 |
| LBJ at SSA Headquarters |
 |
| Photo taken on May 7 outside Raleigh FO |
... In February and March 2023, we visited 76 FOs [Field Offices] and SSCCs [Social Security Card Centers]. During these visits, we observed customer wait times and interviewed office management regarding best practices for reducing customer wait times. We also interviewed SSA staff to determine Agency initiatives to enhance the customer experience and reduce wait times.
During our office visits, we observed the wait times of customers throughout their visit for services. For the 76 FOs and SSCCs we visited, we observed the average wait time for customers before check-in ranged from 5 to 12 minutes, depending on the method of check-in. The check-in method(s) used varied, based on management’s discretion. Once checked in, customers waited an average of 32 to 45 minutes to receive services. We do not assert, and the reader should not infer, that our observations during our visits represent all SSA offices. ...
Why did it take more than a year after the data was collected for OIG to issue a report?
With the enactment of our full-year appropriation for this fiscal year, we are lowering our Full Medical CDR t[Continuing Disability Review] arget from 575,000 to 375,000.
This reduction will allow DDSs [Disability Determination Services] to focus on processing Initial Disability Claims and Reconsideration cases. The field offices will not send additional Full Medical CDRs to the DDS for the remainder of FY 2024. ...
Do not assign unassigned CDRs pending in your receipt or staging queue. DDS should take no action on the unassigned Full Medical CDRs. ...
Age 18 Redeterminations:
If you have sufficient evidence in file at the publication date of this emergency message, make the Age 18 Redetermination.
If the evidence in file at the publication date of this emergency message is insufficient to make the Age 18 Redetermination:a. Do not initiate additional development, such as requesting medical evidence of record (MER) or school records;
b. Do not schedule for consultative examinations (CE); and,
c. Do not assign to medical or psychological consultant(s) for review. ...
Senators Susan Collins and Shelley Moore Capito have written the Commissioner of Social Security to express their concern that the Commissioner has announced the closure of Social Security offices on the afternoons of May 10 and May 24 to give stressed out employees a break.
I understand what the Commissioner has done. Social Security's staff morale could certainly use a shot in the arm and giving extra time off is one way to do that. However, the biggest factor in producing poor staff morale is relentless workload pressures. By closing the offices the workload pressures got a little worse. This seems counter productive to me.
The dates that Social Security places on its outgoing mail are mostly fictitious. Most outgoing mail is printed and mailed from a central printing operation that serves the entire agency. This correspondence bears the date upon which some agency employee sent it to be printed but the date printed and mailed is actually several days later.
There are time limits to file appeals. If these time limits are based upon a date that is several days prior to the date that the correspondence was actually mailed, the claimant is being cheated out of those days to file an appeal. Appeals can be dismissed -- and have been dismissed -- based upon these phony dates.
Social Security has finally acknowledged the problem. The agency's HALLEX manual for hearings and appeals has been amended. Now, notices sent out centrally will be presumed to have been sent out three days later than the date they bear. This is in addition to the five days given for the mail itself.
I have not seen this changed in the POMS manual that serves the whole agency but maybe I've missed it. It's needed there since appeals also get dismissed at field offices and payment centers.
Wouldn't it be simpler to put accurate dates on these notices to begin with? This doesn't seem to be a problem beyond the limits of human ingenuity.
... I wasn’t asked to come here because everything was going great, right? We’re in a customer service crisis; that cannot be denied. ...
There is a theme running through this stuff [I've done]: It’s small.
[W]e executed on a bunch of little short-term, quick wins. Our new general counsel has probably said yes in 60 days more than any [Office of General Counsel] leader has said in 10 years. ...
I have been unpleasantly surprised by how dire the staffing situation is. ...
[W]e’ll be rolling out an action plan for the remainder of the year that will better organize over 150 actions under 21 initiatives, all of which are intended to take a bite out of these processing times [at Disability Determination Services]. ...
Clearly we need a more modern assessment of the widely available occupations out there [used in disability determination]. And we are taking a fresh look at this project [to create a new occupational data system], and at what we forecasted we might have to spend. ... Many members of Congress expressed their concern about the amount of money that we have put into this and the amount of time that it has taken. There’s still a systems component, and that also has a price tag. I would say it’s a big policy issue. There will be some winners, some losers. ...
From the Partnership For Public Service report on Best Places to Work ranking for the Social Security Administration. (The rankings are of agencies with large workforces):
 |
| Click on image to view full size |
Parts of the agency are also ranked against all federal agencies. The personnel under the Deputy Commissioner for Hearings Operations ranked 429 of 459 agencies. The personnel of Social Security's Office of Inspector General ranked 430 of 459 agencies. The personnel under the Deputy Commissioner for Operations ranked 456 of 459 agencies.
