process, but were too costly and subsequently abandoned. This was the case for several facets of a major 1997 initiative, known as the “Disability Process Redesign,” which sought to streamline and expedite disability decisions for both initial claims and appeals. In the past, we reported that various initiatives within this effort became problematic and were largely discontinued due to their ineffectiveness and high cost. Further, implementation of an electronic system enhanced some aspects of the disability claims process, but also caused delays due to systemic instability and shutdowns at the DDS and hearings offices.9 Further, the “Hearings Process Improvement” initiative, implemented in 2000, involved reorganizing hearing office staff and responsibilities with the goal of reducing the number of appeals. However, many of the senior SSA officials we spoke with expressed the opinion that this initiative left key workloads unattended and was therefore responsible for dramatic increases in delays and processing times at the hearings level.

[Is it churlish to point out that GAO was a cheerleader for all of these ill-considered plans?]

Update: The GAO report originally linked on the Social Security Subcommittee website was for the GAO testimony at the Social Security Subcommittee hearing in March. They have now updated their website to correctly link to the testimony delivered yesterday. This GAO report is extremely preliminary.

Sylvester J. Schieber, Chairman, Social Security Advisory Board

You might wonder why I would suggest that many in the American public would find taking five years or more to build a new computer center and another two to three years to get the operating equipment in place as laughable. I do not believe that most people would consider the five-to-eight-year time frame involved would reflect the urgency this project deserves given the national dependence on this agency. I do not believe that most people would accept that we could not do this on a more timely basis if we were truly committed to the task.