|
|
Post by alj on Mar 6, 2009 21:09:04 GMT -5
By Wilddog: "Plus, some ALJs write some or all of their own favorable decisions because they find it takes the same amount of time to write the decision as it would be to write the instructions."
If it takes the judge as long to write the instructions as it takes to write the decision, he is not doing the instructions properly. He is probably following the agency promulgated FITS instructions. That is a laborious procedure, as are many of the agency developed procedures. Instead of following what the agency proposes, probably best for the new judges to check with an experienced and productive judge in the office to find an efficient alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Mar 6, 2009 22:09:19 GMT -5
By Wilddog: "Plus, some ALJs write some or all of their own favorable decisions because they find it takes the same amount of time to write the decision as it would be to write the instructions." If it takes the judge as long to write the instructions as it takes to write the decision, he is not doing the instructions properly. He is probably following the agency promulgated FITS instructions. That is a laborious procedure, as are many of the agency developed procedures. Instead of following what the agency proposes, probably best for the new judges to check with an experienced and productive judge in the office to find an efficient alternative. I have no doubt that at the training this time (as in the past) they will PR to death write your own and then build on that idea with the concept of bench decisions |
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Mar 6, 2009 22:11:01 GMT -5
One fallacy in testing that I note in the WD is the fact that the ALJ candidates are judged on how well they write, but aren't all of the actual written decisions that come out of ODAR or other agencies - written by people with the title 'decision writers'? ----------- Weeeeelllll . . . not exactly. The newest ALJs have been tasked to write 26 of their own decisions - 14 favorable decisions, 8 unfavorable decisions, and 4 "others" (child cases, overpayments, etc.) - within one year of being brought on board. Plus, some ALJs write some or all of their own favorable decisions because they find it takes the same amount of time to write the decision as it would be to write the instructions. This is probably more likely to happen if there is a decisionwriting backlong in their office. However, the vast majority of ALJ decisions in each ODAR office are almost surely written by paralegals and staff attorneys. As for the written demonstration, I can't say for sure, but I expect the people grading the WD are looking at the applicant's reasoning and analytical ability more than whether or not he or she uses perfect grammar and punctuation. The instructions said grammar and punctuations counts. It was formatting that didn't count because of the software |
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Mar 6, 2009 22:13:23 GMT -5
One fallacy in testing that I note in the WD is the fact that the ALJ candidates are judged on how well they write, but aren't all of the actual written decisions that come out of ODAR or other agencies - written by people with the title 'decision writers'? No. Decision writers is the pleasant PC way of indicating that there is no difference between the task performed by the hearing office staff attorney and the paralegal. Most agencies call their staff attorneys staff attorneys. And give them higher grades. |
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Mar 7, 2009 12:10:50 GMT -5
The instructions said grammar and punctuations counts. It was formatting that didn't count because of the software -------- Your point about the instructions is well-taken, LM - I was just saying that I assumed the graders would focus relatively more on substance than style. WD it would be the height of simple for a clerk to dump all those submissions into a different word processing program and run through spell and grammar check and give that info to the graders. Especially if they said that spelling and grammar counts. Because if one person took the time to care about that and another didn't, then the person who didn't take care about grammar and spelling de factor had more time for content. Thus, there must be some sort of equalizing factor in the test for failure to attend to grammar and spelling. I could be wrong. But why say it counts if it doesn't |
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Mar 7, 2009 13:58:07 GMT -5
One fallacy in testing that I note in the WD is the fact that the ALJ candidates are judged on how well they write, but aren't all of the actual written decisions that come out of ODAR or other agencies - written by people with the title 'decision writers'? No. I am writing more than half my decisions because they won't get written anytime soon otherwise, and it takes about the same amount of time to write as to outline decisionwriting instructions and then review the draft decision when it comes back months later (at which point I have to refresh my memory on the case, taking more time.) I write most of my favorables and a few unfavorables. By Wilddog: "Plus, some ALJs write some or all of their own favorable decisions because they find it takes the same amount of time to write the decision as it would be to write the instructions." If it takes the judge as long to write the instructions as it takes to write the decision, he is not doing the instructions properly. He is probably following the agency promulgated FITS instructions. That is a laborious procedure, as are many of the agency developed procedures. Instead of following what the agency proposes, probably best for the new judges to check with an experienced and productive judge in the office to find an efficient alternative. I don't use the FIT instructions nor bench decisions; both take too long. When the case is fresh on my mind, soon after the hearing, I can write a favorable (using FIT) in 30 minutes or less because I know the facts and my rationale. |
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Mar 7, 2009 14:09:52 GMT -5
Let's not lose sight of one HUGE underlying reason for the whole OPM process: to preclude political favoritism from dictating those hired as ALJs. The process may not be perfect but, for the most part, cronyism/nepotism is not part of the process.
As for the debate about ODAR "insiders" and "outsiders": of those new ALJs hired last year, many in ODAR had outside experience, and many who were not current ODAR employees had worked for ODAR in the past. It is not clearcut as "insiders" vs. "outsiders". The ideal candidate would have both kinds of experience, and many new ALJs did. I can't think of one new ALJ in my class last year who got the job through who they knew instead of solid credentials.
For those agonizing over a perceived low score: don't count yourselves out. Last month, Judge Cristaudo told a seminar of plaintiffs' representatives that ODAR expects to hire 150 ALJs this year (fiscal year ending 9/30/09, most likely) and 200 next year
(approximate numbers, I'm sure). I would think that those two certificates would reach far down the register, particularly if the current register is in place through October 2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Mar 7, 2009 15:24:16 GMT -5
. . . Determining external validity is not an impossible task. Psychologists do this sort of thing all the time. In theory, you could compare the test results against ALJ outputs that ODAR values. For example, you could try to determine whether a higher score on the test correlates with ALJ productivity. You could have supervising judges in each office rate existing judges, and then see how evaluation and test results correlate. If you wanted, you could compute a regression and see what test taking characteristics correlate with test scores and if anything pops out that does not look like it relates to judging ability that would be instructive and raise important validity concerns. At this point, given the perception of how the test operates, and given he how coveted these jobs seem to be, a study like this is probably warranted and would be relatively inexpensive. . . . Whoa, there, pardner! This would be a study without any validity whatsoever, as the underlying ODAR productivity "goals" for ALJs have been postulated without any basis whatsoever. Currently, the "goal" is 500 to 700 cases cleared per year per ALJ. If you read the OIG report on this issue, it simply took the number of cases considered to be backlog, divided by various numbers (cases cleared per month per ALJ), and then stated how long it would take to clear the total backlog. Any fifth-grader could have done that. There was no analysis of how long it takes to clear a case, giving due process to each case; it was merely an exercise in numbers-crunching. When the "goal" of 500 to 700 per year per ODAR ALJ was announced, more than half of the ALJs were not clearing as many as 500 per year. And, contrary to some propaganda being disseminated, those ALJs were working hard (with the exception of just a few who had various reasons including ill health and union business). The real reason for the backlog is not non-productive ALJs but years of neglect in staffing, both ALJs and ODAR staff, which is only now starting to be remedied. Before a true goal is demanded of the ALJs, someone needs to do a study of what is reasonable. Each case is different; some have very little medical evidence and some have several hundred pages of medical evidence. And there is no one in the ODAR office to read/analyze that but the ALJ (i.e., no law clerk position such as state and federal court judges have). It obviously takes more time to read/analyze a case with more evidence. Just as obviously, some cases are easier/quicker to decide than others which require more deliberation. ODAR ALJs have to take each case as it comes, and due process requires spending as much time as necessary to reach a fair and just decision. Perhaps a starting point for what numbers are reasonable would be to look at a bell curve of what ODAR ALJs were doing in the year prior to this "500 to 700 goal" being announced. Then determine where the top of the bell curve was, and set a range on either side. (I'm not a math major, but wouldn't that be a range around the median number of cases cleared?) That said, let's not lose sight of the fact that each case is for a real person who needs a fair hearing and prompt (relatively prompt, anyway) decision. These aren't just numbers. And, as long as ALJs have to deal with people, there will be some intangibles which have to be evaluated in the hiring process of those ALJs which cannot be quantified. |
|
|
|
Post by bettrlatethannevr on Mar 7, 2009 16:53:01 GMT -5
I think counselor95 makes some excellent points in the prior three emails, both about the selection process and being an ALJ. I also write most of my favorables (except child cases) because I prefer to, but I don't think there's one better way to do it - there are different answers for different people. Also, for anyone applying for this position, I wouldn't worry about all the numbers talk. You get time to ramp up, and once you find your own style, and just start doing it, you'll be productive enough to meet any reasonable expectations without having to think about numbers, with the only caveat that staffing may hold you back. That's a real issue, but not ours; if your office isn't staffed right, every other judge there will be affected also. Come in every day and do the job, you'll enjoy it, and it'll work out fine without having to think about numbers. There are annoyances, but compared to the ones I left in private practice, nothing to get worked up about. Good luck to everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by deaddisco on Mar 7, 2009 18:22:37 GMT -5
Also, for anyone applying for this position, I wouldn't worry about all the numbers talk. You get time to ramp up, and once you find your own style, and just start doing it, you'll be productive enough to meet any reasonable expectations without having to think about numbers, with the only caveat that staffing may hold you back. Unfortunately, the numbers talk is legit. The minute the new ALJ's in my office got back from training, regional office started counting the new ALJ's production toward the office goal as if they were long term judges. My office missed making goal for the first time in 8 years because with very few cases in the pipeline, there was no way we could each produce 2.5 cases per day. And then although we were all producing above the new ALJ production curve(either 4 or 9 months), we all still ended up on the regional office quarterly under-producing ALJ list, getting a nice little letter from the regional chief.  |
|
|
|
Post by globalpanda on Mar 7, 2009 19:27:26 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the numbers talk is legit. The minute the new ALJ's in my office got back from training, regional office started counting the new ALJ's production toward the office goal as if they were long term judges. My office missed making goal for the first time in 8 years because with very few cases in the pipeline, there was no way we could each produce 2.5 cases per day. And then although we were all producing above the new ALJ production curve(either 4 or 9 months), we all still ended up on the regional office quarterly under-producing ALJ list, getting a nice little letter from the regional chief. What can you say? Give a manager a ruler and pretty soon management will know the exact circumference of every trash can in the office, the exact height from the floor of every electrical outlet, and the distance between the doorknob and every hinge on your office door. Sadly, memos will be sent. Reports will be generated. And someone in the regional office will be tasked to monitor same. |
|
|
|
Post by bettrlatethannevr on Mar 7, 2009 21:18:23 GMT -5
To clarify for any "outsiders" hoping to be ALJs, there is a primary concentration among management on numbers, and there can be lists and letters. That's fair to a point - there is a backlog, everyone should be putting in a good day's work, and management is supposed to manage. But at the same time you won't see anything the likes of billable hours or unreasonable (to put it charitably) clients. All I'm saying is, if you are a self-motivated person, and have a sense of how to keep things in proper perspective (e.g., knowing yourself whether or not you are doing the best you should be doing), this is a great opportunity to have a stable career and a sense of purpose. And without even trying, you'll likely also succeed by whatever measurements someone thinks should apply at a particular moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Mar 7, 2009 22:17:38 GMT -5
To clarify for any "outsiders" hoping to be ALJs, there is a primary concentration among management on numbers.... I will add that the concentration is on dispositions and not on the rate of awarding or denying benefits. We do have a moral obligation as ALJs to dispose of as many cases as we can, remembering that we probably couldn't last over 2 years without meaningful income....People deserve to know much sooner than that whether they qualify for benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by deaddisco on Mar 8, 2009 13:04:22 GMT -5
a clarification of my post: I was strictly referring to the post about numbers. You will hear over and over again that you get a learning curve and are being reviewed by some type of either 4 or 9 month production curve. That isn't the case, all 4 of the new judges in my office were counted by regional office as full judges toward the office goals the minute we got back from training. Then, we all received the letter from the RCALJ even though we were all producing ahead of the alleged learning curve. Still, there is really very little you can do about it. It takes time to get cases in the pipeline and time to get hearings set.
Now that being said, this job is amazing....absolutely incredible. Everyday I've gone to work and thought to myself that I am blessed to have this job. I really enjoy it and the numbers are completely doable. I'm well on my way to over 500 dispositions for this fiscal year.
|
|
