Arizona Republic On Hearing Backlogs

The Arizona Republic has a story up on Social Security's backlogs in holding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings. That newspaper joined the growing list of newspapers running articles on this subject.

This backlog grew dramatically in 2001, but virtually no newspaper was covering the story. For several years, the backlog has been terrible, but there were few newspaper stories on the issue. One gets the feeling that the traditional media feels that the Democratic victory in the 2006 election somehow makes it "safe" for them to report on the situation.

Social Security And Terrorism Investigations Or Is It Just Illegal Immigration?

From the Washington Post:

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Social Security Administration's vast databases of personal information have become a resource for federal investigators, who have asked the agency to check tens of thousands of records for number misuse and identity fraud -- potential precursors to terrorist activity.

The Social Security Administration is "literally the Fort Knox of identity information in the United States," said James Huse, the agency's inspector general from 1998 to 2004. "That's a pretty impressive investigative tool that no other agency possesses."

From just after Sept. 11 through 2005, Social Security officials sent prosecutors 456 referrals that were classified as terrorism-related, according to statistics compiled by Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. The review shows that 91 percent of those referrals led to prosecutions.

Only the departments of Justice and Homeland Security have referred more terrorism-related cases for prosecution, according to the Syracuse records, which are based on data compiled by the Justice Department's Executive Office for United States Attorneys."

Still, few if any suspects in Social Security cases are ever linked publicly to alleged terrorist activity. Most cases referred to prosecutors in the months after Sept. 11 involved document fraud by Latino immigrants working at airports.

A Fresh Approach

A press release from uTANGO and Kelton Research tells us that "...the majority of young Americans (94%) would trade their consumer loyalty and become long-term, loyal customers of major retailers in order to earn up to a $1 Million nest egg for retirement", because their survey shows that nine of ten Amernicans between 18 and 40 do not trust the government to solve the problems facing Social Security. Apparently, uTANGO is already trying to set up such a plan which it suggests as a replacement for Social Security.

Dude, you're trying too hard with that name, uTANGO. Also, your idea, is, like, weird.

Cleveland TV Station On Hearing Backlogs

Cleveland television station WKYC is reporting on the huge backlogs of Social Security disability claimants awaiting a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The backlog is currently 13,000 in the Cleveland area.

OIG On ODISP: Was Martin Gerry Fired Because Of Some Wrongdoing?

In March of this year Martin Gerry was abruptly fired as head of Social Security's Office of Disability and Income Security Programs (ODISP). Also, in March of this year, Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue asked Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) to review "the organizational structure and functions of ODISP." OIG has now delivered its report.

The crucial question for many people is "Did this OIG 'review' cause the firing of Martin Gerry?" This question is crucial since there have been rumors that Gerry was fired as a result of an OIG investigation, which would imply some wrongdoing on Gerry's part. The rumors are understandable, since OIG has the task of rooting out corruption in the agency and OIG has been investigating ODISP over the last couple of months. However, OIG has the more mundane task of doing studies of agency organization and efficiency.

There is nothing about the report to suggest wrongdoing on Gerry's part. Everything about the report suggests that it was directed at determining whether a reorganization of ODISP was a good idea and, if so, what kind of reorganization would be a good idea. Everything also suggests that the investigation started only after Gerry was fired.

It is conceivable that OIG was looking at something more than how ODISP is organized, but there is nothing in this report to suggest they found anything more than an organizational structure that ought to be looked at and "poor communications."

Here is a summary of the recommendations of the report, which does contain thinly veiled criticism of Martin Gerry, but the criticism merely concerns management style:

RESULTS OF REVIEW
Our review of the structure and functions of ODISP found that this component is not focused solely on planning and program policy issues, but instead is responsible for several operational functions. Specifically, we found that some functions within ODISP may be better aligned to improve coordination and productivity and some other functions appear to be inconsistent with ODISP’s mission and may be better managed elsewhere in SSA.

Additionally, throughout our interviews with about 17 percent of ODISP’s employees as well as several of ODISP’s customers, a consistent theme was poor communication within ODISP and between ODISP and other SSA components.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SSA may be better served from a functional point of view if ODISP’s main focus were program policy. Therefore, we recommend the Agency:

• Re-direct ODISP’s focus to program policy.
• Align similar/related functions within ODISP.
• Delineate more clearly the role of ODISP with respect to other components.
• Improve communications within ODISP and other components.
• Consider renaming ODISP and SSA’s Office of Policy to clarify the roles of each component, or combining ODISP with the Office of Policy.

The criticism that Gerry did not foster good communications is no surprise. Many had noted for years that both Gerry and former Commissioner Barnhart were secretive. By the way, if all Social Security managers who exhibited poor communications were fired, Social Security's management ranks would be decimated. I think you could say that about just about any organization.

Here is an interesting little nugget from ODISP's response to the report, that contains some information that I had not heard before:

This is a particularly critical time for PolicyNet since we are working with all involved components to totally revamp the ”look and feel” and functionality of the Program Operations Manual System (POMS), which is by far the largest policy repository on PolicyNet. We have worked with contractors to create system prototypes and demonstrations and we have created a management structure which includes an AC-level Steering Committee and intercomponent workgroups.

New Social Security Cards Coming?

There was a major agreement today on a new immigration bill. The bill may go through many more changes before it passes, if it ever does, but this agreement is a major step forward. While the bill has many implications, this blog is concerned with the question of what effect it will have on the Social Security Administration. Here is part of a story in the Los Angeles Times:

The bill focuses heavily on border security and work-site enforcement, two areas that the senators spent weeks negotiating in painstaking detail. ... Work-site enforcement would include a tamper-proof ID, probably a Social Security card, that some Senate aides said would have to be presented in combination with a passport or tamper-proof driver's license.

Assuming this "tamper-proof ID" is a Social Security card (and it is hard to imagine what else it might be) would this be a big deal for Social Security? The new Social Security card might require a photograph of its holder or some form of "biometric" information. Getting the equipment and personnel to create such cards just for those who need a new or replacement card would be a major undertaking.

However, everyone in the United States would have to get one of these new Social Security cards sooner or later. Most Americans would have to get a new Social Security card within the next few years. Thereafter, everyone might have to get a new Social Security card periodically as their appearance changed. This has the potential to make Social Security offices resemble drivers license bureaus. How much additional staff might this require? We will have to know the details to get a better picture and even then it will take much study to get a good idea, but a wild guess is that this might require a Social Security Administration that is double or triple its current size.

Let me be the first to say that if this happens, it may end up being wonderful news for the Social Security Administration. Currently, few Americans have the misfortune of having to deal with the critically understaffed Social Security Administration. That will not be the case if Social Security has to start issuing tamper-proof Social Security cards. The terrible service that Social Security provides at the moment would never last once large numbers of Americans have to start dealing with the agency.

Budget Resolution For SSA At $10 Billion

A Congressional conference committee has reported out a final version of the Congressional budget resolution. Thus far, I have been unable to access the actual resolution. However, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has put out a press release saying that the final fiscal year (FY) 2008 budget resolution for Social Security is $400 million over the President's recommendation, which would make the total for Social Security $10 billion. While considerably better than President's budget, this is still down from the House of Representatives version of the budget resolution, which was $10.1 billion. FY 2008 begins on October 1, 2007.

Remember that the budget resolution is not money that an agency can spend. It is merely a guideline used by the Appropriations Committees who determine exactly what each agency gets -- and to some extent how each agency can spend it.

From The Encyclopedia Of Ethical Failures

Stephen Epstein, Director of the Defense Department's Standards of Conduct Office, maintains the Encyclopedia of Ethical Failures, which catalogues ethical lapses at all federal agencies. Here are the excerpts concerning Social Security employees, although (no offense to the vast majority of honorable Social Security employees) I think there are more that he has not heard about:

Bribery

A Social Security Administration employee and her husband were convicted for soliciting bribes from individuals seeking Social Security benefits for themselves or family members. The couple approached citizens who were having difficulty qualifying for Supplemental Social Security benefits. They would offer to arrange to have benefits reinstated or to complete paperwork for the individual. Afterwards, they demanded payment for their services.

At their 1997 trial in Louisiana, a judge ordered the employee to 46 months imprisonment followed by three years probation. The employee's husband received 30 months imprisonment followed by three years probation. They each paid back $23,809.33.

Conflict Of Interest

The Facts: In the "off-time" from her work with the Social Security Administration, a senior attorney opened her own legal practice and represented clients with claims against that very same Administration. For her double-duty, she was sued by a U.S. Attorney and ended up agreeing to a settlement that required her to pay the United States $113,000 for this and other violations—not a typical attorney's fee!

Hatch Act

Two federal employees, one at the Environmental Protection Agency, the other at the Social Security Administration, were disciplined for violations of the Hatch Act. Although federal employees are entitled to support the political candidates of their choice, the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity while on duty. ... the SSA employee favored George W. Bush, and while on duty, sent a similar email to 27 of his co-workers and other individuals. It was irrelevant which candidate each employee supported, both were found to have violated the Hatch Act because sending emails in support of any candidate while on duty constitutes prohibited political activity. Disciplinary action for violations of the Hatch Act range from 30-day suspension without pay to termination from federal employment.