|
|
Post by pm on Mar 18, 2009 16:54:41 GMT -5
Although ODAR has made consistent representations that they were going to hire 155 or so new ALJs in this round, are 155 actually being hired with this cert? There are only 87 or 88 cities listed. While it's certainly possible that ODAR will average almost 2 new hires per city, it doesn't seem likely, especially after some of the large hirings in some cities last year.
So, do you any of you have any solid information as to how large this cert really is?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldjag on Mar 18, 2009 17:39:43 GMT -5
Many of our offices have more than one empty office. COSS seemed pretty serious when he said 157 new judges this year. There are also new hearing centers coming on line.
Hope everyone gets their first choice ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Mar 18, 2009 19:52:55 GMT -5
Last year there were 71 cities on the first cert and they hired about 135 of a planned 150. The numbers thrown around this time seem legit.
|
|
|
|
Post by alj on Mar 18, 2009 20:09:37 GMT -5
And don't forget the 208 anticipated for 2010, which is still on the table. And the new staff hires of 800 in '09 and '10.
If you don't make it this year, there should be another opportunity in FY 2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 18, 2009 20:30:32 GMT -5
Last year there were 71 cities on the first cert and they hired about 135 of a planned 150. The numbers thrown around this time seem legit. It's certainly possible that they will be hiring 155 for these 87 cities. The numbers could easily be legit. But I also wouldn't be surprised if they were hiring a smaller number, primarily because last year they had some really big hires in some cities that upped the totals, and I'm not aware of any that big that are obvious for this year, which makes me curious about how they are going about this hire. I'm hoping Pixie has some inside intel. |
|
|
|
Post by flannery on Mar 18, 2009 20:37:43 GMT -5
PM, if I have learned nothing else during this process, it is this: those who are confident are often disappointed; but those who are humble and simply hopeful may very well be rewarded.
Some people have had very high scores and not landed a slot--even one they didn't want. Others have had mid to even low scores and been rewarded not only with a slot, but with one that they wanted, or one that was close to home. Bottom line: There are just no working assumptions here. Therefore, a call to Pixie at this time seems appropriate!
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 18, 2009 20:49:26 GMT -5
Well said.
What's motivating me to ask this question at this time though is just plain old fashioned curiosity. I'm always trying to figure out how and why OPM and ODAR do what they do. I'm also curious about why some of the cities with the slowest processing times are not going to get a judge this time. I know all the generic reasons but am curious about the specific reasons. Of the 10 slowest offices, here's how it shakes out for getting a new judge:
139. Oak Brook (663 days) yes
140. Columbus no
141. Springfield region 7 no
142. Chicago video center ?
143. Madison (712 days) no
144. Indianapolis yes
145. Greensboro yes
146. Jackson yes
147. Oak Park yes
148. Greenville (754 days) yes
Columbus, Springfield MO and Madison are not going to get new judges and I am just wondering why not. None of them are on my list but I'm just curious. do they not have ALJ offices? Or maybe inadequate staff?
|
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Mar 18, 2009 21:34:55 GMT -5
Well said. What's motivating me to ask this question at this time though is just plain old fashioned curiosity. I'm always trying to figure out how and why OPM and ODAR do what they do. I'm also curious about why some of the cities with the slowest processing times are not going to get a judge this time. I know all the generic reasons but am curious about the specific reasons. Of the 10 slowest offices, here's how it shakes out for getting a new judge: 139. Oak Brook (663 days) yes 140. Columbus no 141. Springfield region 7 no 142. Chicago video center ? 143. Madison (712 days) no 144. Indianapolis yes 145. Greensboro yes 146. Jackson yes 147. Oak Park yes 148. Greenville (754 days) yes Columbus, Springfield MO and Madison are not going to get new judges and I am just wondering why not. None of them are on my list but I'm just curious. do they not have ALJ offices? Or maybe inadequate staff? Altnernate but probable theory I have heard Transfer process for given site not compliant with MOU Chicago video site - not ready? |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 18, 2009 21:42:45 GMT -5
Well said. What's motivating me to ask this question at this time though is just plain old fashioned curiosity. I'm always trying to figure out how and why OPM and ODAR do what they do. I'm also curious about why some of the cities with the slowest processing times are not going to get a judge this time. I know all the generic reasons but am curious about the specific reasons. Of the 10 slowest offices, here's how it shakes out for getting a new judge: 139. Oak Brook (663 days) yes 140. Columbus no 141. Springfield region 7 no 142. Chicago video center ? 143. Madison (712 days) no 144. Indianapolis yes 145. Greensboro yes 146. Jackson yes 147. Oak Park yes 148. Greenville (754 days) yes Columbus, Springfield MO and Madison are not going to get new judges and I am just wondering why not. None of them are on my list but I'm just curious. do they not have ALJ offices? Or maybe inadequate staff? Altnernate but probable theory I have heard Transfer process for given site not compliant with MOU Very interesting. I wonder if there are judges wanting to transfer to those three cities. I've been to Madison and liked it. I don't know very much about Columbus and Springfield. |
|
|
|
Post by zero on Mar 19, 2009 8:11:20 GMT -5
Although ODAR has made consistent representations that they were going to hire 155 or so new ALJs in this round, are 155 actually being hired with this cert? There are only 87 or 88 cities listed. While it's certainly possible that ODAR will average almost 2 new hires per city, it doesn't seem likely, especially after some of the large hirings in some cities last year. So, do you any of you have any solid information as to how large this cert really is? I have to hand it to PM, this is a great catch. I agree that an average of 2 hires per listed office seems high when so many offices will receive zero. Using the bell curve concept, the average gaining office should have around 1 vacancy considering there are so many zeros to pull down the average. One would expect that roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of the gaining offices would have only 1 vacancy with the remainder having 2 or 3 vacancies. A purely random distribution would mean this cert actually has around 120-130 NOT 157. PM's observation suggests that more certs will be required to reach the 157 suggested by other posts. This would also reconcile the strong rumor on the OB that the real number for this cert is only 120+. |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 19, 2009 8:57:34 GMT -5
I was just looking at the TOB and a few days before the cert came out someone posted that there had been a change in hiring plans that brought the number down to 120 rather than 157, allegedly because not enough offices were available where ODAR wanted them. I wonder if that is true.....
|
|
|
|
Post by deaddisco on Mar 19, 2009 10:10:22 GMT -5
last time, the scores got as low as 55 for a hire of 147(originally). This time, the scores only seem to have reached down to 60. While I dont know any of the exact numbers, something doesn't seem right.
My guess is that the overall number of ALJ's to be hired was reduced.
|
|
|
|
Post by flannery on Mar 19, 2009 10:23:57 GMT -5
Disco--The difference may (or not) be that we had a lower median than the names already on the register. Our median, at least the best I could compute it with my crippled math skills, was about 66.8. Last year's median -- correct if I'm wrong-- was 69.7--three points difference. Our lower median scores were "poured" into the higher median amalgam and what may have looked good as between ourselves, got diluted when it got mixed into the 07 scores. So, this is a long way of saying the whole dynamic changed when we got blended in. Just a guess or hunch, but it occurs to me that the 55-60 range of scores that got on last year's cert would be equivalent to the 60-65 range with the "blended" register because there is a complete drop off this year after 60.
|
|
|
|
Post by deaddisco on Mar 19, 2009 10:41:19 GMT -5
Disco--The difference may (or not) be that we had a lower median than the names already on the register. Our median, at least the best I could compute it with my crippled math skills, was about 66.8. Last year's median -- correct if I'm wrong-- was 69.7--three points difference. Our lower median scores were "poured" into the higher median amalgam and what may have looked good as between ourselves, got diluted when it got mixed into the 07 scores. So, this is a long way of saying the whole dynamic changed when we got blended in. Just a guess or hunch, but it occurs to me that the 55-60 range of scores that got on last year's cert would be equivalent to the 60-65 range with the "blended" register because there is a complete drop off this year after 60. the scores above 60 on the old register had been picked over on previous hires. the new scores overall are lower. thus, the scores on this cert should most likely go even lower than last years cert(if the number of hires is close to equal). the one unknown factor is how many people overall and especially above 60 were added to the register(and thats a big unknown). |
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Mar 19, 2009 13:52:50 GMT -5
Well said. What's motivating me to ask this question at this time though is just plain old fashioned curiosity. I'm always trying to figure out how and why OPM and ODAR do what they do. I'm also curious about why some of the cities with the slowest processing times are not going to get a judge this time. I know all the generic reasons but am curious about the specific reasons. Of the 10 slowest offices, here's how it shakes out for getting a new judge: 139. Oak Brook (663 days) yes 140. Columbus no 141. Springfield region 7 no 142. Chicago video center ? 143. Madison (712 days) no 144. Indianapolis yes 145. Greensboro yes 146. Jackson yes 147. Oak Park yes 148. Greenville (754 days) yes Columbus, Springfield MO and Madison are not going to get new judges and I am just wondering why not. None of them are on my list but I'm just curious. do they not have ALJ offices? Or maybe inadequate staff? From what I've seen, now that I am an "insider" (I took an ODAR decision writer position last year), the offices that do well get rewarded with more staff. I think the theory is that an office with, say, 3 decisions per day per judge has a better structure and atmosphere than an office with 2.2 decisions per day per judge. The same resource (i.e. ALJ) placed into the lower performing office will likely conform to the low producing standards, and not be as useful (or as cost-efficient) as placing that ALJ into an office with a culture of high production. This is, I believe, the way overtime is handed out - if you are proven efficient, you get more time to do efficient work. The backlog can be worked off by reorienting service areas for the low producing offices to meet their relatively low staffing levels, or by having traveling judges go there (or video hearing centers). I think space is the most important factor, but I think the above plays a larger role than I ever realized before joining the agency. |
|
|
|
Post by flannery on Mar 20, 2009 7:00:05 GMT -5
I think Zero and PM may be right. My guess: this cert will fill no more than 120-125 slots, not 157. And it all focuses on empty offices. This year they are trying to fill every empty alj office, not so much place the new hires where the receipts/pending/average processing time are the highest. With all the new technology, you can manage high receipts, pending, APT in a fluid way-- by service area realignment, case transfers, VTC, hearing centers, etc. But what you can't manage very easily is the no. of empty alj offices. A hearing office either has an empty ALJ office or it doesn't. If it doesn't--an ALJ opening won't exist there. The switch is either on or off. Based on some very rough, general info, there are probably about 120-something empty ALJ offices in the cert cities; therefore, there will be about that many hires off this cert. It is always fascinating that the clues to some of this can come out of the blue--the first indication was a poster on the other board almost immediately after the cert came out said the no. of slots had come down from 150s to 120s. The other indication was looking at Global Panda's cert score pool and asking "where are the scores below 60"--why the complete drop off? This would suggest the scores didn't go down past 60 because it was a smaller cert. Anyway, I will place my wager on 122 slots and 375 names on this cert..... To continue the guess--then, a second cert will come along on the heels of this one to pick up 35 more slots and that cert will reach down to the high 50's--kind of a repeat of last year. There are some seemingly well-informed posters who indicate there will then be a hiring of 200+ in 2010. So, putting all this together, it supports a more optimistic position for those in the high 50s to mid-sixties range. Just some idle guessing, but what else is there to do at this point--I've had my coffee, looked at Workdrone's recruitment video--a rabbit's gotta do something with her spare time so . . . idle guesswork seemed in order....  |
|
|
|
Post by zero on Mar 20, 2009 7:27:04 GMT -5
To continue the guess--then, a second cert will come along on the heels of this one to pick up 35 more slots and that cert will reach down to the high 50's--kind of a repeat of last year. Flan: Agree with your observations except the reach-down to low scores. If the cert is 3 times the number of vacancies, a second cert can pick among the 2/3 of the first cert that were not offered a job. The median score for the next cert might go down a point or two but it won't be much unless the next cert involves a large number of vacancies. If I recall other posts correctly, offers will go out in the May-June timeframe. There would still be time to run another cert and another slug of interviews before the training in the September timeframe. There you have it: analysis based on wishful thinking and guesswork from the big Z. |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 20, 2009 7:51:47 GMT -5
I think everyone is being way to hasty about reducing the 157 number based upon the number of locations on the cert. I can confirm that some of the hearing offices on the cert are fully staffed with aljs based upon their staff organization. However, these hearing offices do have three to four open alj office spaces. This would seem to confirm that physical space is the primary factor, which, as noted for the offices above, would represent significantly more openings than previously thought. Everyone of the offices on the cert could have multiple spaces open, which would more than take care of the 157. Also, why would they have been throwing around the 212 number for next year if they don't have room for 157 this year. I'm sure there will be some minimal drop off from the 157 due to unforeseen circumstances, not unlike last year, but I wouldn't be dropping things into the 120's already.
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 20, 2009 8:54:14 GMT -5
Flannery and Zero and Valkyrie, all good points. We'll just have to wait and see. I wouldn't be surprised either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by zero on Mar 20, 2009 11:57:43 GMT -5
I thought of a way to guestimate the number on the cert. I looked at the number of responses to the raw poll on scores, estimated the total number of scores issued this year, and calculated a response rate. I then took the number of responses to the score poll for those who made the cert and assumed the same response rate. This formula suggested 166 people on the cert this time around. If SSA is hiring 157 people, there should have been 3 times 157 or 471 people on the cert total. Even assuming that the people from last years register have a much lower response rate, this suggests to me that the cert is much smaller than anticipated.
|
|
