The Wall Street Journal asks "Who Needs 1,000 Social Security Offices?" Of course, they think the field offices can be replaced by online services. I'll bet the authors couldn't define the difference between Disabled Adult Child and SSI Disabled Children's benefits. In other words, they assume that paying retirement benefits is basically all that Social Security does because they really know little about what the agency does.
Dec 23, 2024
WSJ Wants To Know "Who Needs 1,000 Social Security Offices?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Nobody gets all that SSA does, and only those on the margins of the programs will be impacted by shutting down field offices. But those people are on the margins, so they dont really count. It isnt until Mom or Dad gets accidentally declared dead and the LTC is ready to boot them because you cant get the record straight that it matters. Fa la la la la
Well, they can't just be replaced by online services. However, there surely are sites that should be closed. Those that are either repeatedly dysfunctionally small or those near other locations should close. Telework has made small sites a real problem and a giant waste of money. It's time to think a bit more like a business when making real estate and staffing decisions. This idea that nothing can close is not intelligent.
Back in the day when I was a Staff Attorney at a Hearing Office, I learned from the ALJ I worked for that the most important part of a hearing before an ALJ was that you were able to come face to face with the person making the decision in your case. Good or bad, that personal contact at least could make you feel that you were a person and there was a real person on the other end making a decision.
Well that is pretty much done with telephone and video hearings. So much the worse for it even if the new system is more "efficient". That personal contact is gone.
Only being able to deal with issues over the phone, even if you can get through to a DO, is just not enough. People need to be able to have that personal contact. Losing that, as the WSJ people seem to think is good enough, destroys peoples faith in Government. Maybe that is their ultimate goal
We need the offices. Even as much of the work is done on the phone, claimants need to be able to make contact with the social security office in person, and it doesn't need to be miles away.
The entitlement displayed by those that have no understanding of how poverty works is amazing. Millions of people do not have the ability to handle business online with SSA. CLUE poor people, those with disabilities, those folks dont have a device to do online services! Many lack the understanding to navigate those services. Not everyone has what you take for granted every day.
Here is a good one that is real and cannot be done online or over the phone. Client becomes eligible on spouse record, goes into pay, there is an offset for teachers retirement. The offset causes the spouse benefit to go so low it doesnt always cover Part B premium. This occurs for over 5 years. Part B is eventually stopped causing teachers benefits to stop. Fix that online or over the phone, I double dog dare you. We see problems like this weekly. No office access equals no problem solving.
Online is not an option for most of my clients.
The comments and this post are ignorant. It is 2024. Virtually everyone has access to the internet and a phone. But SSA has inefficient systems and too much red tape for people to effect changes online. The author is correct in that if you fix these things you can close 90% of the offices. You don't hold close to a billion dollars in real estate simply because there is a finite number of homeless people who need in person assistance. That can be targeted and fixed more heartily in any number of ways such as virtual meetings at the library, homeless centers, or any number of ways. This is why we need DOGE to think outside the box for us. And the distinction between DAC and SSI Disabled Children's benefits has no relevance to the efficacy of paying millions each year for lightly used real estate. To the commenter on in-person ALJ hearings: hogwash. Nearly all claimants and claimant reps elect for virtual hearings, which are far more efficient.
Thank you Ebenezer
“This is why we need DOGE to think outside the box for us.”
Really? Yeah, ok, why think for ourselves? It’s not like the people who frequent boards like this would have any good ideas. Better leave that pesky thinking up to the billionaires. They’ll do right by us, I’m sure.
Perhaps small offices are needed for in person service, but, it is ridiculously inefficient to have disability claims processed at all these local offices. You've got people doing too many different things and each office can set their own policies making it confusing for everyone. It would be much more efficient to have a centralized intake (perhaps regional) for processing claims. The VA has a centralized intake that works much better than SSA's system.
“Finite number” of homeless folks? No worries, I’m pretty sure the country makes more every day.
Not everyone has access to scanner/faxes. People bring all kind of documents to SSA: Birth certificates, marriage certificates, employment records. SSA wants originals, do you know how many times my clients mail documents that were claimed not to be received? It's neither easy or cheap to get a copy of your birth certificate, or naturalization certificate if it's lost. Also SSA deal with people that are unable to see , deaf or cannot speak. And yes, unhoused people are people and they also are deserving of services.
Having worked for Social Security for almost 4 decades I can tell you that there are many instances requiring face to face contact.Much can and is done over the phone,but I still help people with masters degrees file their initial claims online.I am sure that some underutilized offices could be closed or consolidated as well as central office staff assisting with public service.There are always efficiencies to be found but random closing of large field offices is certainly not the answer.
Even more basic... Just try and close an office and see all the howling from Congress.
Having offices also keeps the squeaky wheel needs front and center. It's very easy for employees on the phone to just not quite care enough sometimes. When you have someone across the desk from you that demands an answer, that works. Well, mostly it works. Half the time the fix needed is at another location such as a payment center. Still, FOs like it or not give out customers a voice. Sure, that's the part most would rather get rid of, but sometimes people need to be seen and heard to be taken seriously. We seem to sometimes have the illusion that we can take the tough job out of meeting people's needs.
Not according to Elon's jockstrap @11:45am above. Poor people aren't human beings in their world view, just animals to be tolerated.
"Virtually everyone" and the ones who don't are poor or disabled and can just die quietly, right?
Who needs the Wall Street Journal?
Some background on the authors:
Blair Levin is a telecom guy, Clintonite, and currently at the Brookings Institute. A Yale grad technocrat wonk.
Larry Downes was a McKinsey guy turned Internet guru, net neutrality hater and Harvard Business Review book factory. A self-promotional consultant- think Shingy with a normal haircut.
Neither of them are serious social policy people. A "why don't we just let homeless people get on the iPads that we all know they really own" opinion piece in the WSJ is in many ways unsurprising.
Reminder that while the WSJ's news side is still eminently well respected, their opinion side is taken far less seriously for their tendency to enthusiastically publish any right-wing kook's fever dream, as long as they are wearing a tie.
Recent internal studies support this. Customer service ratings are excellent when the public deals with SSA in person and subpar over the telephone.
Here, here. That is the real answer to WSJ's question. Members of congress of both parties want local offices open because their constituents want them open.
SSA needs to widen it footprint nationally with smaller Field Offices supported by 2-3 people that direct walk-ins and individuals with an appointment to an individual video kiosks. Video kiosks connected to Claims Representatives across the country supporting various SSA services enabling workload balancing as needed. The onsite staff would provide logistics support for scanning/printing as needed. Use staff more efficiently across the country that better utilize remote work. Build specialized capabilities that do not need to be collocated. Small office footprints cost less plus could be moved, added, and closed based on demographic changes where services are needed.
Um, so no skill locally? Just some clerical types? Heck, we can't hire a CSR in some locations because the pay is so low. Also, are you going to have guards at all those locations? Those contracts are spendy and last I checked required. Any management? What happens when say two of the theoretical employees were on scheduled leave and the other person calls in sick? Just close the doors for the day? And where would you put all of this video staff? Assign them to the expensive big city localities like we currently do with many offices, PCs, and regional office locations? It seems like the idea should be to look for cost savings. Honestly, that idea about widening the footprint and offering video kiosks sounds like a CO idea if I've ever heard of one. From my experience,.the FO folks at home do not want to be seen. It's hard enough to get them to display video for a staff meeting.
Post a Comment