A Report On Social Security's Operating Budget

     The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress produces reports to aid Congress in carrying out its duties. They've recently issued a report titled Social Security Administration (SSA): Trends in the Annual Limitation on Administrative Expenses (LAE) Appropriation Through FY2021 that's worth a look. It tells you everything you ought to know, even though for most people the subject, like the title of this report, seems dreadfully boring.

    Let me first explain this LAE business. Since most of Social Security's administrative budget comes from the Social Security's trust funds rather than general revenues, technically the agency doesn't get an appropriation but instead is given a limit on how much it can draw from the trust funds for its administrative expenses -- a Limitation on Administrative Expenses or LAE.

    The main story that I take from this report is that Social Security's workload has gone up while its LAE has gone down. That's not good for those who have to deal with the agency.

    Let's talk about the workload first.  Here's a chart showing the number of claimants drawing benefits from 2010 on:

You can see that since 2010 there's been a big increase from 58 million receiving benefits to 70.2 million receiving benefits. 

    Here's a chart showing what's happened to the LAE, apart from the amount specifically dedicated to program integrity, in constant dollars since 2010:

Notice that in price indexed dollars, the LAE went down from about $13 billion in FY 2010 to around $11 billion in 2021. I think that excluding program integrity funds gives the most accurate picture of what the agency can spend actually answering the telephone, taking and adjudicating claims and processing claimants on and off benefits. Note that Social Security didn't receive significant additional funding for the Covid-19 pandemic, which certainly disrupted its operations and increased its expenses so things are actually worse than they appear.

    Any rational person looking at this history shouldn't be surprised by what has happened since 2010 -- increased backlogs in answering the telephone, taking claims, adjudicating them and processing claimants on and off benefits. The severity of the resulting problems have been somewhat disguised since the agency's hearing backlog has gone down since 2010. That's highly visible but everything else has gone to hell and that's mostly invisible except to those who actually have to deal with the agency, which is almost everyone eventually, but not that many people at any onetime. Be glad if all you have to do is to file a retirement claim. The agency prioritizes them since they're easy. For everything else, get ready to wait and wait and wait.

    Social Security is a mess. The inadequate LAE is why it's a mess. Why has there been so little outcry from Congress?

OHO Stats

     This Caseload Analysis Report has been uploaded by Social Security. It's basic operating statistics for the agency's Office of Hearings Operations (OHO).

Click on image to view full size

 

Fee Cap Going To $7,200

   This afternoon Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, informed the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) and the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) that the Social Security Administration will raise the cap on the amount that attorneys may charge under the fee agreement process for representing claimants from $6,000 to $7,200.

    In this past, such announcements were made via the Federal Register. This has not yet been published in the Federal Register nor is it scheduled for publication tomorrow.  

    If this were a true cost of living adjustment, it would be going to $8,200, not $7,200.

    When the cap was raised the last time, in 2009, it was not effective until four and a half months after the announcement. I hear that this time it won't be effective until November 30, 2022 which is more than six months off! My hope the last time was that Social Security would use the time to train its staff but it was quickly apparent after the effective date that Social Security's staff hadn't been trained since at first there were more cases handled incorrectly than cases handled correctly. Nobody seemed to have been told that attorneys were allowed to have escalator clauses in their fee agreements that allowed them to be governed by the fee cap in place at the time of implementation rather than the fee cap in place at the time the fee agreement was signed even though this has been Social Security's position since the earliest days of the fee agreement process. I know. I was practicing Social Security law then. At least, back in 2009, we were able to get in touch with the payment centers to get mistakes corrected. They're mostly incommunicado these days and unwilling to correct even the most glaring mistakes.

    By the way, if you're an attorney who represents Social Security claimants and your fee agreement hasn't had an escalator clause, you're out of luck. Trying to force a new contract on your clients for your benefit is clearly unethical in my view.

About Time! Congressional Hearing On Customer Service At Social Security

     The House Social Security Subcommittee has FINALLY scheduled a hearing on Strengthening Social Security’s Customer Service for Thursday, May 17 at 2:00 EDT. Witnesses will be announced later.

    Now, if we could just get the House Appropriations Committee to also schedule a hearing, I'd be happier. Ways and Means Committee can provide publicity but better management isn't going to make an appreciable difference in service at Social Security. That's going to take money and the Appropriations Committee holds the key to that. (Of course, I'd also be happy to see Senate Finance Committee and Senate Appropriations Committee hearings!)

How Does It Feel?

online polls

Employee Viewpoint Survey

     The federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has issued its Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for 2021. Over 11,000 Social Security employees responded. The survey results are reported in dozens of tables. I didn't see anything that jumped off the page. Overall, Social Security employees seem less happy than federal employees in general but not strikingly so. Take a look and tell us what you think.

Social Security Bulletin

     Social Security has posted the most recent issue of the Social Security Bulletin, the agency's  scholarly publication. It includes a study which asks "What Is the Relationship Between Socioeconomic Deprivation and Child Supplemental Security Income Participation?"

    Here are a couple of charts from that study:

Click on images to view full size

Support For Allowing NHC ALJs To Unionize

    From Government Executive:

A group of Democratic senators have revisited a long-dormant effort to broaden the bargaining unit of administrative law judges at the Social Security Administration, buoyed by recent guidance from the Biden administration aimed at encouraging collective bargaining at federal agencies.

In 2007, then-Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue created the agency’s National Hearing Center, a cadre of administrative law judges who would parachute into regions with a long backlog of disability claims, but he left the component’s employees outside of the ALJ bargaining unit at the Office of Hearing Operations, which is represented by the Association of Administrative Law Judges.

In 2011, the Federal Labor Relations Authority sided with Astrue, finding that although National Hearing Center judges had nearly identical job duties, they were management officials because they supervised decision writers. That said, the FLRA also found that the agency committed unfair labor practices by exhibiting hostility toward the union and failing to notify the group of the component’s creation.

In a letter to Acting Social Security Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi last month, five Democratic senators, led by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, urged the agency to consider classifying judges in the National Hearing Center as bargaining unit employees and granting them access to the Association of Administrative Law Judges. They cited the fact that in the years since the FLRA’s decision, the differences in the responsibilities of ALJs in both agency components have disappeared. ...

    Bad grammar in that first sentence! Tut, tut, tut