A Message From The New Commissioner To Agency Employees On Telework

From: ^Commissioner Broadcast <Commissioner.Broadcast@ssa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 2:31 PM
Subject: Increasing Our Onsite Presence

A Message to All SSA Employees

Subject:  Increasing Our Onsite Presence 

Every morning for the last 32 days, I’ve been going to work at headquarters or catching pre-dawn flights to Social Security Regions across our country. 

I do this to hear from — and learn from — as many of you as possible, as soon as possible, about what’s really going on.

And while the best ideas for improving our operations always come from those on the frontlines, some decisions must ultimately fall to the Commissioner.

So, let’s acknowledge this truth:

The Covid pandemic and shutdown changed the nature of work. There is no private sector company or public agency in the world which has since found the perfect balance between onsite presence and telework.

But because I understand any new adjustments to our telework policies will affect you personally, I wanted to give you as much advance notice as possible so you can make adjustments in your own balance between work and life.

After much listening and deep consideration of currently available evidence, I have decided that the following policies will be effective across the Social Security Administration beginning April 7, 2024.

Here’s WHAT’S NOT changing:

• Field Offices will remain open to the public five days a week.
• Employees in field offices, teleservice centers, and program service centers (including the Office of Central Operations) will continue their current balance of onsite presence and telework. 
• Employees in hearing offices, hearing centers, and case assistance centers will continue their current balance of onsite presence and telework. ALJ hearings will continue to be held five days a week by teleconference, videoconference, or in-person, at the option of claimants and their representatives.
• Employees in the Office of Appellate Operations and the Office of Quality Review will continue their current balance of onsite days and telework.
• Employees with nonportable workloads and those ineligible for telework will continue their onsite presence.

Here’s WHAT IS changing:

• In our headquarters and regional offices, we will be moving to “core collaboration days.”  We do this in order to better serve the American people, to better support our new trainees, and to better support and train our frontline workers in their mission.

Therefore:

• I will be present onsite at the Baltimore Headquarters (or in regional or area offices) five days a week.
• The Commissioner’s Office will be onsite four days a week with one day of telework optional.
• Because servant leaders make themselves present and accountable to the people they lead, Deputy Commissioners, employees in headquarters components, regional offices, and area director offices will increase their onsite presence to three days per week with two days of telework optional.
• Employees in the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) will increase their onsite presence to two days per week — with greater presence for top level executives at the discretion of the CIO.

Our return to a greater onsite presence not only gives us more opportunity for collaboration, engagement, and innovation, but it also brings us into alignment with other federal agencies across government, who have been increasing their own onsite presence.

Conclusion:

In the coming days, you will receive more information from your managers about logistics like signing up for a transit subsidy, updating your parking badge, making your desk arrangements, and more.  Facilities will also be working to expand cafeteria and onsite food options on core collaboration days.

As we improve the quality of our data to measure our effectiveness across the complex components of the Agency, we will continue to adjust in order to reach the best possible balance within individual units. These decisions will honor both the letter and the spirit of our Union agreements. And these decisions will be based on the mission of SSA using the best available evidence, not fear.

Our mission is the security of the men, women, and children of our Nation.

Thank you for your dedication, and I look forward to seeing you in-person if I haven’t already.

Yours in solidarity,

Martin O’Malley

Commissioner

How Crazy Is The Right Wing In America?

     People are starting to ask what will happen to Social Security benefits if Texas secedes.

Improvement In Mail Processing But Some Problems Persist

    From Follow-up: The Social Security Administration’s Implementation of Mail Procedures, a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (footnotes omitted):

...  Mail processing at SSA offices is primarily a manual workload. This requires that managers and employees open each mail item, scan the program-related documents into a workload management system, and assign to staff. SSA’s regional offices are responsible for monitoring the status of mail handling in their region ...

In September 2021, SSA issued a Mail Handling BPD that focused on 10 key issues significant to mail processing. ...

We judgmentally selected and visited 87 SSA offices throughout the continental United States. At each office, we interviewed management and observed the mail handling process. ...

SSA offices had improved mail processing since our July 2021 review. SSA offices we visited generally complied with the requirements in the Agency’s Mail Handling BPD.While most offices were meeting the requirements of 6 of the 10 BPD key issues, some offices did not always meet the requirements ...

Of the 87 offices visited, the following offices complied with the timeliness metrics established:

• 86 (98.9 percent) received mail directly from mail carriers,

• 84  (96.6 percent) opened mail within 1 business day of receipt,

• 81 (93.1 percent) processed all Social Security number applications within 5 business days of receipt, and

• 79 (90.8 percent) returned all original primary evidence documents to customers within 3 business days  of receipt and kept a log of the returned documents.  ...

• 73 (83.9 percent) processed their undeliverable returned mail within 5 business days of receipt, as required. However, the remaining 14 offices had undeliverable returned mail over 30-days-old. Moreover, three of these offices had mail dated back to January 2022, and one with mail dated back to September 2019. ... 
  

• 67 (77 percent) complied with the requirements for remittances and returned unendorsed Treasury checks. Specifically, the offices processed to completion all remittances and returned unendorsed Treasury checks within 1 business day of receipt, 16 recorded receipt in the office’s remittance log, and secured 17 checks that could not be processed to completion the same day. The remaining 20 offices had the following issues:
  

• 17 did not process remittances within the required timeframe. Of these, 15 offices had checks that remained unprocessed 3 to 31 days after the 1-business-day requirement. Additionally, two offices had unprocessed checks that dated back to July 2020 and November 2021. The banks could return these checks as non-negotiable since they were not endorsed within 6 months, as required by banks.,
  

• 5 did not use remittance logs, as required. For example, 1 office had 77 unprocessed checks that were unsecured and accessible to office staff. In fact, 1 office had 58 checks dating back to October 2022 with no record they existed. The new remittance manager was unaware these unprocessed checks were locked in a safe because they were not recorded in the office’s remittance log.
  

• 2 did not properly secure the unprocessed checks. For example, 1 office had 77 unprocessed checks that were unsecured and accessible to office staff.

• 36 (41.4 percent) scanned and profiled mail within 5 business days of receipt, as required. The remaining 51 offices, on average, scanned and profiled mail within 10 business days of receipt. ...

New Allegations Against Social Security Inspector General

     From Federal News Network (emphasis added):

House Democrats are reigniting an investigation into Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari’s use of taxpayer dollars to settle claims of retaliation by his former top deputy.

And lawmakers are also probing whether the Social Security Administration’s inspector general inappropriately referred Cuffari to her former law firm in connection with the retaliation investigation. A spokeswoman for the SSA IG called the assertions “blatantly inaccurate.” ...

DHS OIG spent $1.4 million on a 2020 contract with law firm WilmerHale to conduct an investigation into allegations of misconduct by Costello and other former employees. The investigation ultimately did not substantiate any allegations of illegal misconduct.

[Jamie] Raskin [House Oversight and and Accountability Ranking Member] is now investigating the role SSA Inspector General Gail Ennis may have played in the DHS OIG’s decision to contract with WilmerHale. Ennis was a partner at WilmerHale before becoming SSA IG in January 2019.

In deposition before the Merit Systems Protection Board, Cuffari said he asked Ennis to have her office conduct the investigation. Ennis declined to take it on due to the high workload, Cuffari said.

Raskin is probing whether she had a role in advising Cuffari to select WilmerHale for the investigation.

“If true, this would appear to violate your ethics agreement, which shows that you were a partner at WilmerHale and continue to have an ongoing financial stake in the firm’s profitability,” Raskin wrote in a letter to Ennis today. “As a result, your referral to your former employer WilmerHale potentially represents a financial conflict of interest.”

 A spokeswoman for the SSA OIG told Federal News Network that “Inspector General Ennis looks forward to the opportunity to respond to Ranking Member Raskin to correct the blatantly inaccurate assertions made in the letter.” ...

SSAB Nominations Advance

     The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing for January 31 on four nominations, including these three to the Social Security Advisory Board:

• Andrew G. Biggs, of Oregon
• Kathryn Rose Lang, of Maryland
• Sharon Beth Lewis, of Oregon

Report On AI At Social Security

     Here's a piece by four researchers touting Social Security's progress in Artificial Intelligence. It's somewhat odd. Apparently, it hasn't been published unless you consider releasing it online as publication. It has no date on it. I don't see any source cited from after 2021 so this may be a few years old. I may not the one who should say this but I'm not sure if what they're calling "Artificial Intelligence" would generally be called "Artificial Intelligence" today.

A Tale Of Two Trust Funds

     Social Security has released information showing how its trust funds have done through the end of 2023. Here are summaries for the Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust fund for the last five years. You'll notice that they're heading in opposite directions. I expect that money will eventually be diverted from the Disability Insurance Trust Fund to the Old Age and Survivor's Trust Fund, not that it will be enough to make much difference.

Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
(Amounts in millions)

Calendar year	Total income	Total outgo	Net increase in asset reserves	Asset reserves at end of calendar year
2019	$917,873	$911,423	$6,450	$2,804,322
2020	968,348	960,954	7,394	2,811,716
2021	942,856	1,001,936	-59,080	2,752,636
2022	1,056,718	1,097,455	-40,737	2,711,899
2023	1,166,885	1,237,294	-70,409	2,641,490

Disability Insurance
(Amounts in millions)

Calendar year	Total income	Total outgo	Net increase in asset reserves	Asset reserves at end of calendar year
2019	$143,901	$147,876	$-3,974	$93,083
2020	149,748	146,260	3,488	96,570
2021	145,470	142,646	2,824	99,394
2022	165,063	146,470	18,594	117,988
2023	183,801	154,815	28,985	146,973

What About Occupational Information? Does Scientific Integrity Apply To That?

     From today's Federal Register:

The SSA is soliciting comments and suggestions from the public on the DRAFT Scientific Integrity Policy of the Social Security Administration (DRAFT SSA Scientific Integrity Policy). The DRAFT SSA Scientific Integrity Policy codifies expectations to preserve scientific integrity throughout SSA scientific activities, establishes key roles and responsibilities for those who will lead the agency’s scientific integrity program, and, as appropriate, establishes relevant reporting and evaluation mechanisms.

    Social Security uses occupational information in determining which disability claims to approve. The source it's using now mostly dates back to 1979! Everyone concedes that it's hopelessly out of date but they're still using it. They've been working on a replacement now for well over a decade but almost nothing has been released and the agency is extremely vague on what's going on and when they'll be finished. I'm not the only one who's convinced that they keep delaying releasing anything because the data doesn't jibe with what the agency wants it to say. I think they want to keep massaging the data until it says that they don't have to change who they're approving and who they're denying even a little bit. Am I being unfair to Social Security? They can always make a full release of the data collected to date and give a good explanation for the delay. Does anyone still believe that this remains a good faith effort to collect data?