Social Security Administration
Service Delivery Plan Needed to Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges Gao ID: GAO-09-24 January 9, 2009Millions of people rely on the services of Social Security Administration (SSA) field offices. In fiscal year 2008, SSA's approximately 1,300 field offices provided service to about 44 million customers. People visit field offices to apply for Social Security cards, apply for retirement and disability benefits, establish direct deposit, and a host of other services. Over the last several years, staffing reductions have challenged field offices' ability to manage work while continuing to deliver quality customer service. To better understand the challenges SSA faces in delivering quality customer service, GAO was asked to determine (1) the effect that staffing reductions are having on field office operations and (2) the challenges SSA faces in meeting service delivery needs in the future and the agency's plan for addressing them. In May 2008, GAO reported initial observations on the effects of reduced staff levels. To conduct this work, GAO interviewed SSA headquarters and field officials and analyzed various data on SSA's workloads and customer service.
Staffing constraints are having adverse effects on field office services. The number of staff in field offices dropped 4.4 percent from 2005 to 2008. As a result of greater efficiencies, field office work produced fell only 1.3 percent during the same period. To manage the reduced staffing, SSA deferred work deemed as a lower priority, such as conducting reviews of beneficiaries' continuing eligibility. However, deferring these reviews means that beneficiaries who no longer qualify for benefits may still receive payments erroneously. Reduced staffing also impacted key customer service indicators. In fiscal year 2007, more than 3 million customers waited for over 1 hour to be served. Further, SSA's Field Office Caller Survey found that 51 percent of customers calling selected field offices had at least one earlier call that had gone unanswered, but for methodological reasons, the unanswered call rate was likely even higher. These factors may have contributed to a 3 percent drop in SSA's overall customer satisfaction rating from 84 percent in fiscal year 2005 to 81 percent in fiscal year 2008. Increases in retirement and disability filings and a significant retirement wave of SSA's most experienced staff pose difficult challenges for SSA in meeting future service delivery needs. SSA estimates that retirement and disability filings will increase the agency's work by about 1 million annual claims by 2017. Further, SSA will experience an agency-wide retirement wave in the coming years--the agency projects that 44 percent of its staff will retire by 2016. SSA published its new strategic plan in September 2008, which calls for SSA to eliminate the backlog of disability hearings and increase online retirement filings to 50 percent of applications. While discussing the plan with us, SSA officials noted that it is not intended to be a service delivery plan detailing how the agency will address the service needs of the retiring baby boom generation. While the plan includes the goal of significantly expanding the use of electronic services, it is not clear how this will mitigate the increasing SSA workload.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-24, Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan Needed to Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-24
entitled 'Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan Needed
to Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges' which was released on
February 9, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
January 2009:
Social Security Administration:
Service Delivery Plan Needed to Address Baby Boom Retirement
Challenges:
GAO-09-24:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-24, a report to the Committee on Finance, U.S.
Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Millions of people rely on the services of Social Security
Administration (SSA) field offices. In fiscal year 2008, SSA‘s
approximately 1,300 field offices provided service to about 44 million
customers. People visit field offices to apply for Social Security
cards, apply for retirement and disability benefits, establish direct
deposit, and a host of other services. Over the last several years,
staffing reductions have challenged field offices‘ ability to manage
work while continuing to deliver quality customer service.
To better understand the challenges SSA faces in delivering quality
customer service, GAO was asked to determine (1) the effect that
staffing reductions are having on field office operations and (2) the
challenges SSA faces in meeting service delivery needs in the future
and the agency‘s plan for addressing them.
In May 2008, GAO reported initial observations on the effects of
reduced staff levels. To conduct this work, GAO interviewed SSA
headquarters and field officials and analyzed various data on SSA‘s
workloads and customer service.
What GAO Found:
Staffing constraints are having adverse effects on field office
services. The number of staff in field offices dropped 4.4 percent from
2005 to 2008, as shown in the table below. As a result of greater
efficiencies, field office work produced fell only 1.3 percent during
the same period. To manage the reduced staffing, SSA deferred work
deemed as a lower priority, such as conducting reviews of
beneficiaries‘ continuing eligibility. However, deferring these reviews
means that beneficiaries who no longer qualify for benefits may still
receive payments erroneously. Reduced staffing also impacted key
customer service indicators. In fiscal year 2007, more than 3 million
customers waited for over 1 hour to be served. Further, SSA‘s Field
Office Caller Survey found that 51 percent of customers calling
selected field offices had at least one earlier call that had gone
unanswered, but for methodological reasons, the unanswered call rate
was likely even higher. These factors may have contributed to a 3
percent drop in SSA‘s overall customer satisfaction rating from 84
percent in fiscal year 2005 to 81 percent in fiscal year 2008.
Table: End of Fiscal Year Field Office Staffing and Work Completed,
Fiscal Years 2005-2008:
Fiscal year: 2005;
End of year number of field office employees: 28,790; Work productivity
(in work units): 37.1 million; Work productivity units completed per
employee: 1,289.
Fiscal year: 2006;
End of year number of field office employees: 27,383; Work productivity
(in work units): 37.0 million; Work productivity units completed per
employee: 1,350.
Fiscal year: 2007;
End of year number of field office employees: 26,743; Work productivity
(in work units): 36.2 million; Work productivity units completed per
employee: 1,352.
Fiscal year: 2008;
End of year number of field office employees: 27,534; Work productivity
(in work units): 36.6 million; Work productivity units completed per
employee: 1,327.
Fiscal year: Percent change, 2005-2008; End of year number of field
office employees: -4.4%; Work productivity (in work units): -1.3%; Work
productivity units completed per employee: +2.9%.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA staffing and workload data.
[End of table]
Increases in retirement and disability filings and a significant
retirement wave of SSA‘s most experienced staff pose difficult
challenges for SSA in meeting future service delivery needs. SSA
estimates that retirement and disability filings will increase the
agency‘s work by about 1 million annual claims by 2017. Further, SSA
will experience an agency-wide retirement wave in the coming years”the
agency projects that 44 percent of its staff will retire by 2016. SSA
published its new strategic plan in September 2008, which calls for SSA
to eliminate the backlog of disability hearings and increase online
retirement filings to 50 percent of applications. While discussing the
plan with us, SSA officials noted that it is not intended to be a
service delivery plan detailing how the agency will address the service
needs of the retiring baby boom generation. While the plan includes the
goal of significantly expanding the use of electronic services, it is
not clear how this will mitigate the increasing SSA workload.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that SSA develop a service delivery plan that
outlines how it will deliver quality service while managing growing
work demands and constrained resources. In response, SSA stated that it
has intensive planning efforts in place, but agreed to develop a single
planning document that describes service delivery and staffing plans.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-24]. For more
information, contact Barbara Bovbjerg at 202-512-7215 or
bovbjergb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Reduced Field Office Staffing May Have Adversely Affected Field Office
Operations:
Growth in Work Demands and an Employee Retirement Wave May Pose
Difficult Challenges without a Detailed Plan for Service Delivery:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Data on Beneficiaries, Staffing, Visitor Volume, and Wait
Times in the 21 Offices GAO Visited:
Appendix III: Functions of Field Offices and Other Entities in Medical
Disability Determinations for Disability and SSI Claims:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Federal Benefit Outlays for OASI, Disability, and SSI
Programs:
Table 2: Beneficiaries for OASI, Disability, and SSI Programs (average
in payment status):
Table 3: Type of Work Conducted by Various SSA Field Entities:
Table 4: End of Fiscal Year Field Office Staffing and Work Completed,
Fiscal Years 2005-2008:
Table 5: SSA's Limitation on Administrative Expenses Account and End of
Fiscal Year Total Number of SSA Employees, Fiscal Years 2002-2009:
Table 6: Fiscal Year 2008 Waiting Times:
Table 7: List of SSA Field Offices Visited and Their Beneficiary
Populations:
Table 8: Staffing Levels for the Field Offices GAO Visited, Fiscal
Years 2005-2007:
Table 9: Visitor Volume, Staff, and Waiting Time Data for Offices GAO
Visited, Fiscal Year 2007:
Figures:
Figure 1: SSA Service Delivery Options:
Figure 2: Field Office Work Units Completed by Major Category, Fiscal
Years 2005-2008:
Figure 3: Number of SSI Redeterminations and Continuing Disability
Reviews Completed, Fiscal Years 2002-2008 (Actual) and Fiscal Year 2009
(Projected):
Figure 4: SSA Average National Waiting Times, Fiscal Years 2002-2006:
Figure 5: Growth in OASI, Disability, and SSI Claims, Fiscal Years 2005-
2007 (Actual) and Fiscal Years 2008-2017 (Projected):
Figure 6: Actual and Projected Number of OASI and Disability
Beneficiaries, Calendar Years 2007-2050:
Figure 7: Actual and Projected Retirements of SSA Staff, Fiscal Years
2007-2016:
Figure 8: SSA's Disability Determination Process:
Abbreviations:
DDS: Disability Determination Services:
Disability: Disability Insurance:
E-Verify: Employment eligibility verification:
OASI: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance:
MMA: Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act:
NCSSMA: National Council of Social Security Management Associations:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
SSI: Supplemental Security Insurance:
SSN: Social Security number:
VIP: Visitor Intake Program:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548:
January 9, 2009:
The Honorable Max Baucus:
Chairman:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The Social Security Administration's (SSA) approximately 1,300 field
offices are a vital component for providing service to the public, and
in fiscal year 2008 served about 44 million customers who visited the
offices. With almost 44 percent of the agency's approximate 63,000
employees, field offices serve as SSA's primary points for face-to-face
contact with the public. People visit their local field offices to
apply for Social Security cards and for Social Security benefits, to
request replacement benefit checks, and to obtain a host of other
services.
Constrained budgets and staffing and increases in retirement and
disability filings by the aging baby boomer population are increasingly
challenging field offices' ability to meet the demand for services. In
our May 2008 testimony,[Footnote 1] we reported our initial
observations on the adverse effects that have resulted from a reduced
staff level in SSA field offices and the future challenges field
offices face as the nation's 80 million baby boomers retire. As
requested, this report conveys the final results of our evaluation. To
better understand the challenges SSA field offices face in delivering
quality service to customers, we reviewed (1) the effect that staffing
reductions are having on field office operations and (2) the challenges
SSA faces in meeting service delivery needs in the future and the
agency's plans for addressing them.
To review the effect staffing reductions have had on field office
operations, we obtained various automated data on field office
staffing, work productivity, and customer wait times for fiscal years
2004 through 2008 and interviewed SSA headquarters officials
responsible for overseeing field office operations. We interviewed
managers and staff in 21 field offices, two Social Security Card
Centers, two regional offices, and three area offices to gain their
perspectives on the effect of staffing reductions and strategies used
to manage work. We selected the field offices based on the populations
they served, their geographic location, number of staff, and customer
wait times. (See appendix I for a more complete discussion of our scope
and methodology, and appendix II for a list of the field offices we
visited and information about them.) As we describe in appendix I, we
tested the reliability of SSA's work productivity and staffing data,
the national average field office customer wait time for fiscal years
2002 to 2006, and national and field office wait time data for fiscal
years 2007 and 2008 from SSA's Visitor Intake Process, and found that
they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. To
review the challenges that SSA faces in meeting service delivery needs
in the future, we interviewed SSA headquarters officials responsible
for operations, budget, and strategic human capital planning, and
obtained relevant documentation. This documentation included data on
the projected growth in the number of claims, beneficiaries, and staff
retirements, and SSA's fiscal year 2008 to 2013 strategic plan.
We conducted our work between July 2007 and January 2009 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
Staffing constraints are having adverse effects on service. The number
of staff in field offices dropped 4.4 percent between 2005 and 2008. As
a result of greater efficiencies, field office work produced fell only
1.3 percent during the same period. To manage the reduced staffing, SSA
deferred work that the agency deemed as a lower priority, such as
conducting reviews of beneficiaries' continuing eligibility. However,
deferring these reviews means that beneficiaries who no longer qualify
for benefits may still receive payments erroneously. Busy field offices
also shared work with less busy offices and redirected staff from their
usual responsibilities to meet critical needs. Reduced staffing also
may have contributed to the buildup of work in field offices, longer
customer wait times, and poor phone service. In fiscal year 2008, more
than 3 million customers waited for over 1 hour to be served. Further,
SSA's 2007 Field Office Caller Survey found that 51 percent of
customers calling selected field offices had at least one earlier call
that had gone unanswered. Because SSA based its results only on
customers who were ultimately able to get through to the field offices,
the actual percentage of customers that had unanswered calls was likely
even higher. These factors may have contributed to a 3 percent drop in
SSA's overall customer satisfaction rating, from 84 percent in fiscal
year 2005 to 81 percent in fiscal year 2008. SSA currently has no
quantitative standards for customer waiting times and field office
telephone service, limiting the agency's ability to measure the quality
of these services.
Increases in retirement and disability filings and a significant
retirement wave of SSA's most experienced staff pose difficult
challenges for SSA but SSA does not currently have a detailed plan to
address future service delivery needs. SSA estimates that retirement
and disability filings will increase the agency's work by about 1
million annual claims by 2017. Further, SSA will experience a
retirement wave agency-wide in the coming years--the agency projects
that 44 percent of its staff will retire by 2016. SSA also published
its new strategic plan in September 2008, which calls for SSA to
eliminate the backlog of disability hearings and increase online
filings of retirement applications to a rate of 50 percent. While
discussing the strategic plan with us, SSA officials noted that it is
not intended to be a service delivery plan detailing how the agency
will address the service needs of the retiring baby boom generation.
While the plan includes the goal of significantly expanding the use of
electronic services, it is not clear how this will mitigate SSA's
increasing workload. As early as 1993 and most recently in 2000, we
recommended that SSA develop a service delivery plan to address its
resource constraints and other challenges. However, SSA officials told
us they use their strategic plan to provide a broad vision and goals,
and use the annual budget process to request resources for incremental
changes.
We are recommending that SSA develop a service delivery plan that
describes how it will deliver quality service in the future while
managing growing work demands and constrained resources. Further, this
plan should establish standards for field office waiting times and
phone service to help identify and improve offices with poor service.
In responding to a draft of our report, SSA disagreed with our
statement that it does not have a detailed plan to address future
service delivery needs. Rather, it commented that it continually plans
for the future and has been long aware that the Baby Boom generation
would have a dramatic impact on internal staffing losses, as well as
escalating disability and retirement claims workloads. However, in
response to continuing concerns about a lack of a consolidated plan to
address the disability and retirement wave of the Baby Boom generation,
SSA now is developing a single document that describes the many
planning efforts that it has in place. We welcome SSA's decision to
develop a consolidated planning document. While SSA has a variety of
planning efforts to improve its operations, it is still not clear how
SSA plans to minimize the deferral of its workloads and its decline in
customer service, and we continue to recommend that SSA make clear to
what extent additional resources or an altered field office structure
might be needed to accommodate the growing workload.
SSA did not agree with our recommendation to establish standards for
field office customer wait times and phone service, stating that such
standards would create problems by diverting an already thin staff away
from processing claims and postentitlement work. While we understand
that SSA field offices face many pressures, we believe that clear
standards establishing a minimum level of quality customer service are
an essential first step for organizations to measure success.
Background:
SSA offers a range of services, which includes providing financial
assistance to eligible individuals through the following three major
benefit programs:
* Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI)--provides benefits to retired
workers and their families and to survivors of deceased workers.
* Disability Insurance (Disability)--provides benefits to eligible
workers who have qualifying disabilities, and their eligible family
members.
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)--provides income for aged, blind,
or disabled individuals with limited income and resources.
In fiscal year 2008, these three benefit programs provided a combined
total of approximately $650 billion to nearly 55 million beneficiaries.
SSA projects that the benefit payments and number of beneficiaries for
the three programs will increase in fiscal year 2009 (see tables 1 and
2).
Table 1: Federal Benefit Outlays for OASI, Disability, and SSI Programs
(Dollars in billions):
Program: OASI;
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $479.7;
Fiscal year: 2008 (actual): $503.0;
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $530.6.
Program: Disability;
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $97.0;
Fiscal year: 2008 (actual): $104.3;
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $109.5.
Program: SSI;
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $36.0;
Fiscal year: 2008 (actual): $43.9;
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $43.2.
Program: Total outlays;
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $612.7;
Fiscal year: 2008 (actual): $651.2;
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $683.4.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
[End of table]
Table 2: Beneficiaries for OASI, Disability, and SSI Programs (average
in payment status) (Dollars in millions):
Program: OASI;
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $40.7;
Fiscal year: 2008 (estimate): $41.2;
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $42.0.
Program: Disability;
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $8.7;
Fiscal year: 2008 (estimate): $9.0;
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $9.3.
Program: SSI;
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $7.0;
Fiscal year: 2008 (estimate): $7.2;
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $7.3.
Program: Concurrent recipients[A];
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): ($2.6);
Fiscal year: 2008 (estimate): ($2.6);
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): ($2.7).
Program: Total beneficiaries;
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $53.8;
Fiscal year: 2008 (estimate): $54.7;
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $56.0.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
[A] Recipients receiving benefits from the OASI and SSI or Disability
and SSI programs.
[End of table]
Besides paying benefits through these three programs, SSA issues Social
Security cards, maintains earnings records, and performs various other
functions through a network of field office and headquarters operations
using an administrative budget of over $10 billion. SSA's field
operations consist of:
* field offices, which serve as the agency's primary points for face-
to-face contact;
* Social Security Card Centers, which issue Social Security numbers;
* Teleservice Centers, which offer national, toll-free telephone
service; and:
* Program Service Centers, which make entitlement decisions for
benefits, as well as assist in answering 800-number calls.
Table 3 shows the type of work that is performed by various SSA field
components.
Table 3: Type of Work Conducted by Various SSA Field Entities:
Type of work: Claims and eligibility determinations for OASI,
Disability, and SSI benefits;
Function: Takes applications for benefits, evaluates evidence, and
makes determinations of eligibility[A] and benefit amounts;
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices; Teleservice Centers;
Program Service Centers.
Type of work: Program integrity;
Function: Conducts continuing nonmedical eligibility reviews to ensure
payment accuracy;
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices (nonmedical
eligibility reviews).
Type of work: Social Security numbers (SSN);
Function: Takes applications for Social Security cards and updates
records of people who have been issued SSNs to keep them current and
accurate; Takes applications for and issues Social Security cards with
SSNs after determining the validity of required identification;
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices; Social Security Card
Centers.
Type of work: Earnings records;
Function: Posts updates to workers' records. Links the earnings records
to SSNs and, when no match can be found, tracks the reported earnings
and attempts to resolve the discrepancy;
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices; Program Service
Centers.
Type of work: Employment eligibility verification (E-Verify);
Function: Assists employers in verifying the name/SSN/citizenship/work
authorization of new hires, and assists workers in resolving
discrepancies between SSA and Department of Homeland Security data;
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices.
Type of work: Medicare program assistance;
Function: Takes applications and determines eligibility for the
Medicare program and processes applications for replacement Medicare
cards. Also, makes eligibility determinations and redeterminations for
the prescription assistance subsidy offered under the Medicare
Prescription Drug Program, among other Medicare work;
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA information.
[A] For the purposes of this analysis, we include the various SSA
entities outside headquarters that serve beneficiaries and covered
workers, excluding SSA's payment centers. Throughout the rest of this
report, we focus exclusively on field offices. SSA relies on state
Disability Determination Service units and various SSA entities to make
medical disability determinations for claims filed under the Disability
and SSI programs. See appendix III for a more detailed description of
the various entities involved in medical disability determinations.
[End of table]
Field offices are located in communities across the United States, the
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam, delivering services through face-
to-face contact, over the phone, and through the mail. Field offices
range in size from large urban offices with 50 or more employees to
very small offices in remote areas called resident stations. In
September 2008, there were 1,267 field offices and 30 resident
stations. Resident stations have more limited services, and are staffed
by one or two individuals. Field offices also offer services to the
public through 734 contact stations, as of September 2008. These
stations provide very limited functions and are staffed with one SSA
field office employee who travels to certain locations, such as a
hospital, once a month. Additionally, SSA has begun using video
conferencing to take claims and provide other services to customers in
remote locations in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Minnesota,
Utah, Alaska, and Wyoming. SSA is planning to expand the video network
to provide additional sites and services.
In addition to field offices, SSA offers customers a variety of other
options for conducting their business. Individuals may call SSA's toll-
free helpline to file for benefits or to obtain general information.
They also may use the Internet to file for benefits, or visit a Social
Security Card Center to request a Social Security card. Figure 1 shows
the various options by which customers may conduct their business with
SSA.
Figure 1: SSA Service Delivery Options:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Field offices:
* Visit an SSA field office to conduct face-to-face business with a
staff person Range of services include:
- applying for Social Security benefits;
- requesting change of address;
- requesting change in direct deposit;
- requesting Social Security card;
* Call or mail in documents;
* Self-help services available for requesting change of address and
benefit verification letters.
Teleservice Centers: Toll-free telephone services:
* Apply for retirement benefits;
* Obtain answers to general questions;
* Perform other actions.
Internet:
* Apply for retirement, disability, or spousal benefits;
* Change address;
* Change direct deposit;
* Obtain Medicare replacement cards;
* Perform other actions.
Social Security Card Centers:
* Visit a card center to request Social Security cards.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
[End of figure]
While SSA field offices take applications and determine if claimants
meet basic, nonmedical eligibility requirements for benefits, state
Disability Determination Services (DDS) that are under contract with
SSA make medical eligibility determinations for Disability and SSI
claims. SSA's Hearing Offices and Appeals Council make decisions on
appeals of these determinations. Appendix III describes the functions
of each of these entities in the medical disability determination
process for Disability and SSI claims. DDSs also conduct continuing
disability reviews for Disability and SSI beneficiaries to ensure that
individuals are still medically eligible for payments.
Reduced Field Office Staffing May Have Adversely Affected Field Office
Operations:
Overall, the number of field office staff and the amount of work
completed declined from fiscal year 2005 through 2008. Specifically,
both staffing levels and work completed decreased from 2005 through
2007 and increased slightly in 2008. However, field office employees
completed more work, on average, as a result of greater efficiency. If
not for the increased productivity of SSA, the decline in work
completed could have been greater. Nonetheless, staffing declines
resulted in customers waiting longer to be served and difficulties for
field offices in answering calls from customers. SSA and its field
offices used various strategies to manage work demands, such as
deferring certain work, sharing work among offices, and redirecting
staff to serve critical needs outside of their usual responsibilities.
Despite these efforts, field office managers and staff stated that they
cannot keep up with their work. Further, these factors may have
contributed to a 3 percent drop in SSA's customer satisfaction rating
between fiscal years 2005 and 2008. While SSA has measures to monitor
field office waiting times and, to a certain extent, customer service,
SSA has no quantitative field office standards for how long customers
should wait and if the phone should be answered. According to SSA,
field offices have greatly varying circumstances with visitors and
phone service and standards in these areas have not been established.
Instead, SSA has a variety of field office measures for processing
work.
Increased Staff Productivity Helped Soften the Impact of Staffing
Decline:
Despite a 4.4 percent staffing decline from fiscal years 2005 through
2008, the amount of work[Footnote 2] that field offices produced
decreased by only 1.3 percent. As a result, the average amount of work
produced by field office employees increased by 2.9 percent between
fiscal years 2005 and 2008 (see table 4). One reason for this greater
efficiency is that SSA is shifting work from busy field offices to less
busy offices; SSA cites other reasons, including automation efforts and
simplification of programs and policies. The field office staffing
reduction comprised 65 percent of SSA's overall reduction.
Table 4: End of Fiscal Year Field Office Staffing and Work Completed,
Fiscal Years 2005-2008:
Fiscal year: 2005;
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees[A]: 65,122;
Number of field office employees: 28,790;
Field office work (in work units): 37.1 million;
Work units completed per employee: 1,289.
Fiscal year: 2006;
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees[A]: 63,054;
Number of field office employees: 27,383;
Field office work (in work units): 37.0 million;
Work units completed per employee: 1,350.
Fiscal year: 2007;
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees[A]: 61,594;
Number of field office employees: 26,743;
Field office work (in work units): 36.2 million;
Work units completed per employee: 1,352.
Fiscal year: 2008;
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees[A]: 63,202;
Number of field office employees: 27,534;
Field office work (in work units): 36.6 million;
Work units completed per employee: 1,327.
Fiscal year: Percent change, 2005-2008;
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees[A]: -2.9%;
Number of field office employees: -4.4%;
Field office work (in work units): -1.3%;
Work units completed per employee: +2.9%.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
[A] SSA provided data on employees that represented the sum of full-
time and part-time employees, rather than full-time equivalents; as a
result, all staffing data that we use derive from a count of the number
of employees.
[End of table]
SSA officials attributed the staffing reductions to inadequate
appropriations. Table 5 shows the Commissioner's and the President's
budget requests and SSA's final appropriations (as available) for
fiscal years 2002 through 2009. The table also shows the changes in
recent staffing levels. The table does note that SSA received a $500
million budget increase in 2005 to manage the implementation of the
Medicare prescription drug program and hire associated staff. In
addition, other work that SSA conducts on behalf of other federal
agencies has grown. For example, new state laws requiring federal
government verification of work authorization are resulting in
additional work and field office visits associated with the Department
of Homeland Security's E-Verify program.
Table 5: SSA's Limitation on Administrative Expenses Account and End of
Fiscal Year Total Number of SSA Employees, Fiscal Years 2002-2009
(Dollars in millions):
Fiscal year: 2002;
Commissioner's request: $7,982;
President's budget request: $7,574;
Final appropriation: $7,570;
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 63,611.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Commissioner's request: $7,974;
President's budget request: $7,937;
Final appropriation: $7,885;
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 65,191.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Commissioner's request: $8,895;
President's budget request: $8,530;
Final appropriation: $8,313;
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 64,184.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Commissioner's request: $9,310;
President's budget request: $8,878;
Final appropriation: $8,733[A];
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 65,122.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Commissioner's request: $10,106;
President's budget request: $9,403;
Final appropriation: $9,109;
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 63,054.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Commissioner's request: $10,250;
President's budget request: $9,496;
Final appropriation: $9,298;
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 61,594.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Commissioner's request: $10,440;
President's budget request: $9,597;
Final appropriation: $9,745[B];
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 63,202.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Commissioner's request: $10,427;
President's budget request: $10,327;
Final appropriation: N/A[C];
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: N/A.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
Note: SSA's Limitation on Administrative Expenses appropriation
provides SSA with funding to administer the OASI, Disability, and SSI
programs, and to assist the agency in performing activities in support
of the Medicare program. The appropriation provides a limitation on the
amounts that may be expended, in total, from the OASI, Disability, SSI,
and Medicare programs, to meet the administrative expenses of the
agency.
[A] SSA's final appropriation for fiscal year 2005 includes a $500
million appropriation for administrative start-up costs to implement
the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
(MMA). The MMA created an outpatient prescription drug benefit that
enables Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in competing private drug
coverage plans, and offers a prescription assistance subsidy for
certain low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
[B] The appropriation amount shown is the enacted amount.
[C] SSA is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution for fiscal
year 2009, which expires Mar. 6, 2009.
[End of table]
Despite the staffing reductions, field offices are serving a growing
volume of visitors. Comparing fiscal years 2006 and 2008, visitor
volume increased by about 2.5 million customers, from 41.9 million to
44.4 million. As figure 2 shows, from fiscal years 2005 through 2008,
SSA processed more postentitlement[Footnote 3] work (other than for
continuing eligibility reviews), enumeration work, and Medicare work.
SSA processed less work for OASI, Disability, and SSI claims
(nonmedical determinations only); Continuing Disability Reviews; and
SSI Redeterminations.[Footnote 4] SSA attributes the high volume of
postentitlement actions to the growth in beneficiary populations.
Figure 2: Field Office Work Units Completed by Major Category, Fiscal
Years 2005-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data: (Number of work units in millions)
Work Category: OASI;
FY 2005: 5,114,151;
FY 2006: 5,075,071;
FY 2007: 5,280,621;
FY 2008: 4,983,830.
Work Category: Disability;
FY 2005: 6,569,911;
FY 2006: 6,410,571;
FY 2007: 6,038,161;
FY 2008: 5,040,121.
Work Category: SSI;
FY 2005: 6,028,941;
FY 2006: 6,139,681;
FY 2007: 5,612,661;
FY 2008: 4,859,040.
Work Category: Postentitlement;
FY 2005: 9,757,340;
FY 2006: 10,41,700;
FY 2007: 10,991,900;
FY 2008: 11,025,700.
Work Category: CDRs and Redets;
FY 2005: 5,245,111;
FY 2006: 3,594,350;
FY 2007: 3,319,440;
FY 2008: 3,404,150.
Work Category: Enumeration;
FY 2005: 3,351,980;
FY 2006: 3,455,840;
FY 2007: 3,629,040;
FY 2008: 3,72,710.
Work Category: Medicare;
FY 2005: 619,466;
FY 2006: 1,475,030;
FY 2007: 967,836;
FY 2008: 968,131.
Work Category: Other;
FY 2005: 411,204;
FY 2006: 412,281;
FY 2007: 321,621;
FY 2008: 329,546.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
Note: Other work includes resolving discrepancies in workers' earnings
statements, updating information for student benefits, and replacing
lost checks.
[End of figure]
SSA Deferred Certain Field Office Work, and Used Other Strategies to
Manage Staffing Declines:
SSA is shifting work among field offices, based on their workloads, in
an effort to increase overall efficiency. If a field office has work
demands that it cannot immediately cover, that office can request that
some work be transferred to another office. Offices that have a
particular expertise in a certain type of work make themselves
available, as they can process this work more quickly. Field managers
told us, however, that sometimes they are reluctant to share work
because the office that receives and processes the work receives
numerical credit, which helps an office justify a greater staff level
for the future.
Managers also are using claims processing personnel to perform the
duties typically conducted by lower-graded employees, and in some
cases, even office managers take on duties of their employees. Such
duties include answering the telephone, providing initial services to
arriving customers, processing requests for new or replacement Social
Security cards, and conducting some administrative duties. While all
field office personnel recognize the need to serve visitors, many also
told us that such work is taking away from time spent processing claims
and managing the office.
While SSA is encouraging customers to use automated services to help
field offices accomplish their work, many field staff said that real
gains in automated services will likely be achieved by future
generations of customers. SSA's vision for its "eService" program is
that the public, businesses, and government agencies will be able to
conduct all business through secure, electronic channels--thereby
increasing the efficiency with which the agency can serve the public.
SSA reported that in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, respectively, the
public performed 2.9 million and 3.7 million electronic transactions.
Among SSA's electronic services are applying for retirement and
disability benefits, requesting a change of address, arranging direct
deposit of benefit amounts, and requesting a Medicare replacement card.
SSA's electronic services are available to the public over the Internet
and some are also available by telephone, using the voice recognition
capabilities of SSA's toll-free number. While field office staff and
managers welcome automated tools that the public can use, some added
that relatively few customers use them, and that due to erroneous or
missing information in online forms, field staff can lose time having
to contact the customers for clarification or more information.
Finally, with fewer staff available, SSA focused on field office work
it considered essential to its "core workloads," such as processing new
claims for Social Security benefits and issuing Social Security cards,
but deferred other types of work. Field office managers and staff told
us that with the emphasis on completing core workloads, certain
postentitlement actions typically are delayed or deferred when an
office is under stress, including changes of address, changes to direct
deposit information, and reviews to determine beneficiaries' continuing
eligibility for disability and SSI benefits.
Reviews of continuing eligibility, however, are key activities in
ensuring payment accuracy. Such reviews yield a lifetime savings for
both Disability and SSI of $10 for every dollar invested, according to
SSA. In recent years, SSA has reduced the number of reviews conducted,
citing budget limitations and an increase in core work (see figure 3).
When reviews of benefits are delayed, some beneficiaries are allowed to
continue receiving benefits when they no longer qualify.
Figure 3: Number of SSI Redeterminations and Continuing Disability
Reviews Completed, Fiscal Years 2002-2008 (Actual) and Fiscal Year 2009
(Projected):
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Number of SSI redetermination and continuing disability reviews:
SSI Non Disability redeterminations:
Continuing disability reviews:
Fiscal year: 2002;
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 2,311,500;
Continuing disability reviews: 1,586,090.
Fiscal year: 2003;
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 2,449,670;
Continuing disability reviews: 1,371,260.
Fiscal year: 2004;
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 2,278,570;
Continuing disability reviews: 1,604,680.
Fiscal year: 2005;
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 1,724,880;
Continuing disability reviews: 1,515,480.
Fiscal year: 2006;
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 1,070,820;
Continuing disability reviews: 1,337,640.
Fiscal year: 2007;
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 1,038,950;
Continuing disability reviews: 764,852.
Fiscal year: 2008;
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 1,200,000;
Continuing disability reviews: 1,065,000.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Projected SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 1,486,000;
Projected Continuing disability reviews: 1,149,000.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
[End of figure]
Despite SSA's efforts to manage work with reduced staff, many managers
responding to a survey conducted in February and March 2007 by the
National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA)
[Footnote 5] stated that they are finding it increasingly difficult to
keep up with the work. On average, the managers responding to the
survey estimated that they would need a staffing increase of 16.7
percent to provide adequate public service.
Staffing Reductions May Have Contributed to a Buildup of Certain Work,
Longer Waiting Times, and More Unanswered Calls:
Reduced staffing and increases in visitors may have contributed to a
buildup of work in field offices and longer customer wait times over
the past few years. According to an SSA official, staffing shortfalls
resulted in a buildup of 1,000 work years, for work that SSA was not
able to complete at the end of fiscal year 2007.[Footnote 6] SSA
projects that the buildup will grow to 5,800 work years by the end of
fiscal year 2009; however, officials said that they are re-evaluating
this figure in light of increases in productivity and overtime.
Staffing reductions also may have led to longer customer waiting times.
From fiscal year 2002 through 2006, the average waiting time to first
contact for all customers increased by 40 percent from 15 to 21 minutes
[Footnote 7] (see figure 4).
Figure 4: SSA Average National Waiting Times, Fiscal Years 2002-2006:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a line graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2002;
Average waiting times: 14.53-15.62 minutes.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Average waiting times: 14.90-16.07 minutes.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Average waiting times: 16.69-18.01 minutes.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Average waiting times: 18.97-20.38 minutes.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Average waiting times: 19.59-21.26 minutes.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA‘s Field Office Waiting Time Study data; SSA
replaced the study with its Visitor Intake Process, which it
implemented nationwide at the start of fiscal year 2007.
Notes: Fiscal year 2006 data are from October 2005 to June 2006.
The error bars surrounding the data points represent the 95 percent
confidence intervals surrounding the mean (average) wait time. We
calculated the mean wait times and the confidence intervals for each
year. Our calculated means did not differ materially from SSA's
reported means.
This figure presents average (mean) wait time data. However, average
wait times were strongly influenced by a small number of long wait
times. For this reason, we also calculated median wait time for each
year (but we do not show such data in the figure above). The median
wait times for fiscal years 2002 through 2006 are, respectively, 8, 8,
9, 11, and 12 minutes. The median wait time data also showed a
statistically significant increase from fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
[End of figure]
SSA has not established standards for how long customers should wait to
be served and waiting times vary considerably among offices. In fiscal
year 2008, 8 percent of customers nationwide--more than 3 million
people--waited more than an hour, which included approximately 405,000
customers who waited more than 2 hours for service (see table 6). In
both fiscal years 2007 and 2008, customers with appointments waited
significantly less time than those without appointments.[Footnote 8]
For example, for fiscal year 2007, SSA reported that 1,214 offices had
average waiting times of less than 10 minutes for customers with
appointments, while only 2 had average waiting times of more than an
hour. We also found significant variability in waiting times among
field offices for customers without appointments. For customers without
appointments, more than 300 offices had average waiting times of less
than 10 minutes, while 23 offices had average waiting times that
exceeded 1 hour in fiscal year 2007. Further, customers without
appointments during fiscal year 2007 waited more than an hour on
average at 4 of the offices we visited. In contrast, customers at the
office in Devils Lake, North Dakota, waited on average for less than 1
minute (see appendix II, table 9).
Table 6: Fiscal Year 2008 Waiting Times:
Waiting times (in minutes): 0-60;
Number of customers: 35,242,456;
Percentage of total: 91.8%.
Waiting times (in minutes): 61-120;
Number of customers: 2,731,042;
Percentage of total: 7.1.
Waiting times (in minutes): More than 120;
Number of customers: 404,753;
Percentage of total: 1.0.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA's Visitor Intake Process data.
Note: SSA replaced the previous method of collecting wait time data
with the nationwide implementation of the Visitor Intake Process at the
start of fiscal year 2007.
[End of table]
Further, some field office managers and staff in the offices we visited
told us that many customers report they waited for over an hour before
meeting with SSA representatives. In 17 of the 21 field offices
visited, managers and staff told us that long waiting times were among
the top customer complaints. In addition, 82 percent of the managers
responding to the February and March 2007 NCSSMA survey reported that
waiting times in their offices were longer than they had been in the
prior 2 years; in the 2005 survey, 72 percent of the managers reported
that their staffing was not sufficient to maintain reasonable waiting
times.
Insufficient staffing also may have been a factor in poor office phone
service. SSA's 2006 Field Office Caller Survey found that 51 percent of
customers that called 48 randomly selected field offices had one or
more earlier calls that had gone unanswered.[Footnote 9] Because SSA
based its results only on customers who were ultimately able to get
through to the field offices, the actual percentage of customers that
had unanswered calls was likely even higher. In addition, staff at 13
of the 21 offices we visited characterized their phone service as
inadequate, while staff in 2 of these offices reported that they did
not answer their offices' phones at all. Employees we interviewed also
cited inadequate telephone service as a common customer complaint at 15
offices. SSA has undertaken efforts to improve service in this area.
For example, in 2007, SSA officials told us they initiated a pilot
program called "Forward on Busy" in 25 field offices to address these
deficiencies. Under the pilot, calls receiving a busy signal at field
offices are automatically forwarded to a Teleservice Center. SSA has
since expanded the pilot to approximately 200 field offices.
SSA has not established standards for customer waiting times or
telephone service. Without such standards, SSA is less able to target
its scarce resources to improve customer service. To enable agencies to
identify areas in need of improvement, GAO internal control standards
state that agencies should establish standards and monitor performance.
[Footnote 10] Further, while SSA conducts national surveys of customer
satisfaction and provides field offices with customer comment cards, at
10 of the 21 offices we visited, officials told us they did not use
them, and where the cards were available, the results were not always
systematically tabulated.
Staff at some of the offices we visited indicated that they now have
less time to spend with customers, potentially leading to mistakes and
also limiting the ability of staff to ensure that customers fully
understand their options and benefits. These factors may have
contributed to a 3 percent drop in SSA's overall customer satisfaction
rating from 84 percent in fiscal year 2005 to 81 percent in fiscal year
2008. Work demands and staffing reductions have increased the pressure
placed on the field office staff, resulting in higher stress and lower
morale, according to field office staff. We asked 153 SSA employees at
the 21 offices we visited to rate the stress they experienced in
attempting to complete their work in a timely manner, and 65 percent
reported feeling stress to a "great" or "very great" extent on a daily
basis. The stress of expanding workloads and staffing constraints was
felt most acutely by the office managers, with 74 percent of managers
describing high levels of stress. At many offices, staff indicated that
mounting workload pressures have led to cutbacks in the amount of time
allocated for training and mentoring new staff, and SSA has reduced the
number of continuing disability reviews (medical) and SSI
redeterminations that it conducts to ensure that disability
beneficiaries are paid the correct amounts. Further, managers and staff
told us that they often do not have time to take their breaks,
including lunch. Some staff told us that they feel they are letting
down their colleagues and feel guilty about taking time off, regardless
of whether they use credit hours or annual leave. While these responses
may not be indicative of the opinions of the overall field office
workforce, they do suggest that increasing demands placed on SSA staff
may be diminishing their job satisfaction, potentially with long-term
implications for employee retention. SSA officials acknowledged that
growing workloads have seriously compromised agency morale, and they
have tried to ease the stress on staff by authorizing the use of
overtime. The officials also noted that, over time, the automated tools
should reduce the burden on staff, as customers that use the tools will
not have to visit a field office.
Growth in Work Demands and an Employee Retirement Wave May Pose
Difficult Challenges without a Detailed Plan for Service Delivery:
Projected increases to SSA's workload from retirement and disability
filings by the nation's approximately 80 million baby boomers and a
wave of employee retirements may pose serious management challenges.
Further, SSA has no detailed plan to ensure quality service is provided
to the public in an environment characterized by growing work demands
and limited resources.
Projected Growth in Work Demands and Employee Retirement Wave Will Pose
Challenges for SSA:
SSA estimates a 13 percent rise in OASI, Disability, and SSI claims
over the next 10 years, rising from a combined total of 9.4 million, in
fiscal year 2008, to 10.7 million in fiscal year 2017 (see figure 5).
SSA projected that its claims receipts would increase at a faster pace
between fiscal years 2007 through 2010 than they did in fiscal years
2005 and 2006.
Figure 5: Growth in OASI, Disability, and SSI Claims, Fiscal Years 2005-
2007 (Actual) and Fiscal Years 2008-2017 (Projected):
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Number of claim receipts:
Fiscal year: 2005;
OASI: 3,742,700;
DI: 2,507,700;
SSI: 2,499,200;
Total: 8,749,600.
Fiscal year: 2006;
OASI: 3,755,300;
DI: 2,501,000;
SSI: 2,578,500;
Total: 8,834,800.
Fiscal year: 2007;
OASI: 3,776,400;
DI: 2,631,900;
SSI: 2,638,100;
Total: 9,046,400;
Projected: 12,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2008;
OASI: 4,064,701;
DI: 2,730,400;
SSI: 2,627,000;
Total: 9,422,101;
Projected: 12,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2009;
OASI: 4,284,100;
DI: 2,752,700;
SSI: 2,621,200;
Total: 9,658,000;
Projected: 12,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2010;
OASI: 4,380,400;
DI: 2,871,700;
SSI: 2,631,800;
Total: 9,883,900;
Projected: 12,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2011;
OASI: 4,390,200;
DI: 2,780,300;
SSI: 2,649,500;
Total: 9,820,000;
Projected: 12,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2012;
OASI: 4,547,900;
DI: 2,802,600;
SSI: 2,674,800;
Total: 10,025,300;
Projected: 12,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2013;
OASI: 4,698,900;
DI: 2,817,300;
SSI: 2,693,700;
Total: 10,209,900;
Projected: 12,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2014;
OASI: 4,768,100;
DI: 2,835,300;
SSI: 2,709,500;
Total: 10,312,900;
Projected: 12,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2015;
OASI: 4,838,000;
DI: 2,855,500;
SSI: 2,727,100;
Total: 10,420,600;
Projected: 12,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2016;
OASI: 4,922,900;
DI: 2,874,300;
SSI: 2,744,800;
Total: 10,542,000;
Projected: 12,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2017;
OASI: 5,005,900;
DI: 2,890,100;
SSI: 2,761,500;
Total: 10,657,500.
Projected: 12,000,000.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
Note: Data for fiscal years 2007-2017 are SSA's projected values.
[End of figure]
SSA projects a growth of 22 percent in the number of beneficiaries,
from about 49.6 million in calendar year 2007 to about 60.5 million in
calendar year 2015[Footnote 11] (see figure 6). By 2050, there will be
an estimated total of 95.6 million OASI and Disability beneficiaries.
Figure 6: Actual and Projected Number of OASI and Disability
Beneficiaries, Calendar Years 2007-2050:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Calendar year: 2007;
Actual Number of beneficiaries: 49.6 million.
Calendar year: 2010;
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 52.8 million.
Calendar year: 2015;
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 60.5 million.
Calendar year: 2020;
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 68.9 million.
Calendar year: 2025;
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 77.1 million.
Calendar year: 2030;
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 84.0 million.
Calendar year: 2035;
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 88.7 million.
Calendar year: 2040;
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 91.4 million.
Calendar year: 2045;
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 93.4 million.
Calendar year: 2050;
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 95.6 million.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data reported in ’The 2008 Annual Report of
the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds,“ March 2008, Table IV.B2,
’Intermediate“ assumptions, p. 50.
[End of figure]
SSA's ability to meet its growing workload challenges will be more
difficult as a result of the anticipated retirement of many of the
agency's most experienced field office workers. Today, about 20 percent
of all SSA employees are eligible for regular retirement, and that
figure will grow to 39 percent in the next 5 years. Based on the
agency's projections, 44 percent of SSA's current workforce will retire
by 2016. The peak of these retirements began in 2007 and is expected to
continue into 2009, and then start to decline gradually (see figure 7).
SSA's projections suggest that the ranks of SSA's supervisors will be
hit hard, with 71 percent eligible to retire in the next 10 years.
These will be the agency's most experienced staff, which will mean a
loss of decades of institutional knowledge. During fiscal years 2007
and 2008, respectively, SSA lost 3,074 and 2,605 staff to retirements.
Field office managers and staff at many of the locations we visited
stated that it typically takes 2 to 3 years for new employees to become
fully proficient. Also, new hires would benefit from mentoring by
veteran employees before the latter retire. Using the approximately
$150 million that SSA was appropriated above the President's fiscal
year 2008 budget request, SSA planned to hire an additional 3,900 staff
for operations, including 2,350 new hires for regional and field office
operations. Although SSA hired 2,479 staff for its field offices, after
transfers, retirements, and resignations, at the end of fiscal year
2008, SSA had only 791 more staff in its field offices than it did at
the end of fiscal year 2007. As a result, the end of fiscal year 2008
SSA had 1,256 field staff fewer than it did at the end of fiscal year
2005.
Figure 7: Actual and Projected Retirements of SSA Staff, Fiscal Years
2007-2016:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2007;
Actual Number of Retirements: 3,074.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Actual Number of Retirements: 2,665.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,948.
Fiscal year: 2010;
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,919.
Fiscal year: 2011;
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,869.
Fiscal year: 2012;
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,789.
Fiscal year: 2013;
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,695.
Fiscal year: 2014;
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,578.
Fiscal year: 2015;
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,462.
Fiscal year: 2016;
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,343.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
Note: Number of retirements for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 are actual;
numbers for other years are projected.
[End of figure]
SSA has used a variety of strategies to maintain adequate staffing. SSA
offers recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses to individuals
with needed skills and may consider employees' prior nonfederal work
experience when computing annual leave. SSA also offers workplace
flexibilities to assist workers in balancing work and family.
Additionally, SSA uses dual compensation (salary offset) waivers from
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to respond to emergency
conditions[Footnote 12] and to hire for certain hard-to-fill positions.
For example, SSA was granted a waiver to re-employ federal annuitants
who retired under an early-out authority to provide relief in areas
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Further, SSA has developed
recruiting efforts that reach out to a broader pool of candidates. For
example, SSA began recruiting retired military and disabled veterans in
2002 because of its commitment to helping veterans.
SSA's Strategic Plan Is Ambitious, but It Is Not Clear How SSA Plans to
Achieve Its Goals:
SSA's new strategic plan, published in September 2008, calls for SSA to
eliminate the backlog of disability hearings; improve the speed and
quality of the disability process; and improve retiree services--such
as achieving an online filing rate of 50 percent of retirement
applications by 2012. This plan also stresses the workload increases
that SSA will face in the coming years and recognizes SSA's limited
resources. However, this plan does not explain what changes to field
offices and what resources will be needed to eliminate backlogs and
improve services. While discussing the strategic plan with us, SSA
officials stated the strategic plan is not intended to be a service
delivery plan that details how the agency will address the service
needs of the retiring Baby Boom generation.
As early as 1993[Footnote 13] and most recently in 2000,[Footnote 14]
we recommended that SSA develop a service delivery plan to help focus
its efforts on meeting future challenges. In 2000, we reported that SSA
needed to better position itself for the future by altering the
agency's network of facilities to more closely align it with projected
customer needs and demographics. Since 2000, SSA has not developed a
detailed plan for providing services to an expanding population of
customers brought on by the baby boom population reaching retirement
age. Instead, SSA officials told us that they use their strategic plan
to provide a broad vision and goals, and the annual budget process to
request resources for incremental changes. As this report and SSA's
strategic plan show, SSA faces significant challenges in the future;
however, SSA remains without a plan that describes how it will continue
to do more work with fewer resources and achieve its new strategic
goals. It is not clear how SSA's infrastructure, including the
approximately 1,300 field offices with 27,000 field employees, can
accommodate the growing workload and field office visitor volume while
ensuring quality customer service. Further, while the plan includes
strategies to significantly expand the use of electronic services, it
is not clear how the increase of online services will mitigate the
increasing workload.
Conclusions:
While SSA has taken action to manage its workload with fewer staff, the
broader challenge of providing nationwide field office service remains.
Although customers expect to be served in a reasonable amount of time
and have their phone calls answered, field offices are deferring
certain work, customers are waiting longer to be served, and staff feel
stressed. Projected increases in claims for benefits from the nation's
approximately 80 million baby boomers and a large retirement wave among
SSA's most experienced staff will place even more pressure on field
offices and could make these problems more severe.
It is essential that SSA manage its increasing workload through strong
planning efforts. SSA's strategic plan is a strong first step with its
acknowledgment of growing work demands and budget constraints.
Achieving the plan's goal of an online filing rate of 50 percent of
retirement applications will surely relieve some service-demand growth
at field offices. However, it is not clear how SSA plans to accommodate
the growing workload and the goals of the strategic plan, while
ensuring quality customer service at field offices. SSA has been
deferring work and letting customer service decline. SSA's new
strategic plan indeed seeks to address these problems, but it is not
clear if SSA's plan for greater reliance on online retirement filings
will, by itself, be sufficient. Whether SSA will need more resources or
an altered field office infrastructure, or both, is unclear. A detailed
service delivery plan should make this clear, and if additional
resources are needed to achieve agencywide goals, SSA should identify
the resources required to meet long-term service delivery needs.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To pursue high-quality field office service, we recommend that SSA
develop a service delivery plan that describes, in detail, how it will
deliver quality customer service in the future while managing growing
work demands with constrained resources. This plan should identify the
extent that new business processes will allow SSA to accommodate
growing demand or whether additional resources are needed to achieve
its strategic goals. Further, this plan should establish standards for
field office customer waiting times and phone service to help identify
and improve offices with poor service.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from the
Commissioner of Social Security, which are reproduced in appendix IV.
In addition, SSA provided technical comments, which we incorporated in
the report where appropriate.
In response to our draft report, SSA disagreed with our statement that
they do not have a detailed plan to address future service delivery
needs. Rather, it commented that it continually plans for the future
and has been long aware that the Baby Boom generation would have a
dramatic impact on internal staffing losses, as well as escalating
disability and retirement claims workloads. SSA described its current
efforts as being the Annual Strategic Plan and the agency's annual
budget documents. However, in response to continuing concerns about a
lack of a consolidated plan to address the disability and retirement
wave of the Baby Boom generation, SSA commented that it is now
developing a single document that describes the many planning efforts
that it has in place. SSA commented that its consolidated document
will, at minimum, include comprehensive plans for expanding electronic
services for customers; increasing the centralization of receiving
phone calls and working claims from customers while maintaining the
network of local field offices; enhancing phone and video services in
field offices (where applicable) and piloting self-service personal
computers in the reception areas of those offices; and continuing to
assess the efficiency of field offices.
We welcome SSA's decision to develop a consolidated planning document.
While SSA has a variety of planning efforts to improve its operations,
it is still not clear how SSA plans to minimize the deferral of its
workloads and its decline in customer service. The annual strategic
plan is a strong vision for the future, and annual budget documents
detail short-term resource requirements, but the budget documents do
not identify resource requirements for more than the next year and the
strategic plan does not identify resource requirements at all. It is
not clear if SSA goals outlined in the strategic plan can be achieved
using the current infrastructure, and we continue to recommend that SSA
make clear to what extent additional resources or an altered field
office infrastructure might be needed to accommodate the growth in
disability and retirement filings.
SSA did not agree with our recommendation to establish quantitative
standards for field office customer wait times and phone service,
stating that such standards would create problems by diverting staff
already spread thin across field offices away from processing claims
and postentitlement work. SSA stated that it tracks waiting times and
makes adjustments as necessary to improve service, and that many of the
recently hired field office staff went to offices with the highest
waiting times. Still, over 3 million people waited over 1 hour for
service last year and in 2 offices the average wait was over 1 hour.
The majority of phone calls to field offices went unanswered, and the
practice in some field offices of not answering the phone and not
returning voices messages is unprofessional. While we understand that
SSA field offices face many pressures, we believe that clear standards
that establish a minimum level of quality customer service are an
essential first step for organizations to measure success. Absent
customer service standards, long field office waiting times and
inadequate field office phone service are problems that risk becoming
entrenched.
In total, planning efforts should strive to establish that SSA's
infrastructure is in the proper condition to manage its workload and
provide quality customer service. However, it is still not clear what
infrastructure changes and resources are needed for SSA to succeed.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the
Commissioner of Social Security, appropriate congressional committees,
and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available
at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Barbara D. Bovbjerg:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of our study were to determine (1) the effect that
staffing reductions have had on field office operations and (2) the
challenges the Social Security Administration (SSA) faces in meeting
service delivery needs in the future and the agency's plans for
addressing them. To assess our first objective, we:
* Interviewed SSA headquarters officials responsible for overseeing
field office operations.
* Compared the overall number of field office staffing per year from
fiscal years 2005 through 2008 to the amount of work produced overall
by the field offices for the same fiscal years to understand changes in
field office work productivity.
* Condensed the 57 different types of work actions listed in the SSA's
District Office Work Report into eight larger categories, and compared
the work volumes completed between fiscal years 2005 and 2008.
* Determined the level of field office staffing using end of year
staffing data from SSA's Justification for Appropriations Committees
annual documents as well as administrative data that SSA officials
provided to us for fiscal years 2002 through 2008.
* Compared the national average wait time data from SSA's Field Office
Waiting Time Study from fiscal year 2002 through 2006, and reported
data from SSA's Visitor Intake Program (VIP) data for fiscal years 2007
and 2008.
* Interviewed managers and staff in 21 field offices, 2 Social Security
Card Centers, 2 regional offices, and 3 area offices to gain their
perspectives on the effect of staffing reductions and strategies used
to manage work. We selected the field offices based on the populations
they served, their geographic location, number of staff, and customer
wait times (see appendix II for a listing of the field offices we
visited).
We tested the reliability of SSA's work productivity and staffing data,
and found that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our
review. Specifically, we obtained three relevant databases for fiscal
years 2005 through 2008: (1) District Office Workload Report, (2) Work
Unit Per Work Year, and (3) staffing data. Each database contained
critical data for analysis of the workload handled by each SSA field
office. SSA identified these files as containing the supporting data
for reports that SSA had developed for internal uses. We tested the key
variables in each file for completeness and accuracy of the values
coded in the records. To determine the reliability of field office
staffing data provided by SSA, we compared the SSA data against
staffing data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's (OPM)
Central Personnel Data File. We compared the number of staff per field
office from OPM's file with the number of staff per field office
provided by SSA. While there were isolated differences for certain
field offices, we found SSA's field office staffing data sufficiently
reliable for the purpose of reporting field office staffing data by
region and nationally.
We also tested the validity of two sources of customer wait time data:
(1) the annual national average wait time for fiscal years 2002 to
2006, and (2) the national-and field-office-level wait time data from
the VIP system that SSA first implemented nationwide for fiscal year
2007. The fiscal year 2002 to 2006 data came from SSA's Field Office
Waiting Time Study that was conducted annually through the end of
fiscal year 2006. The data represented the national average of wait
times that field offices collected. The sample of customer wait time at
field offices was not large enough to allow SSA to calculate
statistically representative wait times for any level of the SSA
organization smaller than the national average. SSA conducted the study
by having field employees sample customer wait times for each field
office during a randomly selected 1-hour period each quarter of a
fiscal year. SSA staff charged with implementing the sample at the
field office level reported directly to field office management instead
of an independent entity within SSA. In a method such as this, it is
important for individual field offices to comply with the sampling
regime. For the fiscal year 2002 through 2006 period, data for 14.9
percent of the sample hours were missing. We also found unexpected data
entries; for instance, we found wait times entered for weekend dates
and negative wait times.
We noted that from fiscal year 2002 through 2006, the average wait time
reported by SSA increased from 15.2 to 21.0 minutes. We asked SSA
officials whether confidence intervals surrounding the wait time
estimates for each fiscal year had been calculated. They informed us
that they did not believe these calculations had been made. To assess
if the increase in wait times from fiscal year 2002 through 2006 was
statistically significant, we determined that we had to estimate the
sampling error and create confidence intervals surrounding the average
wait times. The result was that for any year in the 2002 through 2006
period, the margin of error was no larger than 0.84. This allowed us to
conclude that while differences between one individual year and the
next were only sometimes statistically significant, the difference
between wait times for fiscal years 2002 and 2006, respectively, was
statistically significant. The difference of 5.35 minutes (based on GAO
calculations) yielded a p-value of less than .0001. Statistical
analysis of this kind assumes independence between observations.
However, we noted that this was not necessarily the case. If, for
example, the first visit of the day took longer than scheduled, some
visitors arriving for later appointments with SSA staff on the same day
would presumably have to wait past their scheduled appointment time.
The VIP system has several uses, one of which is to produce average
wait time data for each field office, as well as averages for each
successive level of SSA's field structure (e.g., area, region, and
national). The VIP system replaced the Waiting Time Study at the start
of fiscal year 2007. SSA now electronically collects data on wait time
that represent the full cohort of SSA field office visitors (with few
exceptions). However, there are no built-in edits to capture input
errors; rather, errors would have to be identified by users of the
data. We performed electronic testing of key data elements using all
data for 21 field offices to which we had made a site visit. After
determining that SSA's initial reports for GAO contained incorrect
calculations, we worked with SSA staff to replicate the wait time for
selected groups of visitors; once completed, we determined that our
replicated database was comparable to the data that SSA had developed
on the basis of our joint work, and therefore we concluded that we
could use the VIP data as support for our conclusions and
recommendations.
To address our second objective, we:
* Interviewed SSA headquarters officials responsible for operations,
budget, and strategic and human capital planning, and obtained relevant
documentation.
* Obtained data from SSA headquarters officials on the actual and
projected growth in the number of claims for fiscal years 2005 through
2017.
* Obtained the actual and projected number of Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (Disability) beneficiaries
between calendar years 2007 and 2050 from the 2008 Annual Report of the
Board of Trustees to identify the projected increase in the demand for
SSA services.
* Obtained the actual and projected number of retirements of SSA staff
agency-wide from SSA's "retirement wave" analyses for fiscal years 2007
through 2016 to assess future staffing needs.
* Reviewed SSA's past strategic plans and budget documents and
discussed the new strategic plan with SSA officials to determine SSA's
plan for addressing future service delivery needs, and assessed the
adequacy of SSA's internal controls in the context of customer service
policies.
In assessing the adequacy of SSA's internal controls, we used the
criteria in GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1, dated November 1999. These standards,
issued pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act of 1982, provide the overall framework for establishing
and maintaining internal control in the federal government. Also
pursuant to the same Act, the Office of Management and Budget issued
Circular A-123, revised December 21, 2004, to provide the specific
requirements for assessing the reporting on internal controls. Internal
control standards and the definition of internal control in Circular A-
123 are based on GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government.
We conducted our work between July 2007 and January 2009 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Data on Beneficiaries, Staffing, Visitor Volume, and Wait
Times in the 21 Offices GAO Visited:
We used various data from SSA to select 21 field offices to visit. We
wanted a variety of offices in terms of geographic location, size of
the beneficiary population covered, the number of staff, the number of
visitors, and waiting times. Our selection of field offices was based
on data for the years indicated.
Table 7: List of SSA Field Offices Visited and Their Beneficiary
Populations:
Field office: Washington Heights - New York, New York;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 6,584;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
14,075.
Field office: Brooklyn Avenue X - New York;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 9,697;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
21,911.
Field office: Anacostia - Washington, D.C.;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 4,209;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
7,690.
Field office: Fairfax, Virginia;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 3,871;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
2,225.
Field office: Culpeper, Virginia;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 2,659;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
1,222.
Field office: Wheaton, Maryland;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 4,664;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
3,491.
Field office: Casa Grande, Arizona;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 4,852;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
2,902.
Field office: Mesa, Arizona;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 16,383;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
6,438.
Field office: Inglewood, California;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 7,987;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
12,475.
Field office: Los Angeles Downtown - California;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 4,226;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
12,286.
Field office: Orlando, Florida;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 20,892;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
17,325.
Field office: Leesburg, Florida;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 12,584;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
5,255.
Field office: Alice, Texas;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 3,018;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
3,350.
Field office: San Antonio Northwest - Texas;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 15,481;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
13,429.
Field office: McAllen, Texas;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 13,066;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
19,873.
Field office: Devils Lake, North Dakota[A];
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 687;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 450.
Field office: Grand Forks, North Dakota;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 4,318;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
1,999.
Field office: Freeport, Illinois;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 2,090;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 969.
Field office: Bloomingdale, Illinois;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 5,876;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06:
1,875.
Field office: Cayey, Puerto Rico;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 10,074;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 1.
Field office: Arecibo, Puerto Rico;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of
9/30/06: 22,469;
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 4.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
[A] Devils Lake is a resident station under the Minot, North Dakota,
field office.
[End of table]
Table 8: Staffing Levels for the Field Offices GAO Visited, Fiscal
Years 2005-2007:
Field office: Washington Heights - New York, New York;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 36;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 31;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 34;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -2.
Field office: Brooklyn Avenue X - New York;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 56;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 53;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 46;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -10.
Field office: Anacostia - Washington, D.C.;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 22;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 22;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 22;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 0.
Field office: Fairfax, Virginia;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 24;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 21;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 21;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -3.
Field office: Culpeper, Virginia;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 9;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 9;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 10;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 1.
Field office: Wheaton, Maryland;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 27;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 23;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 25;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -2.
Field office: Casa Grande, Arizona;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 11;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 11;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 11;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 0.
Field office: Mesa, Arizona;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 69;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 54;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 49;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -20.
Field office: Inglewood, California;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 42;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 39;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 37;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -5.
Field office: Los Angeles Downtown - California;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 61;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 59;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 60;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -1.
Field office: Orlando, Florida;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 77;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 69;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 67;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -10.
Field office: Leesburg, Florida;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 35;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 33;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 30;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -5.
Field office: Alice, Texas;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 14;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 12;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 12;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -2.
Field office: San Antonio Northwest - Texas;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 55;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 53;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 53;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -2.
Field office: McAllen, Texas;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 71;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 70;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 68;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -3.
Field office: Devils Lake, North Dakota;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 2;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 2;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 2;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 0.
Field office: Grand Forks, North Dakota;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 15;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 12;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 13;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -2.
Field office: Freeport, Illinois;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 6;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 7;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 6;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 0.
Field office: Bloomingdale, Illinois;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 24;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 22;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 21;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -3.
Field office: Cayey, Puerto Rico;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 8;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 6;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 10;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 2.
Field office: Arecibo, Puerto Rico;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 19;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 19;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 18;
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -1.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
[End of table]
Table 9: Visitor Volume, Staff, and Waiting Time Data for Offices GAO
Visited, Fiscal Year 2007:
Field office: Washington Heights - New York, New York;
Number of visitors: 55,404;
Number of staff: 34;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 61.4;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 54.6.
Field office: Brooklyn Avenue X - New York;
Number of visitors: 35,369;
Number of staff: 46;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 17.1;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 16.2.
Field office: Anacostia - Washington, D.C;
Number of visitors: 41,315;
Number of staff: 22;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 13.1;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 39.2.
Field office: Fairfax, Virginia;
Number of visitors: 42,581;
Number of staff: 21;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 41.6.
Field office: Culpeper, Virginia;
Number of visitors: 15,003;
Number of staff: 10;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 10.8.
Field office: Wheaton, Maryland;
Number of visitors: 39,741;
Number of staff: 25;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 12.8;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 62.1.
Field office: Casa Grande, Arizona;
Number of visitors: 23,135;
Number of staff: 11;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0.1;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 18.7.
Field office: Mesa, Arizona;
Number of visitors: 67,125;
Number of staff: 49;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 5.7;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 65.3.
Field office: Inglewood, California;
Number of visitors: 53,440;
Number of staff: 37;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 1.2;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 53.1.
Field office: Los Angeles Downtown - California;
Number of visitors: 69,019;
Number of staff: 59;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0.2;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 20.4.
Field office: Orlando, Florida;
Number of visitors: 89,319;
Number of staff: 67;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 4.3;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 51.9.
Field office: Leesburg, Florida;
Number of visitors: 30,060;
Number of staff: 30;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0.1;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 29.4.
Field office: Alice, Texas;
Number of visitors: 16,424;
Number of staff: 12;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 16.3.
Field office: San Antonio Northwest - Texas;
Number of visitors: 64,459;
Number of staff: 53;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 48.7.
Field office: McAllen, Texas;
Number of visitors: 93,682;
Number of staff: 68;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 43.7.
Field office: Devils Lake, North Dakota;
Number of visitors: 4,587;
Number of staff: 2;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 0.2.
Field office: Grand Forks, North Dakota;
Number of visitors: 12,089;
Number of staff: 13;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 5.0;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 9.8.
Field office: Freeport, Illinois;
Number of visitors: 10,490;
Number of staff: 6;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0.1;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 8.5.
Field office: Bloomingdale, Illinois;
Number of visitors: 41,421;
Number of staff: 21;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 6.6;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 28.6.
Field office: Cayey, Puerto Rico;
Number of visitors: 2,650;
Number of staff: 10;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 14.6;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 128.5.
Field office: Arecibo, Puerto Rico;
Number of visitors: 28,404;
Number of staff: 18;
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 72.8.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
Note: Waiting times are measured from the time that customers sign into
the Visitor Intake Process until the time of customers' first contact
with an SSA staff person.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III Functions of Field Offices and Other Entities in Medical
Disability Determinations for Disability and SSI Claims:
Field offices rely on state Disability Determination Services (DDS) and
various SSA entities to make medical disability determinations for
claims filed under the Disability and SSI programs. Field offices begin
the application process for these claims and determine if claimants
meet basic requirements for the applications based on nonmedical
factors of the programs. For example, for Disability claims, field
offices determine if workers or their dependents qualify for benefits
based on the worker's years of work. For SSI claims, field offices
determine if claimants meet income requirements. If basic requirements
are met, field offices forward the application to the state DDS to make
initial determinations of disability based on medical and work-related
factors. For claimants found to be eligible, field offices initiate
action to begin payments. If claimants are not satisfied with the
determination, they may request reconsideration with a different group
within DDS. If claimants are not satisfied with the second
determination by DDS, they may request further reconsideration with
SSA's hearings office, and then SSA's Appeals Council (figure 8
provides a visual depiction of this process). Over the years, backlogs
of varying degrees have occurred at the DDS, Hearing Office, and
Appeals Council levels, leaving some claimants waiting for years to
have their claims decided. In recent years, SSA has taken actions to
decrease these backlogs.
Figure 8: SSA's Disability Determination Process:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of SSA's Disability Determination
Process, as follows:
Claimant contacts SSA field offices:
Application process begins:
SSA field office personnel:
* Obtain information and store in electronic record;
* Determine eligibility for nonmedical factors.
If nonmedical eligibility factors are met, application is forwarded to
DDS.
Initial determination:
State DDS personnel:
* Gather, develop, and review medical and nonmedical evidence;
* Decide eligibility on basis of medical and work-related factors.
If determination is not favorable, claimant has 60 days to request
a reconsideration.
Reconsideration:
State DDS personnel (different group):
* Re-examine prior and any new evidence;
* Render a new, independent eligibility decision.
If reconsideration is not favorable, claimant has 60 days to request a
hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
Administrative law judge hearing:
SSA hearings office personnel:
* Review for additional medical evidence;
* Conduct a hearing and render a new decision by video conference
or in person.
If ALJ decision is not favorable, claimant has 60 days to request an
Appeals Council review.
Appeals Council:
SSA Appeals Council:
* Decides whether to review the case and new evidence;
* If case is reviewed, decides whether to reverse decision or return
case to ALJ.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data; Art Explosion (images).
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
Social Security:
The Commissioner:
Social Security Administration:
Baltimore Md. 21235-0001:
December 12, 2008:
Ms. Barbara D. Bovbjerg:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G St., NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Bovbjerg:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report, "Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan Needed
to Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges" (GAO-09-24).
Enclosed are our detailed comments to the draft report recommendation,
along with suggested technical revisions.
If you have any questions, please contact Candace Skurnik, Director,
Audit Management and Liaison Staff, at (410) 965-4636.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Astrue:
Enclosure:
Comments On The Government Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report,
"Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan Needed To
Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges" (GAO-09-24):
We disagree with GAO's statement that we do not have a detailed plan to
address future service delivery needs. We continually plan for the
future, as evidenced by the many initiatives we have successfully
completed, including those that are underway, and those that are
proposed for both the near and long term.
We have long been aware that the Baby Boom generation would have a
dramatic impact on our own internal staffing losses, as well as
escalating our disability and retirement claims workloads. As a result,
we have been working on many fronts to increase our productivity to
enable us to process more work without increasing staffing levels. Many
components within the agency contribute to this effort and there is a
great deal of coordination between components as well as executive
oversight.
Central to our planning for the future is the Agency's Strategic Plan
(ASP), which we published and serves as a living document. The ASP
outlines the four main goals of the organization:
1) Eliminate our hearing backlog and prevent its recurrence;
2) Improve the speed and quality of our disability process;
3) Improve our retiree and other core services; and;
4) Preserve the public's trust in our programs.
Flowing from the ASP are tactical plans aimed at supporting the larger
agency initiatives. In the Office of Operations, workload goals are
established for our field offices (FOs), teleservice centers, and
processing centers. The Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
established a plan to reduce the age and volume of the hearing
disability backlogs, and we continue to make progress in these areas.
We have an Information Technology (IT) Advisory Board that is
responsible for long-range IT planning. In the face of dwindling
resources and rising workloads, our IT investments are critical to
keeping pace with an ever-growing demand for our services.
At the very core of our planning is the annual budget which the
Commissioner is required to submit to Congress and the President. The
budget takes into account expected growth in all workloads, based on
projections from our Office of the Chief Actuary. It also accounts for
additional burdens placed on us, such as work mandated by new
legislation and factors in estimated savings from our initiatives
designed to increase efficiency, such as improved automation and
streamlined policy, e.g., the electronic disability process and our
recent changes in the Proof of Age policy. The budget reflects work we
control, such as continuing disability reviews and Supplemental
Security Income redeterminations, and specific agency objectives, such
as working down the hearing disability backlogs.
Our FO operations have been successful at doing more with less,
demonstrated in the GAO report in Figure 2 (Page 13). The reduction in
work units does not reflect less work in the major claims categories,
but a reduction in time due to our efforts to increase efficiency
through a variety of initiatives. Fiscal year (FY) 2008 was one of our
most productive years due to changes in policy (such as the
simplification of the Proof of Age policy), and automation enhancements
to our claims workloads (such as increased use of electronic claims).
Our FY 2010 budget includes funding for many additional enhancements
and reflects productivity savings for these as well.
Our Office of the Chief Actuary projects a 40 percent increase in
retirement claims and a 10 percent increase in disability claims by FY
2017. To prepare for this, our ASP sets goals for online filing of 50
percent of retirement and 25 percent of disability insurance claims by
FY 2012. Online tiling provides work efficiency to offset the impact of
a part of the increase in claims.
Our comments on the report recommendation, along with technical
revisions are as follows:
Recommendation:
Recommend that SSA develop a service delivery plan that describes, in
detail, how it will deliver quality customer service in the future
while managing growing work demands with constrained resources. This
plan should identify the extent that new business processes will allow
SSA to accommodate growing demand or whether additional resources are
needed to achieve its strategic goals. Further, this plan should
establish a quantitative standard for field office customer waiting
times and phone service to help identify and improve offices with poor
service.
Comment:
We partially agree. We have an intensive planning process, flowing from
our ASP, which is reflected and updated annually in our budget
submissions to OMB. However, due to the continuing concern about a lack
of a consolidated plan to address service and staffing throughout the
disability and retirement wave of the Baby Boom generation, we are
developing a single document that describes all the efforts taking
place. At minimum, this document will include our comprehensive plans
for:
* Expansion of electronic service;
* Increased centralization of processing telephone and claims workloads
while maintaining our network of local FOs to serve the public;
* FO service enhancement including new phone systems, video services
where applicable, and piloting self-service personal computers in
reception areas; and;
* Service delivery assessments of our FOs to ensure that we continue to
provide efficient customer service.
With staffing spread thin across our network of FOs, requiring office
managers to meet waiting time and telephone standards would create
other problems in mission-critical services. To achieve standards for
waiting times and answering phone calls, managers would have to
dedicate more staff to these areas at the expense of timely processing
claims and post-entitlement workloads.
We do not agree that FO telephone and wait time standards should be
implemented. While Area Directors consider office visitor traffic and
waiting times as a factor in staffing allocations, our national
approach is to achieve a balance of the services that we provide. While
we do not support establishing standards, we do track waiting times and
make adjustments as necessary to improve service. Many of our FY 2008
FO hires went to the offices with the highest waiting times as measured
by our Visitor Intake Process (VIP). We are also working to alleviate
longer wait times by providing alternate service channels. As noted in
the report, we are piloting Video Service Delivery in seven States,
benefiting both the customer and us, by removing the need for a FO
visit. We are also piloting Internet access to our suite of online
services in several FOs across the country, providing the public with
an avenue of self-service, rather than having to wait to be seen by an
agency representative. To address concerns for office telephone
service, we are currently conducting a pilot in 200 offices, offering
the option of having their calls forwarded to the agency 800-number
when the local telephone is busy.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Director, (202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, key contributions to this
report were made by Blake Ainsworth, Assistant Director; Mary A.
Crenshaw, Analyst-In-Charge; Justin Fisher; Mitchell Karpman; Matthew
Lee; Vanessa Taylor; Walter Vance; Charles Willson; Gregory Wilmouth;
and Paul Wright.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Social Security Administration Field Offices: Reduced Workforce Faces
Challenges as Baby Boomers Retire. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-737T]. Washington, D.C.: May 8,
2008.
Social Security Disability: Better Planning, Management, and Evaluation
Could Help Address Backlogs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-40]. Washington, D.C.: December 7,
2007.
Social Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed in Ongoing
Efforts to Improve 800-Number Service. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-735]. Washington, D.C.: August 8,
2005.
SSA Customer Service: Broad Service Delivery Plan Needed to Address
Future Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS/AIMD-00-75]. Washington, D.C.:
February 10, 2000.
SSA's Management Challenges: Strong Leadership Needed to Turn Plans
Into Timely, Meaningful Action. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-98-113]. Washington, D.C.: March
12, 1998.
Social Security Administration: Significant Challenges Await New
Commissioner. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-97-53].
Washington, D.C.: February 20, 1997.
Social Security Administration: Effective Leadership Needed to Meet
Daunting Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-96-196]. Washington, D.C.:
September 12, 1996.
Social Security: Sustained Effort Needed to Improve Management and
Prepare for the Future. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-94-22]. Washington, D.C.: October
27, 1993.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Social Security Administration Field Offices: Reduced
Workforce Faces Challenges as Baby Boomers Retire, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-737T] (Washington, D.C.: May 8,
2008).
[2] SSA measures the amount of work produced by multiplying the volume
of actions completed by the amount of time required to complete each
type of action. The result is what SSA terms "work units." Because some
types of actions take longer than others to complete, SSA views work
units as a more precise measure than a simple count of the number of
actions completed.
[3] Postentitlement actions are those occurring after customers become
eligible for benefits that affect the amount or continuation of
payment. Such actions include changes of address, benefit
recomputations, overpayments, and reviews of Disability and SSI
beneficiaries' status to determine their continuing eligibility for
benefits.
[4] There are two types of reviews: (1) Continuing Disability Reviews,
which are conducted periodically to ensure that Disability and SSI
recipients continue to meet SSA's definition of disability, and (2) SSI
redeterminations, which verify recipients' living arrangements, income;
and other nonmedical factors related to SSI eligibility.
[5] This organization represents SSA field office managers and
Teleservice Center managers.
[6] This work does not include disability backlogs at the DDS, Hearing
Office, or Appeals Council levels.
[7] In the wait time data for the fiscal year 2002 through 2006 period,
data for 14.9 percent of the sample times were missing. Although data
were missing, improvements in data collection and the fact that we were
able to calculate sampling errors based on our knowledge of the study
allowed us to conclude that the data were sufficiently reliable for our
analytical purposes. A detailed discussion of our data validation
efforts and the limitations of the data appears in appendix appendix I.
[8] SSA can schedule appointments for customers that wish to apply for
benefits, if customers call SSA's 1-800 number or a field office in
advance. SSA generally does not schedule appointments for customers who
have other types of tasks to do in field offices.
[9] The survey was based on a random sample of 48 field offices and
interviews with 862 callers.
[10] In assessing the adequacy of SSA's internal controls, we used the
criteria in GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1, dated November 1999. See appendix I for
a detailed discussion of these standards.
[11] The Board of Trustees' 2008 Report provided data on the number of
actual OASI and Disability beneficiaries through 2007, and then made
projections for 5-year spans in the future (e.g., 2010, 2015, etc.) No
similar data are available for the SSI program.
[12] This authority allows agencies to waive the dual compensation
reduction (salary offset) otherwise required for re-employed federal
civilian annuitants. OPM authorizes agencies to use this authority to
respond to emergencies resulting from a war or natural disaster or to
hire for hard to fill positions.
[13] GAO, Social Security: Sustained Effort Needed to Improve
Management and Prepare for the Future, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-94-22] (Washington, D.C: Oct. 27,
1993).
[14] GAO, SSA Customer Service: Broad Service Delivery Plan Needed to
Address Future Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS/AIMD-00-75] (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 10, 2000).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
