OIG On "Vision 2025"

     The Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee asked the agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) to review Social Security's Vision 2025 plan. Here's a summary of the OIG report:

Vision 2025 does not include specific, measurable goals or outline the strategy needed to implement SSA's proposed vision. It presents three priorities: superior customer experience, exceptional employees, and innovative organization. Per SSA, these priorities will guide the development of clear goals, detailed plans, and performance measures, which will be outlined in the Agency’s strategic plans and annual performance reports. With this approach, SSA is using short-term strategic planning documents to support a broadly stated “aspirational vision.” We believe SSA’s long-term strategic vision should include specific, measurable goals that clearly outline the service delivery model SSA envisions in 2025 and beyond. This would allow SSA to use its shorter- term planning documents to outline the steps needed to achieve a larger and clearly defined objective.

Also, while Vision 2025 describes its future environmental drivers, it does not explain how the environmental factors will affect its ability to provide services in the future. Additionally, Vision 2025 addresses many of the issues outlined in NAPA’s [National Academy of Public Administration's] long-range strategic plan for SSA, but NAPA’s plan is more specific than Vision 2025. Most importantly, NAPA concluded that SSA needs to develop a more cost- effective service delivery system that is primarily virtual. Vision 2025 does not choose one service delivery method over another and promises a service delivery system that will meet each customer’s desire.

     Let me try to make this easier to understand. Republicans in Congress (and some Democrats) as well as NAPA are frustrated with Social Security. In their view, the current service delivery model, which includes field offices around the country, is inefficient, wasteful and delivers poor service. They don't understand why the agency doesn't move all of its operations online, eliminate its field offices and lay off most of its staff.  That's the "vision" they want from the agency. In Social Security's view, this criticism comes from people who have only the most simplistic idea of what the agency does. These critics envision Social Security as dealing mostly with simple retirement claims and mostly with capable people who can do business online. In reality, while retirement claims involve lots of money and lots of claims, they are only a small part of what the agency does. Most of what the agency does has to do with disability claims, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims and survivor claims. These cases are inherently complicated and the claimants are often seriously impaired. There's no realistic way to put this workload online. There's no realistic way to eliminate field offices.
     Let my give a simple example of the problems that Social Security must cope with. The daughter of an 85 year old woman who is drawing Social Security retirement benefits contacts the agency to say that she believes that her mother is no longer mentally capable of handling her money and needs a representative payee. Someone at the agency contacts the mother who says that she certainly is still capable of handling her money and that the daughter is a drug addict who just wants to steal the Social Security benefits. The person talking with the mother and daughter isn't sure what to do. The mother sounds a little addled but is her condition so bad that she can't handle money? Is the daughter a drug addict? Even if she isn't, is she the best representative payee since it's obvious that the mother and daughter aren't getting along? Is there someone else in the family who could be a representative payee? How is the agency going to deal with this situation only through an online process? Are you really comfortable with someone who is 3,000 miles away investigating this situation and making a decision about what to do? How would you feel about this if this situation was happening in your family?

Visions Of The Future: The Case Of The SST

     I recently posted an e-mail from the President of the union that represents most Social Security employees about the "plan" of a consulting firm envisioning a Social Security Administration without field offices by 2025. Reportedly, the company envisioned an environment in which most people never left their homes except to be entertained. 

     This vision of the future reminded me of the SST. You ask what is the SST? The Super Sonic Transport, of course. The Super Sonic Transport? That would be an airplane that can transport commercial passengers at supersonic speeds, of course. Remember the Concorde? It was an SST. The idea for the SST was that the globe is awfully big, so big that it takes a long time for a commercial aircraft to get from, let's say New York to Los Angeles, much less from New York to London. The time it takes to fly from New York to Tokyo is just ridiculous. It would be so much better if we had aircraft that could take passengers these long distances several times as fast. The vision of the SST emerged in the 1950s. A number of companies started to develop an SST but only one actually produced an SST for commercial use. That was a French-British consortium which produced the Concorde, which first took to the air for scheduled flights in 1976.

     Whatever happened to the Concorde? It turns out that there were a few problems. Planes flying at supersonic speeds create a very loud sonic boom. If you ever hear a sonic boom, you won't forget it. I have. I never heard the Concorde's sonic boom, just the sonic boom from U.S. fighter aircraft. It's literally loud enough to shatter windows. It turned out that no one wanted the Concorde flying over their house. They were banned from flying at supersonic speeds over land. There goes the New York-Los Angeles route and the New York-Tokyo route since so much of that is over land. It also turned out that the Concorde was very, very expensive to build and operate. Concorde fares were sky high, far higher than first class airfare on subsonic planes. The number of people who could afford such expensive airfare was extremely limited. The realization set in over time that there were no technological fixes for the Concorde's problems. The sonic boom can't be engineered away. The cost problem can't be engineered away.

     In the end only two Concorde planes were build. Two. They were gorgeous airplanes but only two were built. The two Concorde aircraft operated for some years but eventually one of them crashed and the other was retired.

     The SST was a wonderful vision. It's a shame that it didn't work but the reasons it wouldn't work were obvious from the beginning. People just ignored the problems because their belief in the vision was so strong.
     The problems with a vision of the Social Security Administration without field offices should be obvious to those who actually have ground level experience with Social Security. The agency doesn't just take retirement claims. It takes disability claims. It takes survivor claims. It takes Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims. Even though most of the money paid out by Social Security goes to retirement benefits, most of the work its employees do is on disability, survivor and SSI claims. These claims are messy and complicated. There's no way to remove the messiness or complexity. It's an inherent part of these benefits. While more and more people are computer literate, many of the people that Social Security employees deal with will never be computer literate enough to deal with the Social Security Administration just over the internet. That's because their transactions with Social Security are complicated and many of these people suffer from cognitive problems or mental illness. These problems aren't going away any more than the Concorde's problems would go away.

Vision 2025: "A Society Where Most People Will Never Leave Their House Except To Be Entertained"

     Below is an e-mail from the head of the union that represents most Social Security employees. From what I hear, just about every Social Security employee who isn't a union member has also seen this e-mail.

From: Witold Skwierczynski

Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 3:28 PM
To: All Bargaining Unit Employees
Subject: Vision 2025

SSA Bargaining Unit Employees:

On March 11, the union was given a copy of a draft plan produced by the National Academy of Public Administration (Academy) entitled "Long term Strategic Vision and Vision Elements for the Social Security Administration" .  The Academy was contracted by SSA to assist the Agency in developing Vision 2025.

SSA is now seeking your ideas for a Vision 2025 plan.  What SSA is not telling you is that they already have a draft plan that is a product of the Academy with the framework of that plan given to the Academy by SSA leadership.

The draft plan has certain principles that we cannot agree with.  First it states that the basis for a Vision for 2025 must be that online services are the primary means for delivering customer service.  This is a change from SSA's long time commitment to allow the customer to determine how they interact with SSA either by face-to-face contact, by phone, or by the Internet.  The entire basis of the field office structure and community based offices where the public can choose to receive face to face service is based on the concept of customer choice.

Another basis for their draft report is the following concept:

we (i.e.,SSA) automate processes to maximize operational efficiency, meet customer demand and diverse expectations, resulting in a smaller workforce and in reduced physical infrastructure.

The Academy's draft report is based on SSA 's desire to eliminate much, if not all, the field structure and to get rid of many employees.  That means closing field offices reducing staff, redeploying current staff and possibly laying off excess workers.   It also means the virtual elimination of face-to-face community based service.

The academy draft report proposes 29 elements under 5 categories: Direct Service Delivery to customers, Indirect service Support of Service delivery, Planning and management of information Resources, Workforce and Organizational Structure and Dynamics.

Item 1 of their 29 "vision elements" is "online self-service delivery is our primary service channel".  Thus, SSA clients will be expected to fend for themselves which is the real meaning of "self-service".

Item 2 states: "we provide direct service options (e.g., in-person, phone, on-line chat, video conference) in very limited circumstances, such as complex transactions and to meet the needs of vulnerable populations."  This means that no longer will a member of the public have a right to communicate with an SSA employee.  The future SSA requires a justification in limited circumstances before a member of the public can talk to an employee face-to-face, by phone, by video-conference or by chat.  The Agency will be staffed with a limited amount of interviewers to insure that only very few get this direct communication option.  My  belief is that  these limited number of interviewers will work in either centralized facilities like PSCs, Regional Offices and Baltimore Headquarters or they will work at home.

Item 3 calls for seamless and integrated customer service channels enabling customers to process transactions in one step start to finish.  That sounds nice but, unfortunately, there won't be any field offices providing seamless service.  When AFGE questioned the Academy about whether this could mean that DDS' would be federalized and SSA employees could be promoted to higher graded positions that adjudicate both the disability and non-disability portions of a claim, its clear that it was not their intention to disturb the current Federal and State relationship.

Item 4 proposes "integrated service delivery across SSA programs and with external partners to improve access to a broad suite of high quality government services ".  What's that about?   This proposal would increase the number of 3rd party claims takers that currently flood our offices with frequently substandard and incomplete claims.  It also looks like the plan is to provide that profit making 3rd party claims takers have more access to SSA's systems.  It's certainly cheaper to use 3rd parties to submit claims and charge either the public or a government agency (i.e. tax $$) for a service that is now provided by SSA employees. 

Item 5 recommends simplification which is a laudable goal but something that gives the union concern.  The simpler the work is, the employees who process it will be workers with lower grades.  The current grade structure is based on the complexity of work that we produce.  Significant legislative changes would be necessary to truly simplify the claims process.

Some of the high lights or, in my estimation, low lights, of the remaining of the recommendations follow:

• "Our work processes are fully automated except for those decisions that require some human judgment."  This recommendation would potentially eliminate the current review of all i claims.  "Full automation" and "some human judgment"  means that most cases will be automated without any review process (i.e., judgment).
• "Our work is "portable" (e.g. electronic case files enable matching workload with available workforce capacity, advancing telework)."  This proposal is consistent with the vision to eliminate face-to-face service and, therefor, dismantle the field office structure.  Remaining employees will work at home- not in offices.  Consequently, no more face to face service in 2025.
• "All our support functions (e.g., Human Resources, Finance) are provided through a shared service model (e.g., within SSA, across government and by contract)."  This proposal envisions widespread contracting out of work currently performed in regional offices, Baltimore Headquarters and Area Director offices to the private sector.  
• Another proposal envisions the IT workforce as primarily focused on development of systems to "effectively leverage private sector services to meet business needs."  This is another indication that SSA's vision is to privatize more and more of what we do.
• "Technology advances allow us to have a significantly smaller and more virtual workforce".  There will be fewer of us and we won't be in the same building - the workforce of alienation.  
• "We make greater use of generalists with an emphasis on problem-solving, communication and data analytics skills."  The Academy only visited 1 field office in Washington DC before making these proposals.  Obviously they don't understand the technical complexity of the SSA programs and that few can be effective generalists due to this complexity and requiring employees to be generalists increases stress and causes health and safety problems.
• "Our "blended" workforce delivers services with greater use of project-based employee and contractor teams."  Why is the current SSA leadership so eager to contract out our jobs?
• "Our communication and business processes enable a dispersed workforce that is no longer working in centralized traditional offices."  
• "Our physical infrastructure is significantly reduced and re-aligned based on service delivery changes, IT and automation investments, and workforce shifts."

On March 12, 2014 the union met with the Academy to discuss these draft proposals.  Obviously we objected to virtually all of them and made the case for maintaining the community based field office structure that continues to allow claimants to determine how they want to get SSA services - including face-to- face services.  We argued that there is nothing wrong with SSA being a government agency made up of government employees. We told them that SSA's overhead is only 1.4%.  This is cheaper than any other benefit program and significantly cheaper than any insurance company.  We argued that its our experience that many people who file claims online make poor decisions that result in permanent benefit loss for themselves and their families and the option of discussing benefit choices with a trained SSA employee is essential to the service that SSA should provide to taxpayers.  We told them that one should not accept continuing reductions in SSA's administrative budget and that what the Agency needs are strong advocates who demand that Congress provide SSA sufficient revenue so that SSA can continue to provide first class face-to-face and telephone services to those members of the public that choose to use them.

Academy members stated that their vision of 2025 is a society where most people will never leave their house except to be entertained. Therefore, there will be no need for offices and face-to-face options.

What a horrible vision! It's a vision of alienation where people in the future will not interact with others except virtually.  I don't accept this vision.  Most SSA employees don't accept this vision.  Those who talk to the public all day know that many couldn't survive without being able to deal directly with an SSA employee to complete their business.

So SSA now wants you to participate in this charade of seeking your input when they have already decided to significantly reduce services.  The recent office and contact station closings, reduction of hours that field offices are open to the public, initiatives to centralize work like moving review of Internet claims away from field offices, elimination of services like numi-lites and benefit verifications, the sudden management acceptance of flexiplace after years of opposition, the installation of self-help kiosks, the requirements demanded by SSA that employees sell Internet claims and services to the public, My SSA, video conferencing used for hearings, further expansion of regional hearing centers, starving small offices of staff till they become non-viable and close, etc. are all SSA strategies to reduce staff, consolidate operations and to transform SSA into an Agency that no longer provides the public with personal service.

The union has decided to offer it's own vision for the future.  This vision would maintain the field structure, continue to offer the claimant filing options, reduce unnecessary management, create more promotional opportunities for employees and enhance their benefits, make the field office a safe and stress free environment, continue to provide services to the public that they request and preserve the integrity of SSA records.  This is a vision that puts the public first and mirrors the services of what the public wants not what some bureaucrat has decided the public should get.  It puts a high value on employee health and safety and enhancement of employees careers and employee benefits. 

Please go on Ideascape and vote YES  on the AFGE plan for 2025.  

After you vote, think about what SSA wants to do.  An elimination of the field office structure means an elimination of your job.  IT'S TIME TO FIGHT TO PRESERVE YOUR JOB.  Please periodically check the AFGE Council 220 website at www.afgec220.org. for actions that you can take to preserve your job and to keep up with what SSA and the union is doing.  Also, check out our Facebook page at RallyPoint.

Witold Skwierczynski

President

AFGE Council of SSA Field Operations