**Summary of Historical Performance and FY 2004/FY 2005 Performance
Measures and Goals**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **A. Strategic Goal: To deliver high-quality, citizen-centered
  [Service]{.underline}**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **A.1. Strategic Objective: Make the right decision in the disability
  process as early as possible**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------------------------------------- -------- ----------------
  **Output Measures**                                   **FY**   **Projection**

  Number of initial disability claims (Title II and     2004     2,485,000
  Title XVI) processed by DDS                                    

                                                        2005     2,457,000

  Number of SSA hearings processed\*                    2004     538,000

                                                        2005     596,000

  Number of appellate actions processed (SSA level      2004     996,500
  reconsiderations, appeals council reviews, new court           
  cases and court remands)                                       

                                                        2005     995,400
  ----------------------------------------------------- -------- ----------------

\*Note: Medicare hearings were excluded from the number of hearings
processed.

**Outcome Measure:** Average processing time for initial disability
claims (days)

  ----------------------------- -----------------------------------------
  **FY**                        **Actual**

  2000                          102 days

  2001                          106 days

  2002                          104 days

  2003                          97 days

                                **Goal**

  2004                          97 days

  2005                          97 days
  ----------------------------- -----------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** This is the fiscal year average processing time for
Title II and Title XVI claims combined. Processing time is measured from
the application date (or protective filing date) to either the date of
the denial notice or the date the system completes processing of an
award.

**Data Source:** Title II MIICR Processing Time and Title XVI SSICR
Processing Time Systems

**Outcome Measure:** Number of initial disability claims (Title II and
Title XVI) pending

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **FY**                       **Actual**

  2000                         535,407

  2001                         579,000

  2002                         592,692

  2003                         581,929

                               **Goal**

  2004                         582,000

  2005                         582,000
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** DDS count of initial disability claims pending,
including disabled dependents.

**Data Source:** National Disability Determination Services System

**Outcome Measure:** DDS net accuracy rate (allowances and denials
combined)

+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| **FY**                     | **Actual**                              |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 2000                       | 98.4% (allowance)                       |
|                            |                                         |
|                            | 95.2% (denial)                          |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 2001                       | 98.3% (allowance)                       |
|                            |                                         |
|                            | 94.7% (denial)                          |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 2002                       | 98.5% (allowance)                       |
|                            |                                         |
|                            | 95.1% (denial)                          |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 2003                       | 96.1%                                   |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
|                            | **Goal**                                |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 2004                       | 97%                                     |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 2005                       | 97%                                     |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

**Data Definition:** Net accuracy is an alternative method of reporting
State agency accuracy that is based upon the "correctness" of the DDS
disability determination. Net accuracy is based upon the net error rate
that is defined as the number of corrected deficient cases with changed
disability decisions, plus the number of deficient cases that are not
corrected within 90 days from the end of the period covered by the
report. Prior to 2003, we reported allowances and denials as separate
numbers.

**Data Source:** Disability Quality Assurance Databases

**Outcome Measure:** Average processing time for hearings (days)

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **FY**                       **Actual**

  2000                         297 days

  2001                         308 days

  2002                         336 days

  2003                         344 days

                               **Goal**

  2004                         377 days

  2005                         344 days
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** Beginning FY 2000, this indicator was redefined to
represent the average elapsed time, from the hearing request date until
the date of the notice of the decision, of all hearings level cases
processed during all months of the fiscal year.

**Data Source:** Hearing Office Tracking System -- per
PricewaterhouseCoopers during their audit of KPI 11/7/03

**Outcome Measure:** Number of SSA hearings pending

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **FY**                       **Actual**

  2000                         346,756

  2001                         435,904

  2002                         500,757

  2003                         591,562

                               **Goal**

  2004                         586,000

  2005                         550,000
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** All hearings pending in the Office of Hearings and
Appeals (OHA) through FY 2003. Beginning

in FY 2004, Medicare hearings were excluded from the number of hearings
pending. 57,000 Medicare hearings

were excluded from the number of hearings pending for FY 2004 and 58,000
excluded from the hearings pending

for FY 2005.

**Data Source:** Hearing Office Tracking System

**Outcome Measure:** Hearings decisional accuracy rate

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **FY**                       **Actual**

  2000                         88%

  2001                         90%

  2002                         90%

                               **Goal**

  2003                         89%

  2004                         90%

  2005                         90%
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** The decisional accuracy rate is the percent of
disability hearing decisions -- both favorable and unfavorable --
supported by "substantial evidence". This is the standard used by the
Federal courts to evaluate accuracy of decisions, and by the Appeals
Council in determining which hearing decisions to review.

**Data Source:** Biennial Disability Hearings Quality Review Process
Peer Review Reports

**Outcome Measure**: Average processing time for decisions on appeals of
hearings (days)

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **FY**                       **Actual**

  2000                         505 days

  2001                         447 days

  2002                         412 days

  2003                         294 days

                               **Goal**

  2004                         275 days

  2005                         250 days
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** This measure represents the 12-month average
processing time for dispositions issued during the report period.
Processing time begins with the date of the request and ends with the
disposition date.

**Data Source:** Actual processing time for each case is maintained by
the Appeals Council Automated Processing System (ACAPS).

**Note**: A new measure of disability processing time through final
Agency decision is being developed. This performance measure will
examine the time to final decision the claimant experiences at each step
of the process, i.e., initial claim, reconsideration, hearing, appeal of
hearing decision. In the interim, we are using the separate processing
time measures (above) for each level of the decision process to gauge
our performance.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # A.2. S                                                              |
| trategic Objective: Increase employment for people with disabilities  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Outcome Measure:** Percent increase in the number of DI and SSI
beneficiaries, with tickets assigned, who work.

+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| ######## FY          | **Goal**                                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 2004                 | 20% (3,271)                                   |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 2005                 | 40% (3,816)                                   |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

**Data Definition:** In 2003, we established a preliminary baseline of
2,726 and an FY 2004 goal for this outcome measure. Actual performance
levels are based on all recorded earnings information from various data
sources for beneficiaries who have assigned their tickets to Employment
Networks (EN) -- i.e., signed an agreement with the EN for services. The
data is provided on a calendar year basis.

**Data Source:** eWorkCDR DB2, Disability Control File (VERN or Work and
Earnings Reports field), OCSE, MEF, OESP (and MAXIMUS) program data.

**Outcome Measure:** Percent increase in the number of SSI disabled
beneficiaries earning at least \$100 per month

  -------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  **FY**               **Actual**

  2000                 10.9% (255,129)

  2001                 -1.1% (252,219)

  2002                 -1.2% (249,175)

  2003                 -0.7% (231,870)

                       **Goal**

  2004                 5% (243,464)

  2005                 5% (255,637)
  -------------------- --------------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** Beginning FY 2003, our goal is for annual increases
in the number of working SSI disabled beneficiaries, earning at least
\$100 per month. This measure is intended to reflect the impact of all
work incentives for SSI disabled beneficiaries. (The goal is based on
the actual performance of the prior year).

**Data Source:** "SSI Disabled Recipients Who Work" report

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **A. 3. Strategic Objective: Improve service through technology**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------------------------------------- -------- ----------------
  **Output Measures**                                   **FY**   **Projection**

  RSI claims processed                                  FY 2004  3,285,000

                                                        FY 2005  3,305,000

  800-number calls handled                              FY 2004  52,000,000

                                                        FY 2005  52,200,000
  ----------------------------------------------------- -------- ----------------

**Outcome Measure:** Usage of electronic entitlement and supporting
actions

  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
  **FY**      **Goal**

  2004        50% growth over FY 2002 baseline (218,932) -- 328,398

  2005        75% growth over FY 2002 baseline (218,932) -- 383,131
  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** In setting this new measure, SSA recognizes the
need for one that is overarching and takes into account additional
electronic services in our Title II suite, and shows the increased usage
of these electronic services. The new indicator consists of an aggregate
measure of representative electronic transactions the public performs
with SSA. The following are included in this indicator:

-   Internet Social Security Benefit Application (ISBA) which offers
    online filing for retirement, spouse, and

disability claims;

-   Benefit Verification Statement (BEVE);

-   Internet Medicare Replacement Card (iMRC);

-   Internet Change of Address (iCOA); and

-   Internet Change of Direct Deposit (iDD).

Beginning in FY 2004, the growth percentage goal compares the aggregate
count of these transactions in the fiscal year to those in the FY 2002
baseline of 218,932 transactions. For FY 2004, our targeted aggregate
count is 328,398.

**Data Source:** Executive and Management Information System (EMIS),
Title II Internet claims report, Electronic Service Delivery report

**Outcome Measure:** Percent of employee reports (W-2s) filed
electronically

+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **FY**                   | **Actual**                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| 2001                     | 27.04%                                    |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| 2002                     | 42.5%\*                                   |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| 2003                     | ######## 53.4%                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|                          | **Goal**                                  |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| 2004                     | 55%                                       |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| 2005                     | 60%                                       |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

\*Based on actuarial estimate of 250,000,000 W-2s. May be adjusted after
end of calendar year 2003.

**Data Definition:** This percent is the number of W-2s filed
electronically and processed to completion for a tax year, divided by
the total number of W-2s for that tax year processed to completion by
the end of the processing year (mid-January).

**Data Source:** Earnings Management Information Operational Data Store
(EMODS) reports

**Outcome Measure:** Percent of people who do business with SSA rating
the overall service as "excellent," "very good," or "good"

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  **FY**                  **Actual**

  2000                    82%

  2001                    81%

  2002                    82.9%

  2003                    84.9%

                          **Goal**

  2004                    83%

  2005                    83%
  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** This is the percent of people who call or visit SSA
surveyed by SSA's Office of Quality Assurance and Performance Assessment
who rate overall service as "good," "very good," or "excellent" on a
6-point scale ranging from "excellent" to "very poor", divided by the
total number of respondents to that question.

**Data Source:** Interaction Tracking Systems that capture satisfaction
shortly after service contacts (either by telephone or in-person) take
place

**Outcome Measure:** Percent of callers who successfully access the
800-number within 5 minutes of their first call

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  **FY**                  **Actual**

  1999                    95.8%

  2000                    92.8%

  2001                    92.7%

  2002                    93.3%

  2003                    96.7%

                          **Goal**

  2004                    94%

  2005                    No longer carried
  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** This is the percent of unique call attempts that
successfully "connect" within 5 minutes of the first attempt within a
24-hour period. A successful "connection" occurs when a caller selects
either an automated or live agent and is connected with that option
within 5 minutes of first dialing the 800-number.

**Data Source:** Automatic number ID records provided by WorldCom

**Outcome Measure:** Percent of callers who get through to the
800-number on their first attempt

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  **FY**                  **Actual**

  1999                    90.9%

  2000                    88.4%

  2001                    89.2%

  2002                    91.3%

  2003                    95.9%

                          **Goal**

  2004                    87%

  2005                    No longer carried
  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** The percent is the number of individuals who reach
the 800-number (either live or automated service) on their first
attempt, divided by the number of unique telephone numbers dialed to the
800-number. An "attempt" is defined as the first attempted call of the
day, or a subsequent attempt after a previously successful call.

**Data Source:** Automatic number ID records provided by WorldCom

**Note:** Starting with FY 2005, we replaced the current access rate
metrics (i.e., 5-min. access rate and first--time access rate) with the
two new access metrics below, which are consistent with industry
standards.

**Outcome Measure:** 800-number average speed of answer

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  **FY**                  **Actual**

  2003                    240 seconds

                          **Goal**

  2004                    N/A

  2005                    240 seconds
  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** Answer wait time of all calls divided by all calls
answered by agents (includes calls that do not queue).

**Data Source:** Cisco reporting

**Outcome Measure:** 800-number Agent busy rate

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  **FY**                  **Actual**

  2003                    8%

                          **Goal**

  2004                    N/A

  2005                    8%
  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** Number of busy messages divided by number of calls
offered to agents (displayed as a percentage)

**Data Source:** Cisco reporting

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B. Strategic Goal: To ensure superior [Stewardship]{.underline} of  |
| Social Security programs and**                                        |
|                                                                       |
| **Resources**                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **B.1. Strategic Objective: Prevent fraudulent and improper payments
  and improve debt management**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Output Measures**                 **Projection**

  SSI non-disability redeterminations FY 2004: 2,210,000

                                      FY 2005: 2,210,000

  Periodic CDRs processed             FY 2004: 1,537,000

                                      FY 2005: 1,569,000
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**Outcome Measure:** Percent of SSI payments free of preventable
overpayments and underpayments

  --------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
  **FY**          **Overpayment Accuracy      **Underpayment Accuracy
                  Rate**                      Rate**

                  **Actual**                  **Actual**

  2000            94.7%                       98.6%

  2001            93.3%                       98.8%

  2002            93.4%                       98.6%

                  **Goal**                    **Goal**

  2003            95.4%                       98.8%

  2004            95.4%                       98.8%

  2005            95.4%                       98.8%
  --------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------

**Data Definition:** The SSI payment accuracy rate free of preventable
overpayments and underpayments is determined by an annual review of a
statistically valid sample of the beneficiary rolls. The rate is
computed by first subtracting the amount of "unpreventable" incorrect
payments from the dollars overpaid or underpaid in a fiscal year, and
then dividing these dollars by the total dollars paid for the fiscal
year. This percentage is subtracted from 100 percent to attain the
accuracy rate. The current measuring system captures the accuracy rate
of the non-medical aspects of eligibility for SSI payment outlays.

**Data Source:** SSI Stewardship report. The actual FY 2003 performance
data were not available for reporting in the FY 2003 Performance and
Accountability Report (PAR) because of the length of time required to
gather, validate and analyze the data, and then prepare the final
report. These data will be reported in the FY 2004 PAR.

**Outcome Measure:** Percent of outstanding SSI debt in a collection
arrangement

  ------------------------------------- ---------- ---------------------------------
  **FY**                                           **Actual**

  2003                                             55%

                                        **Goal**   

  2004                                  55%        

  2005                                  55%        
  ------------------------------------- ---------- ---------------------------------

**Data Definition:** This new measure for FY 2003 is the percent of
outstanding SSI debt that is scheduled for collection by benefit
withholding or installment payment. The rate is expressed as the average
for the year. Outstanding SSI debt is grouped into four main categories:
newly established debt; debt that involves a current due process request
such as waiver; debt that is in a collection arrangement; and debt that
is not in a collection arrangement. The percent of debt in a collection
arrangement is computed by dividing the dollars in that category by the
total dollar amount of outstanding debt in all four categories. To
improve this indicator, SSA will focus on the debt not in a collection
arrangement by developing initiatives to collect it or eliminate it if
it is unproductive.

**Data Source:** The Supplemental Security Record (SSR)

**Outcome Measure:** Percent of OASDI payments free of overpayments and
underpayments

  --------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
  **FY**          **Percent Free of           **Percent Free of
                  Overpayments**              Underpayments**

                  **Actual**                  **Actual**

  2000            99.9%                       99.9%

  2001            99.8%                       99.8%

  2002            99.9%                       99.9%

                  **Goal**                    **Goal**

  2003            99.8%                       99.8%

  2004            99.8%                       99.8%

  2005            99.8%                       99.8%
  --------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------

**Data Definition:** The OASDI payment accuracy rate is determined by an
annual review of a statistically valid sample of the beneficiary rolls.
Separate rates are determined for the accuracy of payments with
overpayment dollars and the accuracy of payments with underpayment
dollars. The rates are computed by dividing these dollars by the total
dollars paid for the fiscal year. This percentage is subtracted from 100
percent to attain the accuracy rate. Prior to FY 2001, the accuracy of
only OASI outlays was included. Effective FY 2001, the non-medical
accuracy of DI outlays was added to the measure. GAO raised a concern
that combining payment accuracy data from the OASI and the DI programs
may affect SSA's ability to sufficiently monitor and manage performance.
While the Performance and Accountability Report combines data from these
two programs, stewardship reports continue to include the accuracy of
OASI and DI payment outlays separately.

**Data Source:** OASDI Stewardship Report. The actual FY 2003
performance data were not available for reporting in the FY 2003
Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) because of the length of
time required to gather, validate and analyze the data, and then prepare
the final report. The data will be reported in the FY 2004 PAR.

**Outcome Measure:** Percent of outstanding OASDI debt in a collection
arrangement

  ------------------------------------- ---------- ---------------------------------
  **FY**                                           **Actual**

  2003                                             39.8%

                                        **Goal**   

  2004                                  38%        

  2005                                  38%        
  ------------------------------------- ---------- ---------------------------------

**Data Definition:** This is the percent of outstanding OASDI debt that
is scheduled for collection by benefit withholding or installment
payment. The rate is expressed as the average for the year. Outstanding
OASDI debt is grouped into four main categories: newly established debt;
debt that involves a current due process request such as waiver; debt
that is in a collection arrangement; and debt that is not in a
collection arrangement. The percent of debt in a collection arrangement
is computed by dividing the dollars in that category by the total dollar
amount of outstanding debt in all four categories. To improve this
indicator, SSA will focus on the debt not in a collection arrangement by
developing initiatives to collect it or eliminate it if it is
unproductive.

**Data Source:** The Recovery of Overpayments, Accounting and Reporting
(ROAR) system

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # B.2. Strategic Objective: Strengthen the integrity of the SSN       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Output Measure**                  **Projection**

  SSN requests processed              FY 2004: 17,500,000

                                      FY 2005: 17,500,000
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**Outcome Measure:** Percent of SSNs issued that are free of critical
error

  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
  **FY**                    **Goal**

  2003                      99.8%

  2004                      99.8%

  2005                      99.8%
  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** The rate is based on an annual review of SSN
applications to verify that: 1) the applicant did not receive an SSN
that belonged to someone else; 2) if the applicant had more than one
SSN, the numbers were cross-referenced; and 3) the applicant was
entitled to receive an SSN based on supporting documentation (i.e., the
field office verified appropriate documentation---United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services \[USCIS\], formerly Immigration and
Naturalization Services, document for foreign born and birth certificate
for U.S. born-and made a correct judgment of entitlement to an SSN).

**Data Source:** Enumeration Process Quality Review

**Note:** For GPRA purposes, only the first two criteria will be used to
measure against the FY 2003 goal because baseline data have not been
established using the third criterion. However, during FY 2003, all
three criteria will be measured internally in order to obtain baseline
data. All three criteria will be used for measuring SSN accuracy
effective FY 2004; however, at this time numeric goals have not been
established for FYs 2004 and 2005 due to the lack of baseline data.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **B.3. Increase the accuracy of earnings records**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Output Measure**                    | **Projection**               |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| ## Annual earnings items processed    | FY 2004: 262,500,000         |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
|                                       | FY 2005: 267,200,000         |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+

Outcome Measure: Reduction in the size of the Earnings Suspense File
(ESF)

  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
  **FY**                    **Goal**

  2004                      27.6 million

  2005                      TBD
  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** The number of items removed from the ESF will be
determined by comparing the ESF as it existed at the end of FY 2003 with
the ESF as it will exist at the end of FY 2004. A combination of data
elements on the ESF is used as a "key" to determine if an item has been
removed. Also, a comparison of the current suspense file will be made to
the suspense file at the end of FYs 2004 and 2005.

**Data Source:** OQA records of items removed from suspense and posted
to the correct earnings records

Outcome Measure: The percent of incoming earnings items removed from the
suspense file at the end of the annual earnings posting cycle

  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
  **FY**                    **Actual**

  2003                      0.9%

                            **Goal**

  2004                      5%

  2005                      TBD
  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** Earnings that remain in suspense after the annual
posting cycle are wage or self-employment earnings not matched to an
earnings record after all routine matching operations are complete. The
5 percent reduction will be achieved by using new matching routines
currently being developed by OQA that use earnings records as the basis
for the match to the employer/self-employment report. The OQA process is
used after all other matching attempts. The percentage is determined by
comparing the number of items *added* to suspense during a full posting
cycle to the number later removed in the new process. The FY 2004 goal
of 5 percent represents the cumulative effect of FY 2003 and FY 2004
efforts.

**Data Source:** Items in the suspense file at the end of the full 2000
cycle compared to items removed by the new process

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **B.4. Strategic Objective: Efficiently manage Agency finances and
  assets, and effectively link resources to performance outcomes**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Outcome Measure**: Percent improvement in Agency productivity

  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------
  **FY**                 **Actual**

  2003                   2.1%

                         **Goal**

  2004                   2%

  2005                   2%
  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** The percent change in productivity is measured by
comparing the total number of SSA and DDS workyears that would have been
expended to process current year SSA-level workloads at the prior year's
rates of production to the actual SSA and DDS workyear totals expended.

**Data Source:** Agency Cost Accounting System

**Outcome Measure**: Disability Determination Service (DDS) cases
processed per workyear (PPWY)

  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------
  **FY**                 **Actual**

  2003                   270.4

                         **Goal**

  2004                   272

  2005                   274
  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** This indicator represents the average number of DDS
cases processed per workyear expended for all work. A workyear
represents both direct and indirect time, including overhead (time spent
on training, travel, leave, holidays, etc.). It is inclusive of everyone
on the DDS payroll including doctors under contract to the DDS.

**Data Source:** National Disability Determination Services System

**Outcome Measure**: Number of SSA hearings cases processed per workyear
(PPWY)

  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------
  **FY**                 **Actual**

  2003                   102.7

                         **Goal**

  2004                   105

  2005                   107
  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** This indicator represents the average number of
hearings cases processed per "direct" workyear expended. A direct
workyear represents actual time spent processing cases. It does not
include time spent on training, ALJ travel, leave, holidays, etc.

**Data Source:** OHA Monthly Activity Reports, the Hearing Office
Tracking System, Payroll Analysis Recap Report, Time and Attendance
Management Information System, OHA Bi-weekly Staffing Report, Training
Reports, and Travel Formula

**Outcome Measure:** SSI Aged claims processed per workyear (PPWY)

  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------
  **FY**                 **Actual**

  2003                   556

                         **Goal**

  2004                   530

  2005                   530
  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** The number of SSI aged claims processed per
workyear (i.e., total SSI aged claims processed divided by the total
workyears expended by field offices on this workload). A workyear
represents both direct and indirect time, including overhead (time spent
on training, travel, leave, holidays, etc.).

**Data Source:** Agency Cost Accounting System

**Outcome Measure:** Milestones in effort to get to "green" in
competitive sourcing

######### 

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  **Year**         **Goal**

  2004             Develop a "green" plan for Competitive Sourcing and
                   implement a "yellow" plan for Competitive Sourcing

  2005             Implement a "green" plan for Competitive Sourcing
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** OMB revised its government-wide instructions
regarding development of competitive sourcing plans. The instructions
call for the development of plans to meet the standards for a "yellow"
and "green" status on the President's Management Agenda initiative.
SSA's plan was developed in accordance with these instructions and has
been approved by OMB. The "yellow" plan calls for:

-   Developing an approved plan to compete commercial activities;

-   Completing one standard competition **or** publicly announcing
    standard competitions that exceed the number of positions identified
    for competition in the Agency's plan;

-   Completing 75 percent of the streamlined competitions attempted in
    the previous two quarters within a 90-day timeframe; and

-   Canceling less than 20 percent of the standard and streamlined
    competitions publicly announced in the previous two quarters.

SSA is currently in the process of developing a multi-year competitive
sourcing plan due later in 2004 to enable the Agency to act
strategically and tailor public-private competitions to its mission and
workforce needs. Achieving "green" would require the Agency to:

-   Develop an OMB approved "green" competition plan that addresses all
    functions coded 'commercial suitable for competition';

-   Publicly announce standard competitions in accordance with the
    Agency's approved "green" plan;

-   Complete at least 10 competitions from the January 2001 starting
    point;

-   Compete 90 percent of all standard competitions in a 90-day
    timeframe; and

-   Cancel fewer than 10 percent of publicly announced standard and
    streamlined competitions from the previous year.

**Data Source:** Total commercial positions: OMB-approved Competitive
Sourcing Plan based on the Year 2003 FAIR inventory; Commercial
positions studied that were identified in the OMB-approved Competitive
Sourcing Plan

**Outcome Measure:** Maintain zero outside infiltrations of SSA's
programmatic mainframes

  --------------------------- -------------------------------------------
  **FY**                      **Actual**

  2003                        0

                              **Goal**

  2004                        0

  2005                        0
  --------------------------- -------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** SSA mainframes store information critical to the
completion of the Agency mission, including master files such as
enumeration, earnings and beneficiary/recipient payment files. The goal
is to prevent any unauthorized access and/or alteration of critical data
that would result in improper disclosure, incorrect information or lack
of data availability. An infiltration is an unauthorized access that
requires a cleanup or restoration of back-up files to a state prior to
the infiltration. This would include an authorized user who obtains
elevated privileges and performs unauthorized actions resulting in
infiltration.

**Data Source:** Count of the times mainframes are infiltrated, obtained
from Change Asset and Problem Reporting System

**Outcome Measure:**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SUMS FY 2004 Goals**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  SUMS Continuing Disability Review Operational Data Store (CDR     |
|     ODS):  The CDR ODS, a relational database to house data for       |
|     managing the disability postentitlement workloads, will be        |
|     created and populated with current year data, update protocols    |
|     will be implemented and access provided for ad hoc querying.      |
|     This is the first release of the CDR ODS project. It will provide |
|     the basis for workload control listings and management            |
|     information reports in subsequent releases to achieve our         |
|     long-range goal of establishing a sole source for Agency          |
|     information to manage these workloads.                            |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  SUMS Standards:  Standards will be established which will apply   |
|     to all SUMS projects to enhance data integrity, provide           |
|     consistent development guidelines and promote efficiency by       |
|     enabling subsequent SUMS projects to take advantage of earlier    |
|     work.  FY2004 standards include establishment of a model for SUMS |
|     counts within the Data Warehouse, data retention policy, data     |
|     access standards, and designation of common reference tables.     |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  MI Central:  A web portal will be established for delivery of all |
|     standard SUMS MI reports, and workload control listings.  The     |
|     portal will utilize standard formats and provide a common "look   |
|     and feel" for the various applications.  Users will be able to    |
|     save reports to a file and to store report parameters             |
|     ("favorites").  All reports and listings will be in compliance    |
|     with Section 508.  SSI Processing Time and CSR reports will be    |
|     available in FY 2004.  Additional reports will be added as        |
|     development is completed.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| 4.  Customer Service Record (CSR):  The Customer Service Record       |
|     project provides a unified view of available programmatic data    |
|     for a caller/visitor via the Customer Service Query (CSQ).        |
|     Enhancements to this query will be provided, gathering data from  |
|     additional sources.  Web-based management information reports     |
|     will be provided which will provide information about the numbers |
|     of visitors, reasons for visits and waiting time.                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SUMS FY 2005 Goals**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For FY 2005, the SUMS measures will be restructured to be outcome     |
| based as opposed to milestone based as they are for FY 2004. These    |
| outcome based measures will be more in keeping with the overall       |
| intent of the Performance Measures and Goals, and will be more in     |
| keeping with the ultimate goals of the SUMS initiative.               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **MCAS FY 2004 Goals**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  Cost Analysis System (CAS) Renovation: [OEO Work Counts Release 8 |
|     of the CAS Renovation project]{.underline} under the umbrella     |
|     MCAS project will substantially automate the processes currently  |
|     used to compute basic workload count and work time by workload    |
|     information for the Office of Earnings Operations and to enter    |
|     that data to SSA's CAS. This project will reduce the time and     |
|     effort required to produce data and will enhance the accuracy and |
|     integrity of SSA's managerial cost accounting processes.          |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  MCAS Report Requirements: [Determine MCAS reporting               |
|     requirements.]{.underline} This project will use a combination of |
|     prototyping, demonstration, and interactive requirements          |
|     development to determine executive and management requirements    |
|     for MCAS data, reports and information delivery mechanisms.       |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  Work Measurement Transition: [Convert SSA Management Information  |
|     System (SSAMIS) to modern technology.]{.underline} The purpose of |
|     this project is to transition a key legacy management information |
|     system that provides crucial data to the CAS and many other users |
|     to a modern and efficient systems architecture that makes data    |
|     more accessible to end users throughout SSA.                      |
|                                                                       |
| 4.  MCAS Release 1 - [Convert SSA's CAS to a relational data          |
|     base.]{.underline} The purpose of this project is to transition   |
|     CAS to a modern and efficient systems architecture that makes     |
|     data more accessible to end users throughout SSA. This critical   |
|     financial management information system provides crucial reports  |
|     and data to many SSA-wide users. Actual system use is expected to |
|     begin at the start of fiscal year 2005.                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **MCAS FY 2005 Goals**

  For FY 2005, the MCAS measures will be restructured to be outcome based
  as opposed to milestone based as they are for FY 2004. These outcome
  based measures will be more in keeping with the overall intent of the
  Performance Measures and Goals, and will be more in keeping with the
  ultimate goals of the MCAS initiative.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Outcome Measure:** Receive an unqualified opinion on SSA's financial
statements from the auditors

+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| **Year**        | **Goal**                                           |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| FY 2004 and     | Receive an unqualified opinion                     |
|                 |                                                    |
| FY 2005         |                                                    |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+

**Data Definition:** An unqualified opinion on the financial statements
is provided when an independent auditor determines that the financial
statements are presented fairly and, in all material respects, in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.

**Data Source:** Auditors work papers

**Outcome Measure: "**Get to green" on all five PMA initiatives

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  **FY Year**      **Goal**

  2004 and 2005    Achieve an overall rating of "green" on 4 of 5 PMA
                   initiatives on status
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** Receiving a "green" score on PMA initiative status
scores.

**Data Source:** OMB's PMA initiative status scores for SSA

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **C. Strategic Goal: To achieve sustainable [Solvency]{.underline} and
  ensure Social Security programs meet the needs of current and future
  generations**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Strategic Objective:** **Through education and research efforts,
  support reforms to ensure sustainable solvency and more responsive
  retirement and disability programs**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Outcome Measure:** Provide support to the Administration and Congress
in developing legislative proposals to achieve sustainable solvency for
Social Security and implementing reform legislation

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **FY 2004 and FY 2005 Goal**

  Conduct analysis for the Administration and Congress on key issues
  related to implementing Social Security reforms.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Outcome Measure:** Percent of adult Americans knowledgeable about
Social Security programs and related issues, including long-range
financing

+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ## FY           | ### Goal                                           |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 2004            | N/A                                                |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 2005            | TBD                                                |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+

**Data Definition:** This is the percent of Americans (adults age 18 and
over) determined as "knowledgeable" in the Public Understanding
Measurement System (PUMS) Survey. The FY 2003 PUMS survey was
substantially revised and expanded to include a number of additional
questions designed to determine the public's understanding of current
Social Security programs as well as long-range financing issues.
SSA is still analyzing this data; therefore, we will not develop a
2004 target.

**Data Source:** Revised PUMS survey

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## D. Strategic Goal: To strate                                       |
| gically manage and align [Staff]{.underline} to support SSA's mission |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Strategic Objective: Recruit, develop and retain a high-performing
  workforce**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Outcome Measure:** Improve the new hire retention rate

  --------------------------- -------------------------------------------
  **FY**                      **Actual**

  2002                        84.3%

  2003                        86.4%

                              **Goal**

  2004                        84.9%

  2005                        85.2%
  --------------------------- -------------------------------------------

### 

### Data Definition: The FY 2003 new hire retention rate was determined by the percentage of FY 2001 new hires that remained with SSA during FY 2001 and 2002. The FY 2004 new hire rate will be determined by the percentage of FY 2002 new hires that remain with SSA during FY 2002 and 2003. The FY 2005 new hire retention rate will be determined by the percentage of FY 2003 new hires that remain with SSA during FY 2003 and 2004.

**Data Source:** The Human Resource Management Information System

**Outcome Measure:** Milestones in developing new performance management
systems

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  **FY**           **Goal**

  2004             Implement a new system for GS-15 employees

  2005             Formulate a new system for GS-14 and below employees
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

##### Data Definition: For FY 2004 -- Implementation of an enhanced assessment system for GS-15 level employees. For FY 2005 develop, in accordance with a new national labor agreement, an enhanced system for GS-14 and below bargaining and non-bargaining level employees patterned after the systems implemented for SES and GS-15 employees. {#data-definition-for-fy-2004-implementation-of-an-enhanced-assessment-system-for-gs-15-level-employees.-for-fy-2005-develop-in-accordance-with-a-new-national-labor-agreement-an-enhanced-system-for-gs-14-and-below-bargaining-and-non-bargaining-level-employees-patterned-after-the-systems-implemented-for-ses-and-gs-15-employees. .unnumbered}

**Data Source:** Office of Human Resources records

**Outcome Measure:** Number of job enrichment opportunities (includes
headquarters components and regional development programs)

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  **FY**           **Actual**

  2003             4.2% of workforce

                   **Goal**

  2004             3% of workforce

  2005             3% of workforce
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

#####  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

##### Data Definition: Percent of the Agency workforce participating in one of the formal national development programs or experiences (short-term formal career development training), a component program, or a regional-level program.  {#data-definition-percent-of-the-agency-workforce-participating-in-one-of-the-formal-national-development-programs-or-experiences-short-term-formal-career-development-training-a-component-program-or-a-regional-level-program. .unnumbered}

##### Data Source: Office of Training records {#data-source-office-of-training-records .unnumbered}

**Outcome Measure:** Make available the equivalent of 40 hours of
training annually to all employees

  ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
  **FY**                   **Actual**

  2003                     Average of 68 hours training per employee

                           **Goal**

  2004                     Average of 40 hours training per employee

  2005                     Average of 40 hours training per employee
  ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------

##### Data Definition: Success is defined as having demonstrated that SSA made available on average the equivalent of 40 hours of training per employee annually through the interactive video teletraining and the online university. {#data-definition-success-is-defined-as-having-demonstrated-that-ssa-made-available-on-average-the-equivalent-of-40-hours-of-training-per-employee-annually-through-the-interactive-video-teletraining-and-the-online-university. .unnumbered}

**Data Source:** Office of Training records and the Human Resources
Management Information System

Major Program Evaluations Covering FY 2004-2005

+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
| **GO | **E         | **DESCRIPTION**              | **COMPLETION    |
| AL** | VALUATION** |                              | DATE**          |
+======+=============+==============================+=================+
| >    | > Service   | Surveys overall public       | Annually in     |
|  **S | > S         | satisfaction with service    | September       |
| ERVI | atisfaction |                              |                 |
| CE** | > Survey    |                              |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | > Internet  | Surveys satisfaction related | Date, subject,  |
|      | > Services  | to new or expanded Internet  | scope and       |
|      | > S         | services made available to   | methodology to  |
|      | atisfaction | the public in FY 2003 or for | be determined   |
|      | > Surveys   | other issues related to      | based on Agency |
|      |             | Internet service delivery    | information     |
|      |             |                              | needs           |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | > Targeted  | Provides baseline            | Completed in FY |
|      | > Notice    | information regarding (a)    | 2003            |
|      | > Surveys   | SSA's most problematic Title |                 |
|      |             | II notices and (b) SSI award |                 |
|      |             | notices                      |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | > Employer  | Surveys employer             | Annually in     |
|      | > Survey    | satisfaction with SSA's      | April           |
|      |             | service                      |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | State       | Evaluates the effects of     | Annually in     |
|      | Partnership | demonstration projects to    | September       |
|      | Evaluations | assist States in developing  |                 |
|      |             | integrated employment        |                 |
|      |             | services for disabled        |                 |
|      |             | beneficiaries                |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | Co          | Evaluates the extent to      | FY 2004         |
|      | ngressional | which payments to Employment |                 |
|      | Report on   | Networks under the           |                 |
|      | Adequacy of | Ticket-to-Work Program       |                 |
|      | Incentives  | provide sufficient           |                 |
|      | under the   | incentives to ensure that    |                 |
|      | Tic         | beneficiaries with high-cost |                 |
|      | ket-to-Work | needs receive adequate       |                 |
|      | Program     | services                     |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
| >    | CDR Report  | Reports on SSA's progress in | FY 2003         |
|  **S | to Congress | meeting CDR requirements     |                 |
| TEWA |             | under law and assesses       |                 |
| RDSH |             | effectiveness of CDRs        |                 |
| IP** |             |                              |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | Safeguard   | Reports to IRS on security   | Annually        |
|      | Procedures  | procedures in place for each |                 |
|      | Repo        | SSA system using or storing  |                 |
|      | rt/Activity | IRS data                     |                 |
|      | Report      |                              |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | FISMA       | Reports the status of SSA's  | Annually        |
|      | Report to   | information security program |                 |
|      | OMB         |                              |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | RSDI        | Reviews dollar accuracy of   | Annually        |
|      | Stewardship | payment outlays              |                 |
|      | Review      |                              |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | SSI         | Reviews dollar accuracy of   | Annually        |
|      | Stewardship | payment outlays              |                 |
|      | Review      |                              |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | SSI Annual  | Reports on the status of the | Annually in May |
|      | Report      | SSI program                  |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | Enumeration | Reviews enumeration process  | Annually        |
|      | Review      | to determine the quality of  |                 |
|      |             | SSN issuance                 |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
| >    | Public      | Surveys adults age 18 and    | Annually        |
| **SO | Un          | over to assess their         |                 |
| LVEN | derstanding | knowledge of Social Security |                 |
| CY** | Measurement | programs and related issues  |                 |
|      | System      | -- National                  |                 |
|      | Survey      |                              |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | Trustees    | Board of Trustees Report on  | Annually in     |
|      | Report      | the OASDI/HI/SMI Trust Funds | April           |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
|      | Evaluation  | Evaluates the distributional | Ongoing         |
|      | of Changing | impact of changing OASDI and |                 |
|      | Benefit     | SSI benefits                 |                 |
|      | Structures  |                              |                 |
+------+-------------+------------------------------+-----------------+

+------+-------------+-------------------------------+----------------+
| **GO | #           | ### DESCRIPTION               | ### C          |
| AL** |  EVALUATION |                               | OMPLETION DATE |
+------+-------------+-------------------------------+----------------+
| > *  | New Hire    | Evaluates why job candidates  | FY 2003        |
| *STA | Study       | select SSA, and why they      |                |
| FF** |             | choose to stay or to leave    |                |
|      |             | early in their careers        |                |
+------+-------------+-------------------------------+----------------+
|      | Compe       | Evaluates use of a claims     | FY 2004        |
|      | tency-Based | representative assessment     |                |
|      | Hiring      | tool in the hiring process    |                |
|      |             | with a pilot that ended in    |                |
|      |             | September 2003 and an         |                |
|      |             | evaluation in January 2004    |                |
+------+-------------+-------------------------------+----------------+

# Verification and Validation of Data 

**SSA Data Integrity Systems and Controls:** Performance data for the
Annual Performance Plan's quantifiable measures, including the budgeted
output measures, are generated by automated management information and
workload measurement systems, as a by-product of routine operations. The
performance data for several accuracy and public satisfaction indicators
comes from surveys and workload samples designed to achieve very high
levels (usually 95 percent confidence level) of statistical validity.

The Office of Quality Assurance and Performance Assessment (OQA)
performs stewardship reviews that have been the mainstay reports on the
quality of the OASDI and SSI programs for many years, and this review
will continue to be the primary measure of quality for Agency
performance. Review findings provide the basis for reports to Congress
and other monitoring authorities. The review provides an overall
accuracy measurement of payments to [all beneficiaries]{.underline}
currently on the rolls. It is based on a monthly sample selection from
the payment rolls consisting of beneficiaries in current payment status.
For each sampled case, the recipient or representative payee is
interviewed, collateral contacts are made as needed, and all factors of
eligibility are redeveloped as of the current sample month.

OQA is no longer able to perform traditional Index Dollar Accuracy
reviews in sufficient volume to provide data that are valid at the
regional level. OQA has been testing a new protocol to provide more
current and useable quality feedback on recently adjudicated OASDI/SSI
claims and SSI redeterminations. The new evaluation methodology
(Targeted Assessment Reviews) focuses on Field Office/Program Service
Center quality and relies on the adjudication procedures as defined by
the Program Operations Manual System instructions.

**Program Performance Report:** The annual Performance and
Accountability Report (PAR) is used to report Agency progress in meeting
the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals. The

FY 2003 PAR describes the Agency's comprehensive review program of
management and security controls for: 1) administrative and programmatic
processes; and 2) accounting controls in financial management systems.

Also discussed are the results of the audit of the FY 2003 financial
statements and internal controls by PricewaterhouseCoopers, an
independent accounting firm. Such reviews and assessments ensure that
systems are secure and not vulnerable to manipulation by intruders, and
confirm confidence in the reliability of performance data.

**Roles of the General Accounting Office (GAO) and SSA's Office of the
Inspector General (OIG):**

The GAO and OIG play key roles in assuring that data systems for
measuring performance are reliable, and that data are useful and
relevant to policy decisionmaking. The OIG evaluates the processes and
systems being used to measure progress in goal achievement to assure
that they provide accurate assessments of performance. In FY 2003, the
OIG performed a comprehensive review of our performance measures from
the perspective of determining if the Agency's 11 key programs and
activities were addressed by our FY 2002 performance measures and if
they were objective, understandable and outcome-based. The OIG found
that SSA has made great strides in meeting GPRA's objectives and
continues to refine its performance measures. Additionally, the OIG
found that SSA's performance measures were objective in all key areas,
understandable in 10 of 11 areas, partially outcome-based in 10 areas,
and fully outcome-based in one area. The OIG made recommendations on
specific performance measures, many of which we have already implemented
or agreed to implement. There were some to which we did not agree, and
for those, we provided a rationale.

The GAO identified "*Major Performance and Accountability Challenges*"
for the Social Security Administration for FY 2003; they are to:

1.  Strengthen the integrity of the SSI program;

2.  Improve programs that provide support for individuals with
    disabilities;

3.  Better position SSA for future service delivery challenges,
    including information technology; and

4.  Strengthen controls to protect the personal information SSA develops
    and maintains.

The GAO noted that because of the steps SSA has taken to strengthen its
research, evaluation and policy development activities, this issue was
removed as a separate management challenge. This success demonstrates
the Agency's commitment to be more responsive to recommendations from
the OIG and the GAO.

**Coordinated Agency Evaluation Plan:** Each fiscal year, we develop a
coordinated Agency Evaluation Plan. Components involved in evaluation,
including the OIG, conduct a joint review of evaluation work plans to
assure an appropriate match between planned evaluation activities and
Agency priorities. They identify and address any information gaps and
eliminate any overlap or duplication.