A Little Help, Please

There are some issues I would like to post on, but I do not have access to Social Security records on these points. None of this should be secret. Much of it would be available on Social Security's intranet, but, of course, I have no access to that, since I do not work for Social Security. I would appreciate it if some kind soul or souls could send me information on the topics listed below -- and please do not send me intranet links. Send e-mail to charles[at]charleshallfirm.com

1. Statistics on backlogs of EDCS data entry. I get the impression from my own law practice that a serious backlog is developing in data entry at the District Offices. Claims and appeals are piling up because no one has the time to do the data entry in EDCS. Are any numbers available? Is this making the ODAR backlogs look better (or less bad) than they are?
   
2. Statistics on productivity before and after EDIB. EDIB has been in place in some areas long enough that statistics should be available on productivity before and after EDIB. Something tells me that good numbers would have been trumpeted loudly, but I have seen nothing. What do the numbers say?
   
3. 800 number error rates. There was a study years ago showing that Social Security's teleservice centers gave bad advice something like half the time when claimants asked even moderately complex questions. I have clients telling me about all kinds of nonsense that they were told when they called Social Security's 800 number. Has Social Security done any recent studies on how accurately teleservice centers respond to inquiries?
   
4. Memos about "private" numbers at Field Offices. Anyone who deals much with Social Security Field Offices knows that it is almost impossible to get through if you call the telephone numbers shown in the white pages of the telephone book for Social Security's local Field Office. Every Field Office has one or more"private" telephone numbers that employees and their families can use to get through to the office. Otherwise, a Social Security employee would face a daunting task to even call in sick. I am NOT looking for a list of these "private" numbers. I would be interested in any memos discussing policy on these "private" numbers. Those who work at Social Security or deal with the agency on a regular basis take this situation for granted, but it must seem strange. I would say that it is an indication of something terribly wrong that an employee has to use an unlisted number just to get through to his or her own office.
   

What Committments Did Michael Astrue Make To Become Commissioner?

Back in October I wrote about how outside groups might ask senators to extract commitments during the confirmation process for Michael Astrue, the nominee to become Social Security Commissioner. The confirmation process is over and Astrue has been confirmed. Let us look back at the issues I thought would be raised (and one which should have occurred to me but did not) and the results that we have seen so far:

1. Keep the Social Security Administration out of politics, including any renewed effort at privatization or other "reform" of Social Security. This was a no-brainer. It was the first subject covered in the confirmation hearing and Astrue gave a clear committment to keep the Social Security Administration out of politics.
   
2. Officially withdraw the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would increase the age requirements of the grid regulations. This did not come up during the confirmation hearing, but that does not mean that it did not come up during the private interviews before the hearing. We can hope this one will be quietly withdrawn. It would certainly be impolitic of Astrue to officially adopt the regulations. I do not expect any announcement that the proposal has been withdrawn, however. If it is going to be withdrawn, the winddrawal will just be hidden away in the next regulatory agenda that Social Security has to publish in the Federal Register.
   
3. Do something now about the backlog of pending requests for hearings at Social Security, such as restarting "re-recon" and senior attorney decisions. Again, this subject was not covered during the public hearing, but that does not mean that Astrue was not asked to make a commitment privately. Since this would be fairly quick and easy to do, we can hope to find out before long. Astrue did publicly commit to talking with the employee unions. The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) has been pushing for the senior attorney program. The House Social Security Subcommittee may be pressing Astrue on this one as well.
   
4. Speak publicly about Social Security's budget problems. It was clear from Astrue's comments during the hearing that Social Security's budget is already very much on his mind. It also seems clear that he wishes to avoid the trap of promising that some grand plan will improve service at Social Security without regard to Social Security's budget. He seems prepared to tell Congress that the level of service that the Social Security Administration provides the American people is determined by the budget they provide his agency. This is an enormous step forward. It remains unclear whether he is willing to speak outside Congressional committee rooms about the problem.
   
5. Raise the fee cap. Under the fee agreement process, attorneys and others representing Social Security claimants are currently limited to a maximum fee of $5,300, as a practical matter. This cap has not been raised in more than five years. Adjusting this cap for inflation is at the discretion of the Social Security Commissioner. The National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) was seeking a commitment from Astrue to not only raise the cap to account for inflation, but also to make cost of living adjustments an annual event. We should find out on this soon, since almost no effort is required to raise the fee cap.
   
6. Talk with the employee unions. This is one that I should have foreseen, but did not. Jo Anne Barnhart talked with everyone who was interested in talking with her, with one huge exception -- the employee unions. The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) were extremely unhappy with this and demanded that the new Commissioner meet with them. Astrue promised during the confirmation hearing to meet with the employee unions.
   

Budget Hearing Ends In Acrimony Over Social Security

I thought that the Treasury Secretary was the last person in America to believe that Social Security "reform" was possible in this Congress. I stand corrected. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad must have been the last. From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Back-channel efforts by the White House and Capitol Hill Democrats to begin trying to negotiate a solution to the fiscal problems of Social Security and other federal benefit programs appeared to collapse Wednesday.

At issue is a little-publicized attempt by the White House and members of Congress to set up a working group of lawmakers and top administration officials to fortify benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare for the severe future fiscal challenges due to the looming retirement of the Baby Boom generation. Three-fourths of the group, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, would have had to agree on any solution.

But Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., accused the White House of acting in bad faith at a panel hearing that turned acrimonious over White House Budget Director Rob Portman's unwillingness to acknowledge that tax increases should be part of any fix for the long-term problems of the huge federal benefit programs.

"We have an opportunity here to work together, but the only way I know in human relations for there to be resolution between parties who have different views is for both sides to compromise," Conrad said. "Unfortunately I see virtually none on your side. And I regret that more than I can say."

Conrad then gaveled the hearing to an end and immediately left.

,Social Security Subcommittee Schedules Hearing

Mike McNulty, the Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee is not wasting any time. Below is an excerpt from a notice from the Subcommittee,but there is no mention of who will be testifying:

Congressman Michael R. McNulty (D-NY), Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the Social Security Administration (SSA) disability claims backlogs. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, February 14, 2007, in room B-318 Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 2:00 p.m. ...

The workload of SSA has grown significantly in recent years due to the aging of the population and new workloads such as those resulting from the Medicare Modernization Act (P.L. 108-173) and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458). However, due to funding constraints affecting SSA’s administrative budget, these increasing workloads are not being effectively addressed. The agency has done much to employ scarce resources efficiently, re-engineering work processes and increasing overall productivity by more than 13 percent from 2001 to 2006. Even with these improvements, however, there is a growing concern about the effect of staffing declines and other resource shortages on service delivery to the American public.

Nowhere is the situation more grave than in the processing of applications for disability benefits. Due to large and increasing backlogs, severely disabled individuals can wait years to get the benefits they need for basic economic survival. At the end of fiscal year 2006, about 1.3 million people were awaiting a decision on their initial claim or appeal for Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits.

The President’s FY 2008 budget request would provide a modest funding increase. However, given rising fixed costs and other factors, this would not be sufficient to maintain current staffing levels, which had already declined by 8 percent from FY 2006 to FY 2007. Thus, the disability backlog is projected to increase under the President’s FY 2008 budget to almost 1.4 million cases.

This hearing will focus on the disability claims backlog, including how the delays impact individuals who have applied for disability benefits; the effect on other critical agency workloads, including program integrity activities; steps SSA has taken to date to resolve the backlogs; and options for addressing the problem.

In announcing the hearing, Chairman McNulty said, “The current delays in receiving disability benefits are completely unacceptable. Americans who have worked hard and paid into the system should not have to wait for years to get benefits they have earned and desperately need. SSA must have sufficient resources to give the American people the service they deserve.”

An Effect Of Privatization Effort -- Or Is It Service?

President Bush's push to privatize Social Security may have taken a toll on public perceptions of the Social Security Administration, or perhaps it is declining service at Social Security. A Harris poll asked about public perceptions of various federal agencies. Social Security got the lowest marks of the 13 agencies asked about, with only a 40% positive rating. Only 5% rated the job that Social Security does as excellent. Social Security's rating is down significantly from the last time such a poll was done, in 2004, when 51% gave the agency a positive rating. Younger Americans were the most negative on Social Security.

OIG Plans ALJ Caseload Performance Review For 2007

Social Security's Office of Inspector General has published its plans for reviews it intends to conduct in 2007. Many, many reviews are planned. Here is a description of one of them:

Administrative Law Judges’ Caseload Performance

Objective
To evaluate SSA’s oversight of ALJ caseload performance.

Background
Federal legislation prevents SSA from requiring that ALJs process a certain number of cases. However, SSA may set reasonable production goals for ALJs as long as the goals do not infringe on ALJs’ independent decision-making processes.

Federal legislation also prevents SSA from establishing a performance appraisal system for ALJs. However, disciplinary actions can be taken against ALJs if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds good cause. In two cases we reviewed, the Merit Systems Protection Board found that an ALJ may be disciplined for substandard production, but SSA did not provide sufficient evidence to compare ALJs’ caseloads. Therefore, the Board denied the request for action against the ALJs based on poor production.

In a prior review, we determined the number of cases processed by ALJs at one hearing office ranged from as few as 276 to as many as 1,892 in a 1-year period. This variance may have occurred because the ALJs were given the discretion to determine the number of cases they would process instead of SSA establishing the number and holding ALJs accountable for reasonable production goals.

Social Security Claim Leads To Arrest

From Fox23News.com:

A North Carolina man faced a Massachusetts judge today on sexual assault charges dating back to 1975. Police tell us they finally caught up with Richard Victor Clark when he tried to apply for Social Security benefits.

Social Security Workforce Dwindling

When considering what the budget for this fiscal year and the next will do to the Social Security Administration, one first needs to look at what has happened to Social Security over the last fiscal year. The federal Office of Personnel Management posts figures for employment at each agency by quarter. The figures are not yet available for the last calendar quarter of 2006 or any part of 2007, but they are available for the end of the 2005 fiscal year, which was September 2005, and for the entire 2006 fiscal year.

September 2005 66,147
December 2005 65,777
March 2006 64,297
June 2006 64,814
September 2006 63,647

This shows that the number of employees at Social Security decreased by 2,500 exactly in the 2006 fiscal year. This was a 3.8% decrease. This was without a hiring freeze and in the face of an increasing workload and at a time when Social Security already had huge backlogs.

By the way, if you are wondering why the workforce bumped up in June 2006, I think I can explain it. That was crunch time for the initial implementation of Medicare Part D. Social Security got some extra funding for that, although not much, since the bump in employment was so minor and the impact upon the agency so large.

The employment level proposed for Social Security in the President's 2008 fiscal year budget is 59,800, which is a 6% decrease from the level as of September 2006.

Basically, it appears that Social Security is being budgeted into a 3-4% staffing decrease per year, but, of course, there has been a change in control of Congress, so the result for the 2008 fiscal year budget may be different, although the difference for the 2007 fiscal year budget, which will be passed by a Congress controlled by Democrats, looks to be even worse, a hiring freeze.

Unless there is a turnaround in Social Security's operating budget, it is hard for me to see anything ahead over the next five to ten years other than a complete breakdown in Social Security's ability to get its work done, with it taking dozens of calls to get through on Social Security's 800 number, people lined up before dawn outside Social Security offices, months long backlogs at almost every stage of every process at Social Security and Social Security's hearings and appeals process breaking down to the point that it becomes almost worthless. If that sounds impossibly bleak, ask yourself how Social Security can cope with a 30-40% decrease in its staffing over the next ten years. Without a major turnaround, that is what is ahead.