|
Post by kingfisher on Oct 2, 2007 9:52:29 GMT -5
For those who do not have access, here is the latest official statement of the Commissioner. Hope it helps. -Kingfisher ____________________________________________
A Message To All Social Security And DDS Employees
Subject: Budget Situation
As we start the 2008 fiscal year, I am sure that it is no secret to you that we are facing unprecedented workloads. We do so with our lowest staffing level in over 30 years, and these workloads will continue to grow at an increasing rate as the aging baby boomers begin to retire and reach their most disability-prone years. At the same time, Congress has given us new and non-traditional workloads, such as taking Medicare prescription drug subsidy applications.
These factors combined with years of congressional appropriations that have fallen far short of what the President has requested for this agency - almost $1 billion short - means that we must make hard decisions about which facilities and services should be scaled back, consolidated or eliminated.
Let me be candid about our current budget situation. Under any funding scenario currently being considered by Congress, we will have limited resources to maintain our current level of services and drive down the hearings backlog. In fact, under either the House or Senate bills, we will have less discretionary money to spend in FY 2008 than in FY 2007. As you know, our FY 2007 budget appropriation narrowly enabled us to avoid employee furloughs. While we expect to avoid furloughs this fiscal year, field offices and headquarters components will generally be unable to replace employees who leave and in our hearing offices, the only significant hiring will be for up to 150 ALJs and some support staff late in the fiscal year.
To some, this constraint on our ability to hire more staff may seem counterintuitive given the increases the House and Senate have provided for us -- $100 million more than the President’s budget in the House appropriations bill and $125 million more in the Senate bill. Let me explain. Social Security has a large infrastructure, including over 1,400 field and hearing offices. Mandatory cost increases, such as rent, guards, postage, pay raises and employee benefits, means that we require a minimum administrative budget increase each year of over $300 million to fund current operations. These increases, combined with requirements in the FY 2008 budget that we spend $477 million on program integrity work (CDRs and SSI redeterminations), mean the amount of money available to the agency to invest in additional workload processing is very limited.
Even in the face of our budget shortfall, our demographic challenges and our added responsibilities, what impresses me the most is that you continue to maintain a can-do attitude. I see that can-do attitude every time I visit a field office, a hearing office, a TSC or PSC, our DDSs, the regional offices and the components here in headquarters. I also see it in the new and innovative ideas that employees come up with for dealing with our growing workloads. This is especially evident in our multi-faceted approach to reducing the disability backlog. We can all take pride in the improvement this year in DDS processing times and the virtual elimination of our FY 2007 “aged” hearing cases (cases pending 1,000 days or more).
Despite this progress, we must continue to look for ways to streamline our business processes. We must also convince the public to take greater advantage of other ways of doing business with us, such as our online and automated telephone services. Doing so is one of the only ways we can survive the coming demographic surge. Doing so will not jeopardize the public’s ability to do business with us face-to-face when they are required to do so or the jobs of our employees.
A May 1, 2007, editorial in the New York Times noted that we are an agency that “gets high marks for productivity and efficiency.” Clearly our situation would be worse without the productivity improvements you have achieved. As an agency, we take great pride in making efficient use of our resources. Your efforts to innovate and automate, coupled with your unwavering dedication to public service, have improved productivity on average by 2.5 percent per year since 2001. In short, we continue to produce more each year with less. The Social Security Administration is a good investment, and it is regrettable that this fact is not as widely recognized as it should be.
For many Americans, our programs are all that stand between them and poverty. The public expects and deserves the best service we can provide. With your innovation and dedication and with the support of Congress, we will continue to provide the level of service that millions of Americans have relied on for more than 70 years. I know it is often hard, but hang in there!
Michael J. Astrue Commissioner
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 2, 2007 10:39:44 GMT -5
" the only significant hiring will be for up to 150 ALJs and some support staff late in the fiscal year."
"late in the fiscal year." How does one interpret that?
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Oct 2, 2007 11:10:14 GMT -5
" the only significant hiring will be for up to 150 ALJs and some support staff late in the fiscal year." "late in the fiscal year." How does one interpret that? It would seem to be no hirings until April, which is the first mo. of second half of fiscal year. Could be later. This may mean some hirings much later. Congress may not give as much as hoped. Very bad report and frankly bodes ill for the backlog. We lose staff every year to retirement, and have not been able to replace these employees. If there are few employees to pull cases for hearings then few case get heard. Fewer employees = fewer cases. The agency can push and push and demand all it wants but at some point nothing will suffice for lack of employees. Automation has done all it can; indeed, as I speak I have been able to review only one file all morning because Eview has crashed, AGAIN. This is much slower than paper.
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Oct 2, 2007 11:10:45 GMT -5
I'd interpret it to mean SSA isn't going to be hiring this fall or winter for a class in March '08 like everyone thought. Hope that's a typo in the Commissioner's message. . .
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Oct 2, 2007 11:12:23 GMT -5
" the only significant hiring will be for up to 150 ALJs and some support staff late in the fiscal year." "late in the fiscal year." How does one interpret that? Well, if read as an entire sentence, it means no hiring of ALJs and support staffs until probably Summer or Fall 2008 (i.e. late in the fiscal year 2008, which ends September 30, 2008). However, you can also interpret as two seperate sentences: "the only significant hiring will be for up to 150 ALJs" "and some support staff late in the fiscal year." Which sounds like hiring up to 150 ALJs sometime during FY 2008 supplemented by some support staffs late in the FY, if there are any money remaining in the budget. Which interpretation is correct, I don't know. But just food for thought. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 2, 2007 11:24:45 GMT -5
It could also mean that a March class is still on target as that would be 1/2 way through the fiscal year. With an average of about 60 ALJs/class, that would keep them on track to hire up to 150 ALJs during FY 08. Anybody that has done some personnel work (or has been around it) knows that bringing on up to 150 individuals "late" in the fiscal year is next to impossible. And, this board has seen some indication in the last few weeks that there is some movement towards getting things ready for identifying what the current ALJ needs are.
The message could have also contained a typo and should have read "later" instead of "late."
I could, of course, simply be insisting on putting on rose colored glasses for this. It may be true that things wont get going until the last part of '08 and that this has all been an exercise in hurry-up-and-wait. For now, I will choose my own reality, until the real reality reveals itself.
|
|
|
Post by cinderella on Oct 2, 2007 11:29:28 GMT -5
As I read that statement, I saw multiple interpretations possible. Perhaps we can get clarification. Pixie? Can you clarify? After reading the Congressional testimony transcripts about backlogs, I can't imagine that all hiring will be "late" in the fiscal year. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 2, 2007 12:08:40 GMT -5
Is there any possiblity that OPM will look at the denials and appeals sooner since there won't be any hiring for a while??
|
|
|
Post by kingfisher on Oct 2, 2007 12:25:36 GMT -5
" the only significant hiring will be for up to 150 ALJs and some support staff late in the fiscal year." "late in the fiscal year." How does one interpret that? Well, if read as an entire sentence, it means no hiring of ALJs and support staffs until probably Summer or Fall 2008 (i.e. late in the fiscal year 2008, which ends September 30, 2008). However, you can also interpret as two seperate sentences: "the only significant hiring will be for up to 150 ALJs" "and some support staff late in the fiscal year." Which sounds like hiring up to 150 ALJs sometime during FY 2008 supplemented by some support staffs late in the FY, if there are any money remaining in the budget. Which interpretation is correct, I don't know. But just food for thought. Thanks! That is my read as well, Workdrone.
|
|
|
Post by kingfisher on Oct 2, 2007 12:27:43 GMT -5
Is there any possiblity that OPM will look at the denials and appeals sooner since there won't be any hiring for a while?? They are already considering, and in one case I know of, granting appeals. The one I know of was a technical issues, in which the resume of the applicant had not uploaded properly. The appeal was granted, the applicant re-submitted the resume and had a score sufficient to allow immediate testing. The interview is this week for the successful applicant/appellant. So, watch your email and monitor your telephone.
|
|
|
Post by ruonthelist on Oct 2, 2007 12:46:50 GMT -5
Bartleby: My gut feeling (and that's all it is--no inside information) is that OPM will set its own schedule on appeals, and there will be no causal link between SSA's hiring schedule and OPM's actions. OPM is a supplier of a commodity--names of ALJ candidates--and SSA (and the other agencies that hire ALJs) is its customer. OPM is under Congressional pressure to produce a new register, and after years of inaction they have undertaken a crash program to do that. When they have a new register the pressure to get new ALJs into the field will fall squarely on SSA. Members of Congress will say "hire more ALJs" to which SSA will reply "give us the money to hire more ALJs." However that gets sorted out, it won't be OPM's problem.
There are followups to the current crash program that will be done at some point--resolving appeals, re-opening the register to new applicants, etc. I don't know when OPM will do any of that, but I anticipate that their decision on when to do them will be independent of SSA's hiring plans.
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Oct 2, 2007 12:53:36 GMT -5
There will be no hiring of aljs until the budget is passed. Right now we are looking at continuing resolutions, which means no alj hiring and no new staff hiring, with little, if any, replacement staff hiring. Ironically, management is always replaced.
|
|
|
Post by chieftain on Oct 2, 2007 16:26:12 GMT -5
I don't read anything in that statement that leads me to conclude that hirings will be pushed back into late 2008. I think it is sufficiently cryptic to make me think that a class will be hired early '08.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 2, 2007 19:14:12 GMT -5
When I first heard the number of 175 in one fiscal year I felt that was a bit ambitious, especially since there was no new register and no budget. I still feel that way. Just don't think they will make that goal by the end of September, 2008.
Of course they could push through three classes of about sixty each and get it done in four or five months. Hopefully the classes won't be any larger than that. Surely they learned their lesson in the class of 2001 with about about 130. What a fiasco. Although there has been a regime change since then, and the institutional memory is fading.
When I read the Commish's statement, I also read it two different ways. It is doable to go ahead and get the judges on board first, then add the support staff as the judges are getting up to speed. Unfortunately what has happened in the past is that new judges are added without a concomitant increase in the support staff. Let's hope it doesn't happen this time.
Any other readers of the tea leaves out there? Let us hear what you think. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Oct 2, 2007 19:32:05 GMT -5
It is doable to go ahead and get the judges on board first, then add the support staff as the judges are getting up to speed. Unfortunately what has happened in the past is that new judges are added without a concomitant increase in the support staff. Let's hope it doesn't happen this time. Amen to that. It would be utterly pointless to add all the ALJs without a corresponding increase in support staffs. After all, what is the point of having more ALJ to hear cases if there are no cases to be heard because we don't have the clerks to pull them and attorneys to write them (after all, can you expect newly minted ALJs to pull and write their own cases?). Even without thinking about increasing the support staff pool to augment the new wave of ALJs (the ratio I heard throw around was 3 staff per 1 ALJ), natural attrition from retirements is shrinking the current staff labor force. So let's hope there will be a corresponding increase in support staff hiring, otherwise this is going to become another fiasco.
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Oct 2, 2007 19:33:37 GMT -5
Well we know the register will be completed by OPM regardless of SSA's budgetary problems as soon as they can complete it. They want Congress off their back on this issue, and they will do so come hell or high water.
SSA has sold Congress on the idea that it needs new ALJ's to address the backlog issue and that OPM is a roadblock because it hasn't created a long promised new register; once OPM completes the new register, SSA will be in the cross hairs. It seems to make sense that SSA would have to commence an almost immediate round of hiring (even if a much smaller group than 175 or 150) to give the appearance that it is doing something to address the backlog.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 2, 2007 20:03:26 GMT -5
Good point Judicature.
As to the budget woes, I believe this is the first commissioner in recent memory to actually tell Congress that the fault lies with Congress for continually shorting SSA on their budget requests. Maybe it will make an impact. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Oct 2, 2007 20:50:17 GMT -5
I think that we should keep in mind that this is a political message directed at Congress and SSA's critics. Astrue accomplishes a number of political goals in this apparently well thought out message.
He reminds everyone that workloads are high and that he doesn't have enough money. He is doing two things here. He is not only asking for more money which seems fairly obvious but also providing himself political cover if backlogs increase or are not substantially reduced.
In mentioning the time frame of "late in the fiscal year" he may only be referring to support staff, but he is probably overstating the truth a bit with regard to the ALJ hirings and positioning himself for the possibility that some of his ALJs will not take office until late in the year, or, even if they are in place earlier, that they will not be productive until late in the year. After all, why would he delay hiring of ALL new ALJs until late next fiscal year? That makes no sense on any level. He is thus providing cover against attacks on SSA occurring in August and September next year that might impact his fiscal 2009 budget, because regardless as to how many ALJs are hired next year, they will not take office or not be at full speed by October 1 next year. He is already setting up his explanation for the failure to reduce backlog by October 1, 2008, an explanation which just happens to be correct.
He has also positioned himself for restructuring of the appeals system to include greater reliance on telephone conferences and video conferences. I'm not sure he is personally committed to that and he doesn't seem to be pushing that unduly, but he is definitely throwing it up there to show everyone that he is willing to do whatever it takes and to forestall attacks that he is committed to a possibly overly expensive or unworkable system.
By making this message at this time he puts pressure on others to help him reduce the backlog, either by giving SSA more money or by restructuring. If they choose to ignore him, so be it. He has lost nothing but will remind his critics of this message later.
Finally he pats SSA on the back and ends on an optimistic note to show that he is a doer committed to making things work, and not just a critic or complainer.
So what are we to take out of all of this? The only thing I see is that he will probably be hiring the ALJs in waves throughout the year instead of one massive hire in the spring.
|
|
|
Post by valard on Oct 2, 2007 20:52:37 GMT -5
"After all, what is the point of having more ALJ to hear cases if there are no cases to be heard because we don't have the clerks to pull them and attorneys to write them (after all, can you expect newly minted ALJs to pull and write their own cases?)"
The point is that the Senate Finance Committee and the Social Security Subcommittee of Ways and Means have made it extremely clear that they expect the Commissioner (with OPM's help) to produce a significant number of new ALJs in the short term. The fact that the agency has added ALJs in the past without adding sufficient support staff gives very good reason to believe that the agency will do it again. I think the COSS' statement should be parsed as suggested above - 150 ALJs to be added in the short term, with support staff added, if we can afford it, late in the fiscal year.
|
|
|
Post by kingfisher on Oct 2, 2007 20:58:04 GMT -5
"After all, what is the point of having more ALJ to hear cases if there are no cases to be heard because we don't have the clerks to pull them and attorneys to write them (after all, can you expect newly minted ALJs to pull and write their own cases?)" The point is that the Senate Finance Committee and the Social Security Subcommittee of Ways and Means have made it extremely clear that they expect the Commissioner (with OPM's help) to produce a significant number of new ALJs in the short term. The fact that the agency has added ALJs in the past without adding sufficient support staff gives very good reason to believe that the agency will do it again. I think the COSS' statement should be parsed as suggested above - 150 ALJs to be added in the short term, with support staff added, if we can afford it, late in the fiscal year. That is precisely what happened during the 2005 hiring in my office. Two new ALJs were added despite the fact that we were short by 24 support staff members. In the past month or two we have been permitted to hire more than a dozen new support staff. So I agree with Valard that it is logical they will do it again.
|
|