Social Security has released numbers showing the backlogs at the initial level on disability claims. This is from more than six months ago but I don't think there's been significant improvement since. The situation may be worse. The processing time is expressed in days. You can click on the images to view them full size.
17 comments:
What the heck is going on in Oklahoma???
Based on what we're experiencing where I work the times have gotten worse.
I feel like my area (Ind and KY) is much worse than what is shown. I suspect this may include the TII technical denials (not enough work credits) that they can generate in literally a day two after the application (I've had it happen). This would drastically reduce the "average"
SSA data is meaningless, particularly when it comes to DDS. Workloads are shared across State lines and SSA won’t separate out who’s doing what work to quantify each State’s true performance. As a result, decisional rates, processing times, quality, etc are all skewed.
Doesn’t really matter how quick DDS can get to them where I am. I still have allowances being assigned to me from March and April after new hires took claims and quit.
Technical denial really shouldn’t be going to DDS in the first place.
10:36 and 10:54 are spot on
Be weary of any SSA provided data, SSA management loves to "juke the stats." This may look bad, but it is almost assuredly worse. This is just SSA's cooked data to make things look as best they can with the data they have.
NY DDS has improved in the last 6 months. Some of my new clients are receiving the DDS questionnaires within a month of filing. I have also noticed the NY DDS has started approving far more cases -- again this started within the last 6 months and is very noticeable.
Before stats were mostly electronically collected, some were just collected by what the FO reported. Many said that if an item was to be strike tallied to use a fork.
The office I am in tries to use all kinds of questionable tactics to look good. Ex: If we are too close to the RSI goal of 80% timely claims for the month, they'll say to hold any old claims until the following month to process. So making a widow wait a week to have har claim processed makes the office look like they are providing good service. Ghastly!
LOL! If the data doesnt fit your preceived notions, then call it fake news and go with anecdotal information, maybe get the scoop from inside from your bothers cousins girlified, that has a person on the inside living next door.
Pathetic
For years top level SSA from Baltimore through the Regional Offices have directed DDS to hold cases close to the end of the year when goals are met. SSA will NEVER put this in writing. All for numbers sake…shameful!!!
I am in Louisiana and our situation is dire. My clients are waiting way over 360 days for a decision. One of my case at recon was finally approved last week, but it had been pending since March 2022! I have been practicing for a long time and I never had so many clients died while waiting for benefits. It's tragic
@1:50
Nothing new, the offices still do this for RZ goals too. If the RZ goal is met and there’s still time left on the clock, hold ALL unclosed cases until after October 1 (when the clock restarts) and then bam, you have a bunch of RZs “cleared” already in the new year.
It's worse than reported in Mississippi and then after waiting a year to be denied, you deal with reconsideration. It's taking 4 to 6 months just to get someone assigned to work on the case. There is lots of nitpicking to make the process worse than it has to be.
OHO here. Our leadership has already told us that the Agency is going to push hard for us to meet the 270 APT goal, which has never been achieved & not remotely realistic when taking into account all the barriers offices face.
Also, considering the current ACOSS has been looking into OIG for 2 years, doubtful anything will come from this.
Embarrassing. Anyone who thinks universal basic income would be too costly really needs to look at how much time is spent (and how many billions of dollars are wasted every year) trying in vain to make legally sufficient decisions about whether poor sick people should be allowed to collect pathetically small sums of money.
If your "anecdotal" evidence doesn't fit the "narrative," and neither does others "anecdotal" evidence...logic dictates the problem may be the "narrative." For example, the 3.2% COLA. I can't think of anything that has only gone up 3.2 %. The narrative just doesn't fit my reality.
Post a Comment