The order of events at the conferences of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) is long established. Thursday morning is the plenary session with the most important speakers, most of them from Social Security, followed by Nancy Shor, NOSSCR's Executive Director. This plenary session was huge. The attendance at this conference is the highest in NOSSCR history, about 1,130.
Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue was scheduled to speak but backed out. In his stead was Many Ann Sloan, Social Security's Regional Counsel for the Atlanta Region, and Glenn Sklar, the head of Social Security's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). There was virtually nothing that I heard from either of them that was noteworthy. Sloan said that her office had recently added 80 new attorneys. To put it mildly, Social Security has a lot of work for its attorneys! Sklar said that ODAR plans to hire 226 Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) this year. Sklar was kind enough to take questions. One question concerned what is sometimes referred to as the "rocket docket." The term "rocket docket" is used in different ways at different offices. The "rocket docket" referred to by the questioner is a practice of scheduling unrepresented claimants for very brief hearings soon after their request for hearing on the assumption that most will not show up or will say they want more time to hire an attorney. The cases of those who do not show up can be dismissed fairly quickly, making the office's statistics look better. I was surprised to hear Sklar say he had not previously heard of this sort of rocket docket. It is fairly common.
There were two speakers from Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP). I will not bother trying to summarize what they had to say. I heard nothing new; it was mostly mind-numbing jargon that would give the average listener little idea of what is going on with OIDAP although, to be fair, it is difficult to summarize what OIDAP is up to even if you want to. I am not so sure these speakers wanted to help anyone understand what they are up to.
Among other things, Nancy Shor mentioned the huge backlogs developing at Social Security's initial and reconsideration levels of review. She wondered what will happen when all those cases finally get to ODAR. I wonder whether there would have been much improvement in backlogs at the ODAR level but for the increased backlogs earlier in the process. This was not the intention but it has been the effect. Shor mentioned that the the reconsideration step would be returning to the so-called prototype states, where recon had been dispensed with. This has been known for some time now but there was an audible gasp in the room when Shor said this. The news must not have gotten around. Shor expressed considerable concern over the centralized printing already going on at ODAR and the proposed centralized scheduling of ALJ hearings that may be coming. I do not understand why Social Security thinks that centralizing everything is a good idea. My experience is that Social Security's disseminated work processes work far better than its centralized work processes.
Nancy Shor is on OIDAP. She did not speak about OIDAP but turned the mike over to Tom Sutton, a NOSSCR member who has been following OIDAP's work closely, to speak to this, basically to give NOSSCR's institutional response to what is going on at OIDAP. Sutton made it clear that NOSSCR is extremely disturbed by the implications of what OIDAP is doing. Sutton referred to OIDAP as having a "radical approach." He indicated that NOSSCR's board of directors agrees with the recent report of the National Academy of Science that urged that Social Security not adopt its own independent occupational information system but work with the Department of Labor (DOL) to find ways to make changes in the DOL's O*NET occupational information system so that it could be used by Social Security. Sutton referred to Social Security's effort to create its own occupational information system as the "fox guarding the hen house." Sutton expressed a belief that there is major "mission creep" at OIDAP with a complete rewriting of all of Social Security's disability determination process in the making.
While Sutton's words may have seemed harsh to the speakers from OIDAP, they seemed measured to me. As a group, NOSSCR is greatly alarmed by the long term implications of OIDAP. If Social Security continues on its current path with OIDAP, I see open warfare ahead.
I do not know the intentions of whoever it was who recommended that Nancy Shor be on OIDAP but if the desire was to co-opt NOSSCR, it did not work. NOSSCR is greatly alarmed by OIDAP. Putting Nancy Shor on OIDAP and talking in jargon will not change that.
Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue was scheduled to speak but backed out. In his stead was Many Ann Sloan, Social Security's Regional Counsel for the Atlanta Region, and Glenn Sklar, the head of Social Security's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). There was virtually nothing that I heard from either of them that was noteworthy. Sloan said that her office had recently added 80 new attorneys. To put it mildly, Social Security has a lot of work for its attorneys! Sklar said that ODAR plans to hire 226 Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) this year. Sklar was kind enough to take questions. One question concerned what is sometimes referred to as the "rocket docket." The term "rocket docket" is used in different ways at different offices. The "rocket docket" referred to by the questioner is a practice of scheduling unrepresented claimants for very brief hearings soon after their request for hearing on the assumption that most will not show up or will say they want more time to hire an attorney. The cases of those who do not show up can be dismissed fairly quickly, making the office's statistics look better. I was surprised to hear Sklar say he had not previously heard of this sort of rocket docket. It is fairly common.
There were two speakers from Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP). I will not bother trying to summarize what they had to say. I heard nothing new; it was mostly mind-numbing jargon that would give the average listener little idea of what is going on with OIDAP although, to be fair, it is difficult to summarize what OIDAP is up to even if you want to. I am not so sure these speakers wanted to help anyone understand what they are up to.
Among other things, Nancy Shor mentioned the huge backlogs developing at Social Security's initial and reconsideration levels of review. She wondered what will happen when all those cases finally get to ODAR. I wonder whether there would have been much improvement in backlogs at the ODAR level but for the increased backlogs earlier in the process. This was not the intention but it has been the effect. Shor mentioned that the the reconsideration step would be returning to the so-called prototype states, where recon had been dispensed with. This has been known for some time now but there was an audible gasp in the room when Shor said this. The news must not have gotten around. Shor expressed considerable concern over the centralized printing already going on at ODAR and the proposed centralized scheduling of ALJ hearings that may be coming. I do not understand why Social Security thinks that centralizing everything is a good idea. My experience is that Social Security's disseminated work processes work far better than its centralized work processes.
Nancy Shor is on OIDAP. She did not speak about OIDAP but turned the mike over to Tom Sutton, a NOSSCR member who has been following OIDAP's work closely, to speak to this, basically to give NOSSCR's institutional response to what is going on at OIDAP. Sutton made it clear that NOSSCR is extremely disturbed by the implications of what OIDAP is doing. Sutton referred to OIDAP as having a "radical approach." He indicated that NOSSCR's board of directors agrees with the recent report of the National Academy of Science that urged that Social Security not adopt its own independent occupational information system but work with the Department of Labor (DOL) to find ways to make changes in the DOL's O*NET occupational information system so that it could be used by Social Security. Sutton referred to Social Security's effort to create its own occupational information system as the "fox guarding the hen house." Sutton expressed a belief that there is major "mission creep" at OIDAP with a complete rewriting of all of Social Security's disability determination process in the making.
While Sutton's words may have seemed harsh to the speakers from OIDAP, they seemed measured to me. As a group, NOSSCR is greatly alarmed by the long term implications of OIDAP. If Social Security continues on its current path with OIDAP, I see open warfare ahead.
I do not know the intentions of whoever it was who recommended that Nancy Shor be on OIDAP but if the desire was to co-opt NOSSCR, it did not work. NOSSCR is greatly alarmed by OIDAP. Putting Nancy Shor on OIDAP and talking in jargon will not change that.
