Social Security's Leadership Taking The Blame

     Another newspaper piece, this one from Buffalo, blaming Social Security field office closures on the foolish, heartless Social Security Administration. The rational conclusion after reading this and other similar pieces is that Social Security must have terrible leadership. No mention is made in this piece of Social Security's limited appropriations. It's all about bad decisions made at Social Security.

     I really wonder whether this run of articles around the country on this subject is happening spontaneously or whether some group is promoting this.

The Blame Game Has Started And The Obama Administration Is Losing

     From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Cut services, close offices and eliminate government jobs.

That's been the Republican Party's battle cry for decades, but when it comes to the Social Security Administration, it's the Obama administration that's doing all the above.

For more than a year now, the Social Security Administration has rather quietly been trying to shift the public from obtaining walk-in services at its field offices to the Internet.

     There's no question about why Social Security has cut back on service. Republicans in Congress are blocking adequate operating funds for the agency. But look who's getting the blame -- the Obama Administration. Who should the Obama Administration blame for this unfairness? Themselves for not screaming bloody murder about Social Security's inadequate operating budgets. The blame game has started and Republicans are ahead.

You're Being Set Up, Carolyn Colvin

     The Post and Courier in Charleston, SC has an article on Social Security's decision to shut down some field offices and reduce service at the rest. The interesting thing about the article is that there is no mention whatsoever of Social Security's inadequate operating budget. As far as any reader would know, service is being cut because stupid bureaucrats at Social Security are making stupid decisions because they just don't care about serving the public. Those idiots think that they can force Americans to do all their business with Social Security over the computer! What's wrong with them? They ought to be fired!

     This is close to what happened at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Congress gave the agency inadequate funding. When the inevitable happened and service deteriorated to the point that the public was outraged, the blame fell not on Congress but on VA management. Villains had to be found. The main villain was the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki. He was forced to resign but he wasn't the only one. Others have been forced out as well. Yes, there was the added factor of fiddling with the books to try to hide the VA's service delivery problems but that was little more than a pretext and I'm not absolutely sure that's not happening at Social Security.

     Carolyn Colvin needs to figure it out. The same thing is going to happen to her. Either she's not going to be confirmed or she'll eventually be forced to resign because she'll be made the scapegoat for her agency's terrible service. The deterioration over the last year cannot continue indefinitely. We are headed towards ridiculous busy rates and absurd wait times once a call is answered. We're headed towards long lines outside the doors of Social Security field offices. It's going to blow up. I can't say when but it's coming.
     The only way I can see for Acting Commissioner Colvin to prevent being blamed for the lousy service is to start shouting from the rooftop that she knows her agency is delivering poor service and that it's the fault of the inadequate budget her agency receives. A great case in point is the recent Senate Aging Committee hearing. Why is it that the most important information the Committee received about service at Social Security came not from the agency but from the National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel? Why wasn't Social Security spreading the word? The problem is that Carolyn Colvin and upper Social Security in general want to downplay the agency's service delivery problem and pretend that it's not that bad but that's exactly what happened at VA. Will loudly blaming Congress for poor service at Social Security offend Congressional Republicans? Sure, but does Colvin have any choice?

Translating Consultant Speak To English

No Comment Department

     A press release from Social Security:

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has published the plan for the Customer Service Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goal on the performance.gov website.  This CAP Goal is one of 15 CAP Goals developed to support President Obama’s management agenda.  Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, serves as a Goal Leader with Lisa Danzig, the Associate Director for Personnel and Performance at OMB.

“Customer service is part of our DNA here at Social Security, and we are happy to provide leadership in this important area,” said Acting Commissioner Colvin.  “For all the federal agencies that interact with citizens or businesses, our customers expect and deserve world-class customer service.  Through this CAP Goal, we renew our commitment to improve service to the American people.”

Staff from Social Security and OMB identified the high-level CAP Goal strategies after consulting with dozens of other federal agencies and external organizations. 
Highlights of the plan include:

• An online and in-person network that federal employees anywhere can join and share ideas and tools for improving customer satisfaction
• A nationwide award program for teams and individuals who excel at customer service
• A better way to improve transparency and measure customer satisfaction across the federal government

For more information on the CAP goal, please click here http://www.performance.gov/node/3400/view?view=public#progress-update

Colvin May Be Pleasing Republicans More Than Democrats

     The Baltimore Sun thinks that Carolyn Colvin, Social Security's Acting Commissioner and nominee to become Commissioner for real, will face the most pressing questions from Democrats during her confirmation hearing.

Take A Look At This

     See the comment someone just made on my post about the delay in the Trustee's report. I know this is anonymous but still ...

Even Those Accused Of Doing Bad Things Are Entitled To Due Process

     From a recent addition to Social Security's HALLEX manual:

Under sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security Act (Act), the Social Security Administration (SSA) must immediately redetermine the entitlement of individuals to monthly disability benefits if there is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in the individual's application for such benefits. A redetermination is a re-adjudication of the individual's application for benefits, based on the agency's finding that fraud or similar fault was involved in an individual's application for monthly disability benefits. The agency may be required to initiate a redetermination based on an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) referral of information pursuant to section 1129(l) of the Act or information from a criminal prosecutor with jurisdiction over potential or actual related criminal cases. ... 

The Deputy Commissioner of ODAR will determine which ODAR component is designated to redetermine the affected case(s). ... 

Based on OIG [Office of Inspector General] referrals of information pursuant to section 1129(l) of the Act or information obtained through other criminal, congressional, or administrative investigation, the agency may direct an ODAR adjudicator to disregard certain evidence.

     There are a couple of problems here. Administrative Law Judges are required to be assigned to hear cases in rotation insofar as practical. If Social Security gets to decide which "component" gets to hear a case isn't Social Security getting to decide which ALJ hears the case? Social Security could assign the case to the Anchorage hearing office with its 14% reversal rate for instance.  If the agency wants to set up some special cadre of judges selected using some neutral criteria to hear these cases that's one thing but that's not what they're talking about. Second, Social Security gets to decide which evidence the ALJ can and can't hear? Are you kidding me? Did anyone at Social Security give serious consideration to how this might look to a federal court?