Another unusual event to report: Social Security sent out a press release on Independence Day! These normally are sent out to anyone who wants them delivered by e-mail but this one was not, apparently because no one was around the office to do it. This may especially be a problem now since the head of Social Security's Press Office just died suddenly. I was unaware of this press release until someone sent me a capy. Here is the press release, which obviously has an angry, defensive tone:
Syracuse's latest "analysis" is just more unsupportable grandstanding masquerading as academic research. Federal law gives Administrative Law Judges substantial decisional independence in making their decisions, so variations between judges are a predictable consequence of Congressional decisions.As with Syracuse's last report on Social Security, this one also is riddled with methodological sloppiness. For instance, without other changes, a 30% increase in judges is going to increase the number of judges who are outliers at both ends of the spectrum, so simply comparing the range does not mean that decisions overall are more variable than in recent years.Syracuse also continues to compare apples and oranges. For instance, National Hearing Centers (NHC) hear a rapidly changing mix of cases by video – one judge hearing cases from Anchorage while the judge next door is hearing cases from Puerto Rico. Accordingly, it is irresponsible for Syracuse, as it does on page 5, to compare judges in an NHC with judges in a standard hearing office without accounting for the substantial differences in the age and origin of the cases.We call on Syracuse University to insist that reports of this nature receive thorough peer review to end misleading errors, and to fully disclose the sources of funding for its reports. Academic integrity requires no less.
Jeez, who pissed in their Cheerios? If they are that defensive, I'd assume the Syracuse study was pretty closely on point with their fears.
ReplyDeletewhile I agree with the general conclusions of the Syracuse report, their methodology lacks any statistical validity.
ReplyDeleteSSA is right to point out the flawed nature of their report. ALJ's should be on notice, but any formal criticism should at least be based on a more solid statistical ground.
There are three kinds of lies... lies, damned lies, and statistics.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised at the way that press release is written. It is not written very professionally. I first wondered if it was really written by the agency. Also is unusual to be released on a holiday. Regardless of the topic or the reaction from the Agency, I am assuming that this press release is atypical and will not happen again.
ReplyDeleteThe methods used to produce the Trac Report are no more flawed than the primrose path methodology that SSA uses when making presentations to Congress about how efficiently it could run if it only had more money. SSA is already a morbidly obese bureaucracy that’s running just to stand still. The more close scrutiny by outsiders, the better.
ReplyDeleteAnon. #5 - if SSA were to be given more money, and use it to hire technicians (CA's and BA's) instead of unproductive bureaucrats in Baltimore, the agency would certainly run more efficiently
ReplyDeletei usually laugh at the tricky buro-spin SSA puts on their reports and projections, but they have a point about the syracuse report.
ReplyDeletethe key measurement is average waiting time, as SSA points out, not necessarily the backlog of pending claims awaiting hearing. 1 million people could apply, get denied, and request a hearing in 2 months and that would add 1 million to the backlog, but if they all get hearings in 2 months is that a failure or an epic victory for SSA?
thus, the increased backlog in the past year or two due to the bad economy tells us nothing about how efficiently SSA (specifically ODAR) is operating. syracuse got it wrong.
Because Syracuse released its report on July 4, SSA issued a statement on July 4.
ReplyDelete