Some excerpts from some of the written statements for the House Social Security Subcommittee hearing today -- and I am only trying to excerpt what is new, rather than giving you the flavor of the statements. I have added a few of my comments in brackets:
Frank Cristaudo, Chief Administrative Law Judge:
Frank Cristaudo, Chief Administrative Law Judge:
Our present target, which we continually review based on the most current productivity and workload data, is to have a judge corps of 1,250 by the end of next year. [calendar year or fiscal year?] However, in light of an unanticipated increase in filings, we are now considering whether to adjust that target upwards and will keep Congress apprised if we need to hire additional judges and support staff. [Might the election results have something to do with that?] We will be monitoring our workloads and receipts carefully in the coming months so that, budget permitting, we will be poised to hire as many additional judges as circumstances warrant. We lose approximately 60 judges a year to attrition, so to reach our goal of 1,250 judges, we will need to hire about 100 - 125 new judges in FY 2009, as well as sufficient staff to support them.Patrick O'Carroll, Social Security Inspector General:
... we are also developing a quality assurance program for the hearing process. Regional personnel will have responsibility for overseeing the in-line quality process, which will include reviews of attorney adjudicator decisions, decision drafts, case pulling, and scheduling. This program will be implemented in FY 2009 after the necessary system enhancements are put in place.
... it is important to understand that the backlog is not the result of a lack of dedication or commitment on the part of SSA or any of its employees, nor of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) corps, though it falls on all of these parties to join in seeking solutions. ...Sylvester Schieber, Chairman of Social Security Advisory Board:We looked again at the 95 ALJs in our study of fiscal year 2007 who issued fewer than 200 case dispositions. We found that of these 95, one was Judge Nancy Griswold, the Deputy Chief ALJ, who certainly had other issues occupying her time. Similarly, five of these 95 ALJs were Regional Chief ALJs.
Another 13 of these 95 ALJs were new to their jobs (and thus had a significant learning curve), were part-time employees, or were on extended leave during the year. And another 54 of these ALJs either retired, separated, resigned, or passed away during fiscal year 2007. This left 22 ALJs who produced fewer than 200 dispositions. Ten of these 22 ALJs were union officials who, under the collective bargaining agreement, had officially authorized union responsibilities. We interviewed the ten union officials as part of our study.
We then interviewed the twelve remaining ALJs, each of whom issued between 150 and 200 dispositions during fiscal year 2007.
Through our interviews, we found that internal factors—unquantifiable factors internal to each ALJ—were significant contributors with respect to disposition productivity. In fact, our interviews with Regional Chief ALJs (RCALJ) revealed that work ethic and motivation were one of the main factors that contributed to high or low productivity. One of these interviews even revealed an ALJ who remained unmotivated despite oral and written counseling, a written directive, and a reprimand.
It is possible, with an appropriate statutory change, to reconcile the interests of the public to receive an independent decision with a process that is consistent and efficient. But this process must have three key features: clear performance expectations, accurate and timely performance measures, and incentives that encourage the judges to reach the performance expectations. ...Ron Bernoski, President, Association of Administrative Law Judges:
We therefore recommend that Congress consider changing the law to permit better performance measurement while also protecting the ALJs’ decisional independence. A key feature of a new law would be well-defined performance criteria set in advance so all parties know what it being expected of them. [Michael Astrue's desire?]
Social Security has consistently over-estimated the benefits of technology at the administrative law judge level and has often implemented the technology before it has been ready for general use. Further, technology does little to assist the judge or reduce the time we spend doing our work. We still need to review the case before the hearing, conduct the hearing, prepare the hearing decision instructions, and edit the draft decision. The Agency is now claiming that technology will reduce the number of staff employees needed to support administrative law judges. This claim has not yet been certified therefore policy cannot be based on hoped for benefits of the new technology. ...
“Shortcuts” such as “Streamlined” folders and scheduling cases before they are worked up are more often counterproductive. A “streamlined” claim file is one which is not worked up, i.e., prepared for hearing. Duplicates of often hundreds of pages of exhibits are not removed. Exhibits are not identified, placed in chronological order or even numbered. This allows the support staff to spend less time in preparing a case record. However it requires that the judge, and the writer, and medical experts and the representative to spend far more time reviewing the record. Scheduling cases before work-up will not alleviate ALJs having insufficient cases for hearing. The cases will still need to be worked up before the hearing.
