Walkaways At Field Offices

From the statement of Rick Warsinskey, District Office Manager, Cleveland, Ohio; and Immediate Past President, National Council of Social Security Management Associations, Inc. to the House Ways and Means Committee:

SSA Field Offices are also seeing a significant increase in the number of people who leave without receiving service. In fact, this calendar year to date we are averaging nearly 80,000 people a week, or 8.4%, that leave our offices without receiving service. Many Field Offices have a much higher percentage. Examples of these Field Offices are:

• Memphis South, TN: 10.5%
• Seattle Downtown, WA: 12.8%
• Charleston, SC: 14.0%
• Mobile, AL: 14.1%
• Houston Northeast, TX: 14.8%
• Chicago East, IL: 15.2%
• Austin, Texas: 16.0%
• Norfolk, VA: 16.8%
• Oakland, CA: 19.8%
• Brooklyn Flatbush, NY: 20.1%
• Clearwater, FL: 21.7%
• Baltimore NE, MD: 27.0%
• North Las Vegas, NV: 33.7%

I have not heard anything from Commissioner Astrue that begins to respond to the problems that Social Security field offices have in handling their foot traffic -- and their problems handling telephone calls are much worse. Certainly, more than half of all telephone calls to Social Security field offices go unanswered. No one knows how much more than half. It may be 80% or more. I cannot believe that anyone familiar with Social Security field offices could think that the internet is going to solve this problem, but I do not know what other plan Commissioner Astrue has.

Furloughs And Social Security Disability

The testimony of Social Security's Inspector General to the House Ways and Means Committee includes the sobering news that five states have furloughed their employees who perform disability determination work for the Social Security Administration. Those five states comprise 15% of the national workload. Here is the list of states affected:

• California
• Connecticut
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Oregon

This is happening even though these furloughs do nothing to help state budget shortfalls. 100% of the costs of these employees are paid by Social Security. It appears that state governments are mostly interested in the appearance of fairness to all of their employees. The furloughs actually worsen the economies of the states involved by reducing the paychecks of state employees unnecessarily and delaying payment of disability benefits.

This must be addressed by legislation. States should not be allowed to take money under ARRA and do this.

New Hearing Office Sites

Commissioner Astrue's statement to the House Ways and Means Committee includes a map showing new hearing office sites for Social Security. The map only became visible to me when I viewed it here. I tried to reproduce it here, but it doesn't scale properly. Here is a list of the locations:

• Akron, OH
• Atlanta South, GA
  
• Fayetteville, NC
  
• Livonia, MI
• Madison, WI
  
• Mt. Pleasant, MI
• St. Petersburg, FL
  
• Toledo, OH
  
• Topeka, KS
• Tallahasee, FL
  

What Are Michael Astrue's Priorities?

I did not have a chance to watch the Social Security Subcommittee hearing today. I have started reading the prepared statements.

Commissioner Astrue's statement surprises me.

There is widespread agreement that the Social Security Administration is not going to improve upon the dismal service it is giving the public without increasing its workforce significantly. Social Security has been given far greater appropriations for the current fiscal year than in the prior years. Large appropriations are also likely for the foreseeable future. Congress expects better service and soon. Questions have been raised about how much hiring Social Security will do. In reviewing Commissioner Astrue's lengthy written statement to the Committee, I looked hard for all the references to hiring plans. Here they are (emphasis in original):

We have already hired 140 new support staff in our hearing offices so far this year, and expect to hire over 700 additional support staff. ...

Our current estimate is that we will need 1,400 to 1,450 ALJs to achieve our goals, and we are expanding our physical infrastructure, to the extent we can, so that we can reach that level. ...

In FY 2009, we expect to add a total of 135 new staff at the Appeals Council, while replacing losses due to attrition. ...

Our full year appropriation, which supplies $126.5 million more than was included in President’s FY 2009 budget, as well as the additional funding in the ARRA, will allow us to invest in information technology, to hire 5,000 to 6,000 new employees before the end of the year, and to allot additional overtime to process critical workloads. In addition to replacing all of our losses in FY 2009, we will assign new employees to our front-line operations where they will have the greatest impact – approximately 1,200 employees to our field offices, 900 employees to our hearings offices, and 600 employees to State DDSs.

I am struck by how little of Astrue's statement dealt with hiring. I get the impression that hiring is not all that important to Michael Astrue. Management plans seem a lot more important to him. I also get the impression that when Commissioner Astrue talks of hiring 5,000 to 6,000 new employees he is talking about hires to replace employees who are leaving as well as hires to add to Social Security's workforce and that he is talking about state Disability Determination Services as well as the Social Security Administration itself. Social Security needs to hire several thousand people each year just to replace employees who are departing. I think it would be best that Commissioner Astrue not use that figure of 5,000 to 6,000 new employees again without making it clear what he means. As a Republican holdover in a Democratic Administration he needs to be careful not to say anything that could be interpreted as misleading.

Astrue's hiring plans seem puny to me. I have to wonder where all the additional money is going if Social Security will not be adding that many new employees. I also wonder what kind of appropriations it would take to induce Social Security to go on a real hiring binge, which is what I think is clearly indicated.

Occupational Information Development Advisory Committee Members Names Revealed

The Social Security Administration has finally revealed the names of the member of its Occupational Information Development Advisory Committee:

• Gunnar B. J. Andersson, M.D., Ph.D.
• Mary Barros-Bailey, Ph.D.
• Robert T. Fraser, Ph.D.
• Shanan Gwaltney Gibson, Ph.D.
• Thomas A. Hardy, J.D.
• Sylvia E. Karman
• Deborah E. Lechner
• Lynnae M. Ruttledge
• David J. Schretlen, Ph.D.
• Nancy G. Shor
• Mark A. Wilson, Ph.D.
• James F. Woods

This Committee is tasked with coming up with an alternative to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). Sound really boring? Hundreds of thousands of Social Security disability claimants are now being approved or denied based upon the DOT, even though everyone realizes that the DOT is preposterously out of date. Many of those decisions could go in a different direction depending upon what Social Security does about the DOT.

Judging by the biographical statements of the Committee members, consensus may be hard to come by for this Committee. I do not understand why some of these people are on this Committee. A person who makes her career in developing and marketing Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) instruments? A person who tries to measure the disability caused by mental illness? Sounds like people who could easily sidetrack the Committee. I wish that the vast majority of these folks had some background in work evaluation and Social Security disability. My guess is that some of the Committee members are going to find their service to be extremely boring and may never understand the agendas that some others bring to this Committee.

Watch House Ways And Means Committee Hearing

Today's House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Social Security is scheduled to start at 10:30 and should be available in streaming video.

Disability Waiting Period Draws Attention

From 10News.com in San Diego:

Several weeks ago, Scripps Ranch resident Phoebe Carroll lost her husband of 25 years to esophageal cancer.Although it is the law and a rule, Carroll said it made no sense that her husband could not get money he was owed from Social Security when it was needed the most. ...

When doctors told Lane Carroll there wasn't any hope, he applied to Social Security for a Compassionate Allowance Disability benefit and was approved.

"After you're approved, you're not really approved; you have to see if you can live long enough to collect it," said Phoebe Carroll.

Under the law, benefits cannot be paid until you've been disabled for five consecutive months.Lane Carroll's disease was much faster, and the Carrolls did not receive a dime at a time when Phoebe was off work so she could care for her husband. ...

To honor his memory, Phoebe wants the law changed or at least the ability for an appeal so others won't find themselves in the situation she was in.

Class Action Lawsuit On Disabled Employees

A Baltimore law firm is making progress with a class action against Social Security concerning the rights of disabled Social Security employees. This is from the firm's newsletter:

More than 2,000 federal employees with targeted disabilities are part of a class action against the Social Security Administration because they were not promoted despite their status on best qualified lists.

Targeted disabilities include blindness, partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorders, deafness, mental retardation, mental illness, and distortion of the limb or spine. EEOC AJ David Norken certified the class action last month in Jantz v. Social Security Administration, EEOC No. 531-2006-00276x (EEOC AJ 10/08/08). He considered data that indicates SSA employees with targeted disabilities are selected for promotion at a rate of 7.7 percent, while the rate for workers without targeted disabilities is 11.7 percent.

This is only one of several signs of pressure on Social Security to adopt more open hiring practices. Most of the pressure has nothing to do with alleged discrimination. It has to do with excessive secrecy. As an employer myself, I cannot comprehend why Social Security would want to keep job openings secret.