From Workload Review of the Office of Hearings Operations' Atlanta and New York Regions, a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General:
The hearing offices in both regions with high average processing times (APT) had below-average staffing levels, low morale, and issues with telework, claimant representatives, and the quality of the support staff’s work. Other factors, such as administrative law judge performance issues, difficulty scheduling expert witnesses, and a large number of supplemental hearings/postponements also contributed to high APT.
In the New York Region, local office management issues and State filing requirements were also negative factors. In the Atlanta Region, an insufficient number of decision writers and information technology problems were negative factors. In the New York Region, several interviewees cited their Regional Office as a negative factor that contributed to higher APT and lower productivity. The issues that interviewees cited included Regional Office micromanagement, excessive time and oversight devoted to minor issues, goals not agreeing with real capabilities, negative messaging/tone, and frequent changes implemented with little notice or input.
No doubt the Inspector General's Office was trying to do a thorough report but, come on, staffing levels are the story here. Work on the other stuff too but don't expect much improvement without doing something about the staffing levels.
By the way, don't expect any improvement in performance by those who represent Social Security claimants without an increase in the fee cap. Inflation has cut the value of fee payments at the same time the workload has been increased by burgeoning Social Security files and new regulations making new demands. You get what you pay for on, in this case, what you allow claimants to pay for. The agency can adopt all the coercive regulations it wants but things will just get worse until something is done about compensation. If you work at Social Security and think that those who represent Social Security claimants make lots of money, why don't you just leave the agency and get on that gravy train you think you see out there? Almost no one is doing that, however, which should tell you something.
The incredibly high amounts of telework allowed are alarming. If you're already understaffed how can SSA justify letting everyone work from home most days? I would think there would be better levels of staff communication, clearer lines of management and delegation and more of a team effort when staff is co-located and can work together.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be pretty good evidence here that any perceived productivity from telework arrangements is actually not what is happening.
Actually, studies show telework has increased productivity. OHO workers can do nearly everything at home they do in the office. Communication is absolutely no problem with Skype, email and soft phones available.
Delete@11:44 - Absolutely agree with you. It's no secret that productivity has gone down as teleworking has increased. And, can anyone explain to me why GS's and HOD's are teleworking two to three days a week? Who are they managing while sitting at home? No one. The agency needs to take a look at how much teleworking is being done and curtail it. It's not helping productivity one bit.
ReplyDeleteI do work at Social Security and I can't tell you how many claims I have processed where the representative did little more than get the claimant to sign a form (1696) and then do nothing but wait for the approval and subsequent check. I have even had to tell representatives that their claimants had died because they have no contact after the contract is signed. But they should be eligible for more of the claimant's money? No!
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that representatives have no influence over the decision. So, unless a claimant is incapable of cooperating with the claim process, a representative is not needed until the claim reaches an ALJ level.
I don't know what everyone's problem is with telework. Many of my friends work from home part of the week. A couple work from home 100% of the time. I thought what's good for the private sector is good for the public sector? Unless you're a doctor or your job involves manual labor, there's few things we can't do over the computer. Perhaps you've had experience with new technology like phones, email and instant messaging.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's just sour grapes from people whose bosses prefer them to be stuck in traffic a couple hours every day.
@4:07, let's ask ALL our Paralegal HOD's and Paralegal GS's to write decsions, shall we? At TW or in the office is fine with me.
ReplyDeleteThey get the same training and the same salary as attorneys and so many have never written a single decision. What exactly are they doing that merits the salary?
Actually, they make more money than paralegals and staff attorneys. That being said, they do have to spend some time on supervisory activities, albeit not necessarily as much as they do. Some do write decisions.
Delete@4:07 "What exactly are they doing that merits the salary?" That is a very good question. I have yet to hear a very good answer.
ReplyDelete@5:20 Productivity has gone way down as teleworking has increased. It's public knowledge. Apparently, even with phones, email, and instant messaging too much laziness is too prevalent with teleworking. So, one can reasonably believe that teleworking needs to be curtailed. Claimants deserve better.
ReplyDelete7:23: Staffing levels have decreased, case files have increased, more time-consuming policies have been promulgated, new quality assurance standards have been implemented, and you're blaming telework for lower productivity? I'd love to see what statistics, other than personal bias, you're relying on. OIG conducted a study on SSA teleworkers and found that employees teleworking had a higher productivity than the same type of employees that were not teleworking. But that runs counter to peoples' prejudices that being in a cubicle is somehow better than being in front of a computer at home.
ReplyDelete9:13: yet the article here is an OIG report stating telework is a factor in lower productivity and is contributing to low morale.
ReplyDeleteThere is at the very least a correlation between increases in telework at SSA and decreases in productivity.
From the report this thread is about: We found these same issues with telework in a 2017 OIG report.19 That report cited a September 2016 OHO review of telework and hearing office productivity that found, as the number of hearing office teleworkers increased, hearing office productivity declined in three of the four metrics it studied (see Table 1). As more staff teleworked, average cases decided and average hearings held decreased while APT increased.
The No. 1 reason productivity is down is because of poor office morale and the poor environment that top-down micro-management has created these past few years. The No. 2 reason is the way DWPI works and no/trivial bonuses for over-performing encourages one to do only "baseline" work. Has no correlation to Telework at all. Telework has been around since the 1990's - it's not new.
ReplyDelete9:43 - Your selective use of citation from the instant OIG report only further proves that you have an axe to grind. The OIG report went on state:
ReplyDeleteHowever, according to OHO, other factors contributed to the productivity decreases, such as SSA’s elimination of overtime, a staff hiring freeze in mid-FY 2016, less support staff-per-ALJ, and OHO’s effort to reduce the number of aged cases.
At the end of FY 2016 my office had hundreds of decisions waiting to be written because we were short-staffed. And we were in a relatively good staffing position compared to other offices in the region. SSA hired hundreds of new ALJs, driving down the average hearing held statistic while those ALJs were on a learning curve. At the same time, they didn't hire enough attorneys to keep up with the additional workload. My office is still digging itself out of that hole. Also, let's not forget that SSA management actually increased the quota for hearings ALJs (who were not on a learning curve) had to hold per month from 40 to 45 to 50, irrespective of the number of days they teleworked.
But I realize that facts do not fit in with your anti-telework narrative.
@8:00 Poor office morale may be present. But, the stats show that productivity has declined with teleworking too. So, teleworking should be curtailed. It just shows that too many folks lack initiative to do their job when not in the office. So, limit the teleworking. As to the DWPI, folks should have their own self-motivated to the do the job well. Although it would be great to have excellent work rewarded with sizeable bonuses the mere fact it does not happen often enough does not excuse folks from doing their jobs well. ALJ's are a classic example of what happens when a very good paying job is created yet folks lack the initiative to do the job well because they are not held accountable by anyone. Hopefully, the new commissioner will finally hold ALJ's accountable as the failure by so many ALJ's to do their jobs well is patently unfair to taxpayers and greatly impedes productivity at OHO.
ReplyDelete9:13 NO personal bias at all. See 9:43.
ReplyDelete4:59 - What is this "initiative" you're talking about? Do you really think forcing people to be in the office more is going to increase initiative? When an attorney has to draft 1.2 decisions per day, do you think it matters whether those decisions are drafted at home or in the office? If an ALJ is told to schedule 50 hearings per month, do you think the ALJ will decide to schedule 60 once telework is taken away? Your beliefs about the effects of curtailing telework have absolutely no basis in reality. The fact that you ignore the elephant in the room -- low staffing levels -- speaks volumes.
ReplyDelete@11:36 The fact that you're ignoring the blatant stats regarding decreased productivity with increased teleworking speaks volumes.
ReplyDelete@3:54
ReplyDeleteIt is SSA-OHO Managers with recalcitrant, old fashioned, top down micromanagement values like those you persist in espousing, facts and reality be damned, which have nearly destroyed this Agency. This management style is the reason there is such low morale among SSA-OHO employees, and the reason for low productivity. Unless, or until, those like you with these prehistoric attitudes about workforce management are all removed, nothing will ever change or improve. It is you, and those with similar outdated attitudes about workforce management, who effectively serve as nothing more than an anchor on SSA-OHO productivity who are the problem. It’s high time all of you recognize who you are and remove yourself from SSA-OHO.
The years of OHA were much more collegiate, more appropriately staffed with Attorneys and Attorney Managers/ALJ’s who acted professionally, had the intelligence and educational background, and knew how to effectively manage a productive, efficient workforce. Many of those with attitudes like yours migrated from Operations during the HPI Restructuring, and you have done nothing but run this Agency into the ground ever since. It is past time for you to either remove yourselves, or be removed.
I have 32 years with the Agency and while I agree that things ran better prior to HPI, I don’t think it’s because attorneys were in charge (and they were not in all cases - I was a supervisor over legal assistants and hearing clerks prior to HPI and I am not an attorney). It did make sense to have an attorney over the writers. However, one of the downsides of HPI was creating the GS-13 Group Supervisor position, which of course attracted staff attorneys and field office technical experts to come over as supervisors, and they wound up supervising jobs they knew nothing about. I do think HPI went a long way toward ruining our Agency as a place to work.
DeleteBacklogs don’t happen overnight. The official line is to blame decision writers and ALJs are not to blame. This is a complete farce. There is no “all hands on deck” approach to bringing the backlog down and current staffing would bring the backlog down if OHO would stop playing games, intended to get more money from Congress, forcing people to quit or retire due to unbearable working conditions including harrassement, bullying and hostile work environments. Now, added to this is no 2019 pay raise. Don’t let anyone fool you. There is an intentional movement afoot to get rid of OHO employees especially the experienced ones with seniority. Who will get hurt? The public. The number of staff will be decreasing rapidly in the coming months. This is peanuts.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. I have seen, since becoming a union officer, a concerted effort by OHO to drive out older employees. Even EEO has taken notice of it. Older doesn’t always equal seniority, but in many cases it does.
Delete