Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2023 7:47:42 GMT -5
So, OBFS said on a recent call that the plan is to keep hiring ALJs, but only to replace attrition, maintaining about 1200 ALJs (currently 1224 noted in CPMS).
I wish there was a dislike button.
|
|
|
|
Post by hillsarealive on Jan 20, 2023 9:54:00 GMT -5
So, OBFS said on a recent call that the plan is to keep hiring ALJs, but only to replace attrition, maintaining about 1200 ALJs (currently 1224 noted in CPMS). I wish there was a dislike button. Thank you for passing this along. It is not such bad news IMHO. If 50 ALJs retire per year (a ballpark guess), that would support a steady stream of hiring. Enough to keep me on this board anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2023 9:58:59 GMT -5
So, OBFS said on a recent call that the plan is to keep hiring ALJs, but only to replace attrition, maintaining about 1200 ALJs (currently 1224 noted in CPMS). I wish there was a dislike button. Thank you for passing this along. It is not such bad news IMHO. If 50 ALJs retire per year (a ballpark guess), that would support a steady stream of hiring. Enough to keep me on this board anyway. That’s making a big assumption that allocated funding is going to support that level of hiring going forward. |
|
|
|
Post by legallysufficient on Jan 20, 2023 10:38:54 GMT -5
There should be more hiring this year--if for no other reason than budget uncertainty after this fiscal year. After all, the 23 class was suppose to be larger than the 22 class from all that was stated. Others on this board who are far more in the know may care to opine.
|
|
|
|
Post by lp101 on Jan 20, 2023 13:09:35 GMT -5
ALJs got an email from the Chief Judge’s office today stating that they were going to start working the transfer list for 45 offices. No indication as to when the transfers will start being offered, but I would imagine it will be pretty soon. For context, OCALJ sent out a similar email in September 2021, and inquiries started about two weeks later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Top Tier on Jan 20, 2023 13:48:30 GMT -5
SSA lost 2 ALJs in October, 5 in November, and do not know numbers for December yet. Like ramspider noted, there were 1224 at the beginning of December. If attrition takes a steady 5 per month, it would take 5 months (May-ish) to get to 1200; the quantity they wish to maintain. If that rate persisted, they wouldn't get down to 1175 until October (FY24). However, FY22 saw at least 1 month when they lost 30 (between Dec and Jan) and other months at 10. So this year, I think they will get to 1170 to 1175 by July-Aug timeframe, triggering a Fall hire action of about 30-35-ish folks. Just a WAG.
It is encouraging to hear they are starting to work the transfer list as that has historically preceded a hire action. This would seem to indicate SSA plans to lead, not lag, the ALJ attrition by performing all of the requisite actions to onboard new ALJs, and at the projected time they should reach some number under 1200.
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jan 21, 2023 23:15:22 GMT -5
First, Robe reported several months back that—going forward—hiring would parallel attrition.
Second, according to SSAs Case Processing Management System (CPMS), ALJ loss over past few years…
From 10/21 - 9/22 - net loss of 95 ALJs
10/20-9/21 - loss 80
10/19-9/20 - loss 89
10/18-9/19 - loss 125
10/17-9/18 - loss 80
10/16-9/17 - loss 56 (with hiring of 103 or so)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2023 8:47:16 GMT -5
First, Robe reported several months back that—going forward—hiring would parallel attrition. Second, according to SSAs Case Processing Management System (CPMS), ALJ loss over past few years… From 10/21 - 9/22 - net loss of 95 ALJs 10/20-9/21 - loss 80 10/19-9/20 - loss 89 10/18-9/19 - loss 125 10/17-9/18 - loss 80 10/16-9/17 - loss 56 (with hiring of 103 or so) Okay, that makes sense. I didn’t realize that 6-10% of the ALJ workforce attrits per year. That seems like a high percentage! |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 23, 2023 9:02:35 GMT -5
First, Robe reported several months back that—going forward—hiring would parallel attrition. Second, according to SSAs Case Processing Management System (CPMS), ALJ loss over past few years… From 10/21 - 9/22 - net loss of 95 ALJs 10/20-9/21 - loss 80 10/19-9/20 - loss 89 10/18-9/19 - loss 125 10/17-9/18 - loss 80 10/16-9/17 - loss 56 (with hiring of 103 or so) Are these numbers all net? Are there really 500 less ALJs now than there were in Oct 2016? |
|
|
|
Post by ARobeByAnyOtherName on Jan 23, 2023 9:53:31 GMT -5
First, Robe reported several months back that—going forward—hiring would parallel attrition. Second, according to SSAs Case Processing Management System (CPMS), ALJ loss over past few years… From 10/21 - 9/22 - net loss of 95 ALJs 10/20-9/21 - loss 80 10/19-9/20 - loss 89 10/18-9/19 - loss 125 10/17-9/18 - loss 80 10/16-9/17 - loss 56 (with hiring of 103 or so) Are these numbers all net? Are there really 500 less ALJs now than there were in Oct 2016? ALJ numbers were highest in F19 at a peak of 1609, and without hiring in the past four years until Oct. 2022, the number has dropped to ~1224. So a loss of 385, including the 56 hires in October 2022, and a loss of 441 without including them. As I mentioned before, I think hiring to cover attrition in FY23 was always the plan. For those without access to those in the know, like me, it’s probably buried in a budget document somewhere as to whether attrition has to get to 1199 before the hiring can start. So I think the answer to hiring is “Yes” with the “When” and “Who” and “How many” and “Where” yet to be revealed to the masses. My hope (not even a whiff of insider info on this; just me and my brain) is that something will be done to get additional hiring in excess of attrition approved in advance of any potential budget belt-tightening in FY24. But I question (and would doubt) as to whether the “prospect” of “potential” budget changes would be enough to justify what may be a heavy lift to get additional hiring authority. Regardless, attrition is flexible and it will be interesting to see the retirement numbers this year, especially given the working of the transfer list and the new contract being in place. |
|
|
|
Post by ARobeByAnyOtherName on Jan 23, 2023 9:56:14 GMT -5
For those interested in such things, the last time the number of ALJs was below 1,200 was FY 2008, with 1,183.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 23, 2023 14:32:06 GMT -5
If some of the rumors are to be believed, there is a storm brewing a the DDS level, and at some point it will reach OHO with a whole lot of cases.
I guess once we get completely backed up again the agency will start hiring in bunches again.
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Jan 24, 2023 9:37:50 GMT -5
If some of the rumors are to be believed, there is a storm brewing a the DDS level, and at some point it will reach OHO with a whole lot of cases. I guess once we get completely backed up again the agency will start hiring in bunches again. There are already confirmed serious delays at DDS. I'm not sure if the problem will be resolved before the cases get to OHO anytime soon. Historically, it's been left up to OHO to deal with the problem by hiring ALJs and implementing 'backlog' initiatives. Some senior attorney initiatives have been implemented, but so far ... I have not heard of a significant decrease in processing times at SSA/DDS. It's not looking good. |
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Jan 24, 2023 9:45:38 GMT -5
So, OBFS said on a recent call that the plan is to keep hiring ALJs, but only to replace attrition, maintaining about 1200 ALJs (currently 1224 noted in CPMS). I wish there was a dislike button. I'm curious as to how TPTB decided that 1200 ALJs sufficiently cover OHO demands. Anyone know? Based on CPMS data, there were 1609 ALJs in 2019 and now the goal is only 1200; that's quite a spread. |
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jan 24, 2023 10:13:57 GMT -5
There are posts in the past from me and others related to the aging ALJ corps. I can’t remember the numbers off of the top of my head, but the chart I saw in 2015 or so had a lot of ALJs who were 55 and older. Further, lots of insiders were hired as ALJs in the mid to late 2000s, so any of those guys and gals who had been at SSA for 10y before then and were age 45 or over have now reached/are close to the magic 59.5/25y of retirement.
Nationally, receipts have outpaced dispositions since Jul 2022. My guess is that their bigger concern is average processing time, which is the gap between requesting a hearing and getting a disposition. That number was 306d in Oct 2021 and has been over 440d since Sep 2022–almost a 50% increase.
I think SSA probably realized that “no backlog” resulted in far too few cases in the system to keep decision writers, etc. busy. So I don’t think they necessarily are against no backlog. Prob want to shy away from 500k plus—but I will bet they have a smaller, correlated backlog for 12-1300 ALJs that they are happy with.
|
|
|
|
Post by legallysufficient on Jan 24, 2023 10:29:31 GMT -5
roymcavoy- given what you stated in the post, do you have any prediction on number of hires and a time frame for such?
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jan 24, 2023 11:22:33 GMT -5
roymcavoy- given what you stated in the post, do you have any prediction on number of hires and a time frame for such? I heard from someone in another office that the DC noted that they wanted to do hiring every year for the next several years. Based on that, I’d think Robes prediction of attrition-base hires each year seems accurate. My guess is they hire approximately 100 per year from now until….? As far as when … my understanding in 2019 was that the 35 person hire that never happened was a “trial run” to get the bugs out of the new non-OPM system. It sounded like the hire of 30 or so that grew into 50+ in 2022 may have started with the same idea, so they probably have a good handle on what, when, etc. I’d think they could do one big hire in late summer or two smaller 50-person hires. I haven’t looked back but I feel like consensus was that 150-200 were interviewed…? (If that’s not right, someone can correct me.). I could be 100% wrong, but I find it next to impossible that they hired 55 or so out of that pile, leaving 100-150 remaining on it and will hire another 100 ALJs from the same pile. Point being, I think they will do more interviews before hiring 100. Maybe not initially if they are breaking it up—maybe they hire 50, interview, then hire 50 more. But I’d be shocked if they hire 100 additional ALJs out of that original pile with no additional interviews. |
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jan 24, 2023 11:41:52 GMT -5
I found the spreadsheet… it’s from Oct 2014.
At that time, there were 1444 ALJs:
677 were 61 or older
1120 were 51 or older.
425 had 10+ years of experience
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jan 24, 2023 13:20:47 GMT -5
There are posts in the past from me and others related to the aging ALJ corps. I can’t remember the numbers off of the top of my head, but the chart I saw in 2015 or so had a lot of ALJs who were 55 and older. Further, lots of insiders were hired as ALJs in the mid to late 2000s, so any of those guys and gals who had been at SSA for 10y before then and were age 45 or over have now reached/are close to the magic 59.5/25y of retirement. Nationally, receipts have outpaced dispositions since Jul 2022. My guess is that their bigger concern is average processing time, which is the gap between requesting a hearing and getting a disposition. That number was 306d in Oct 2021 and has been over 440d since Sep 2022–almost a 50% increase. I think SSA probably realized that “no backlog” resulted in far too few cases in the system to keep decision writers, etc. busy. So I don’t think they necessarily are against no backlog. Prob want to shy away from 500k plus—but I will bet they have a smaller, correlated backlog for 12-1300 ALJs that they are happy with. Retire at 59.5 years? Due to ability to access tsp without tax penalty? I thought 60 and 62 were the magic years at least for fers |
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jan 24, 2023 13:45:50 GMT -5
There are posts in the past from me and others related to the aging ALJ corps. I can’t remember the numbers off of the top of my head, but the chart I saw in 2015 or so had a lot of ALJs who were 55 and older. Further, lots of insiders were hired as ALJs in the mid to late 2000s, so any of those guys and gals who had been at SSA for 10y before then and were age 45 or over have now reached/are close to the magic 59.5/25y of retirement. Nationally, receipts have outpaced dispositions since Jul 2022. My guess is that their bigger concern is average processing time, which is the gap between requesting a hearing and getting a disposition. That number was 306d in Oct 2021 and has been over 440d since Sep 2022–almost a 50% increase. I think SSA probably realized that “no backlog” resulted in far too few cases in the system to keep decision writers, etc. busy. So I don’t think they necessarily are against no backlog. Prob want to shy away from 500k plus—but I will bet they have a smaller, correlated backlog for 12-1300 ALJs that they are happy with. Retire at 59.5 years? Due to ability to access tsp without tax penalty? I thought 60 and 62 were the magic years at least for fers right—59.5 is earliest with no tsp penalty. I don’t mean that as a “people are gonna retire now,” but it’s the threshold for beginning the period for many. |
|
