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

**Scope:** The people of America, who fund the Social Security and SSI
programs through their payroll tax contributions and income tax
payments, expect and deserve well managed programs. The scope of this
objective extends beyond fiscal integrity to also cover Agency
productivity improvements and the integrity and security of records and
information that SSA maintains.

Our strategic objectives for this goal are:

B1. Prevent fraudulent and erroneous payments and improve debt
management;

B2. Increase the accuracy of earnings records;

B3. Strengthen the integrity of the SSN; and

B4. Efficiently manage Agency finances and assets, and effectively link
resources to

performance.

**Environmental Factors:**

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 have further heightened the
awareness of the need to strengthen safeguards to protect against misuse
of the Social Security number. SSA's traditional emphasis on
confidentiality of personal records will be closely scrutinized in the
context of homeland security.

Information technology has altered the way citizens and outside
organizations interact with government and the way government agencies
interact with each other. SSA's ability to obtain, verify and match
information and data electronically with other governmental agencies and
organizations helps prevent and detect erroneous payments in the OASDI
and SSI programs. The widespread interconnectivity of computer systems
and the critical operations and infrastructures they support create new
security-related vulnerabilities. This impacts our ability to deliver
services to the American public. We must balance protection of the
confidentiality of records with service enhancements enabled by
technology.

# **B1. Strategic Objective: Prevent fraudulent and erroneous payments and improve debt management**

This objective encompasses all efforts to ensure that we pay the right
person the right amount. It includes activities for preventing and
detecting payment error, fraud and misuse attributable to non-medical
and medical factors of eligibility. Its scope extends beyond error
prevention and detection to debt recovery and payment restitution.

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

  SSI non-disability redeterminations FY 2003: 2,455,000

                                      FY 2004: 2,455,000

  CDRs processed                      FY 2003: 1,129,000

                                      FY 2004: 1,645,000
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

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

underpayments)

## Overpayment accuracy rate

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

  1999                              94.9%

  2000                              94.7%

  2001                              93.3%

                                    **Goal**

  2002                              94.7%

  2003                              95.4%

  2004                              95.4%
  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------

## 

## **Underpayment accuracy rate**

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

  1999                         98.3%

  2000                         98.6%

  2001                         98.8%

                               **Goal**

  2002                         98.8%

  2003                         98.8%

  2004                         98.8%
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** The SSI payment accuracy rate free of preventable
errors 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 FY 2003 actual performance
data will not be 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 Measures:** SSI overpayment and underpayment accuracy rate
(including both preventable and unpreventable error)

## Overpayment accuracy rate

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

  1999                              94.3%

  2000                              93.6%

  2001                              92.8%

  2002                              N/A

                                    **Goal**

  2003                              93%

  2004                              94.7%
  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------

## 

## **Underpayment accuracy rate**

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

  1999                         98.3%

  2000                         98.6%

  2001                         98.6%

  2002                         N/A

                               **Goal**

  2003                         98.8%

  2004                         98.8%
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** The SSI payment accuracy, including both
preventable and unpreventable errors, is determined by an annual review
of a statistically valid sample of the beneficiary rolls. The
overpayment accuracy rates and underpayment accuracy rates are
determined separately. The overpayment accuracy rate is computed by
first subtracting the total amount of overpaid dollars from the total
dollars paid for 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 underpayment accuracy
rate is computed by first subtracting the total amount of underpaid
dollars from the total dollars paid for 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. Neither actual nor estimated
data are available for FY 2002. The FY 2003 actual performance data will
not be 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

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

  2003                                        55%

  2004                                  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

Percent free of overpayments

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **Year**                     **Actual**

  1999                         99.8%

  2000                         99.9%

  2001                         99.9%

                               **Goal**

  2002                         99.8%

  2003                         99.8%

  2004                         99.8%
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

Percent free of underpayments

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **Year**                     **Actual**

  1999                         99.9%

  2000                         99.9%

  2001                         99.8%

                               **Goal**

  2002                         99.8%

  2003                         99.8%

  2004                         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 FY 2003 actual
performance data will not be 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 outstanding OASDI debt in a collection
arrangement

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

  2003                                        38%

  2004                                  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

**Means and Strategies for Preventing Fraudulent and Erroneous Payments
and Improving Debt Management:**

We recognize we must do more to improve stewardship of all SSA-managed
programs, with a focus on improving the more error-prone SSI program. We
are targeting initiatives that have the most potential to improve the
integrity of our programs across three fronts\--prevention of erroneous
payments, detection of erroneous payments and collection of debt. Our
budget includes dedicated funding that would finance cost-effective
activities related to increasing payment accuracy and strengthening debt
collection.

*[OASDI payment accuracy:]{.underline}* The strategy is to maintain this
performance at current levels. Two priority workloads requiring
corrective action were identified.

########  

######## The *special disability workload* resulted from a situation where some beneficiaries did not receive all benefits to which they were entitled. One of the conditions for eligibility to SSI is that individuals file for any other benefits they may be entitled to receive. A number of SSI recipients have been identified who are entitled to receive Social Security Disability Insurance payments because they have earnings sufficient to qualify for the Disability Insurance program. To keep this from happening in the future, we have rewritten computer programs and retrained technical employees to identify eligibility as it occurs.

Although our corrective actions will prevent a recurrence of this
backlog, we still must review nearly a half-million complex special
disability workload cases. We have trained employees and established
cadres who began processing these cases in FY 2002. Under this plan, we
expect to finish processing these cases by the end of FY 2006.

Some people who receive Social Security disability benefits also receive
federal or state *workers' compensation* *payments*. When a person is
eligible to receive both types of payments, the law imposes a limit on
the total amount the person can receive each month. When that occurs,
SSA withholds a portion of the person's Social Security disability
payments. SSA identified Disability Insurance beneficiaries whose
workers' compensation payments changed. Some of these people have been
paid incorrect amounts of Social Security disability benefits. SSA is
reviewing these cases, verifying the amount of workers' compensation
payments, and correcting Social Security disability benefits as
appropriate. In FYs 1999 -- 2002, we reviewed 112,000 of these cases.
The President's FY 2004 budget for SSA supports our plan to complete
40,000 workers' compensation cases in FY 2004.

In addition to the two special workloads discussed above, we expect to
process a new workload based on the President's legislative proposal to
require SSA to review at least 50 percent of the favorable decisions for
SSI disability and blindness cases involving adults. This supports the
President's management reform to reduce erroneous payments and improve
the accuracy of the SSI and Medicaid programs. Since the Social Security
Disability Insurance program already requires pre-effectuation reviews,
this will bring consistency to both disability programs.

*[SSI Program:]{.underline}* In January 2003, GAO removed the SSI
program from its high-risk list of government programs considered
especially vulnerable to waste, fraud or abuse. In doing so, GAO
recognized SSA's efforts to improve the management of the program. The
Agency has developed a Corrective Action Plan and has implemented many
initiatives over the last few years to prevent and detect SSI
overpayments. In general, the initiatives have proven to be highly
successful. The Office of Child Support Enforcement wage alerts have
been primarily effective in detections. High error-prone profile
redeterminations have been effective in detection, prevention and
collection. Building upon that success, SSA will implement additional
initiatives designed to improve prevention and detection of overpayments
as discussed below.

*[Prevention and Detection Activities]{.underline}:*

-   Experience has proven that redeterminations are the most powerful
    tool SSA has to detect and prevent SSI overpayments.
    Redeterminations are periodic reviews of non-medical factors of SSI
    eligibility. The Agency recently targeted an additional \$21 million
    to increase the number of redeterminations of more complicated,
    error-prone cases for FY 2002. In FY 2002, approximately one of
    every three SSI recipients had their eligibility reviewed at some
    point during the year. The estimated benefits from the FY 2002
    redeterminations will total \$2.6 billion in overpayments collected
    or prevented and \$1.4 billion in underpayments paid or prevented.
    For FY 2003, these benefits will increase to \$2.9 billion in
    overpayments collected, and \$1.5 billion in underpayments paid or
    prevented.

-   The top two reasons for SSI overpayment errors are unreported wages
    and unreported bank accounts. To prevent overpayments, we will pilot
    an automated wage-reporting method for workers at high risk for
    wage-related overpayments using touch-tone telephone technology for
    reporting purposes. While this method is as yet untested, a
    conservative estimate anticipates it will yield annual prevention of
    at least \$80 million in overpayments.

-   SSA will test a process to access the records of financial
    institutions. Use of this tool will prevent overpayments by
    revealing unreported income or assets during the initial claims
    process and during the periodic redetermination of eligibility. We
    are also testing the use of credit bureaus and other public
    databases to detect unreported income and resources of SSI
    applicants and recipients.

-   SSA has implemented a new automated process to net overpayments
    against underpayments when the SSI system computes these amounts on
    a beneficiary's record. Today, netting requires SSA employees to
    record a series of transactions and, because of this labor intensive
    process, many opportunities to perform netting are being lost. SSA
    estimates that automating the netting process will reduce
    overpayments computed on SSI records by up to \$50 million each
    year, with a corresponding reduction in underpayments paid to
    beneficiaries.

-   Legislative proposals for simplifying the SSI program are under
    development and additional analysis will be done in order to assess
    the impact of other policy changes on program costs and on
    beneficiaries.

-   CDRs are our first line of defense in ensuring that only those
    people who continue to meet the disability requirements remain on
    the disability rolls. This means that SSA will initiate CDRs that
    are due and selectable and, on average, complete processing within
    the prescribed timeframes of:

> \--6 months for mailers (self-help forms sent to disability
> beneficiaries to gather information
>
> on their continuing eligibility to disability benefits);
>
> \--12 months for full medical reviews; and
>
> \--18 months for mailers that become full medical reviews as measured
> from the initiation
>
> date.
>
> The President's FY 2004 budget for SSA provides tangible assurance of
> SSA's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the disability rolls.
> The budget assumes that we will continue to process CDRs within the
> above timeframes, if dedicated funding is available. The CDRs to be
> conducted in FY 2003 and FY 2004 are estimated to result in similar
> lifetime benefit savings to OASDI, SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid which
> the Agency has realized in past fiscal years. According to the Annual
> Report of Continuing Disability Reviews for FY 2001, the Agency
> yielded a lifetime program savings to administrative cost ratio of
> roughly \$9 to \$1.

*[Fraud Detection Activities:]{.underline}*

-   *Cooperative Disability Investigations (CDI):* CDI units provide
    investigative support to select DDSs during the initial and
    continuing disability review process to prevent payment on
    disability cases involving fraud. The CDI units combat fraud by
    investigating the questionable activities of claimants, medical
    providers, attorneys, interpreters or other service providers who
    may be involved in the facilitation or promotion of disability
    fraud. The CDI units gather investigative evidence that allows the
    DDS to make a timely and accurate disability determination. The
    evidence is used in the criminal prosecution of those individuals
    who commit fraud. At the end of FY 2002, SSA had 17 CDI units in
    operation. In addition to fraudulent cases being denied and/or
    terminated, actions initiated by the CDI units are expected to have
    a cumulative deterrent effect on fraud. The productivity of the CDI
    units continues to increase every year. In FY 1998, when the project
    began, they accounted for \$2.8 million in savings for SSA. By
    January 2003, cumulative SSA program savings had increased to \$206
    million, with an additional \$108 million in projected savings for
    non-SSA programs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Representative Payee Improvements*: SSA appoints representative
    payees for people who are incapable of managing their benefits. Each
    representative payee is required to account for the benefits
    received and for how they were spent. In light of intense
    congressional, media, IG and advocate scrutiny, and based on an
    in-depth Agency analysis, SSA is reexamining the operations of the
    representative payee program.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Proof of Identity:* SSA will begin a proof of concept pilot asking
    claimants to present proof of identity when filing a disability
    claim. At the conclusion of the pilot, there will be an assessment.

-   *Proof of Birth and Death:* Traditionally, SSA has relied on the
    claimant to supply proofs of eligibility like birth and death
    records in support of claims for SSI and OASDI benefits. To end
    reliance on paper documentation, we are moving to electronic
    verification and exchanges of information in partnership with the
    National Association for Public Health State and Information Systems
    and state vital statistics agencies. "E-Vital", which is a
    government-wide "e-government" initiative, includes two projects --
    Electronic Verification of Vital Events and Electronic Death
    Registration (EDR). Electronic Verification of Vital Events will
    automate exchanges of vital statistics data. This will result in
    reduced benefit fraud and erroneous payments, and efficiencies by
    improving the speed and accuracy of access to vital records data.

> EDR is a state process to automate the death registration process. SSA
> is partially funding the development of EDR. In return, SSA will
> realize approximately \$52 million in program savings when EDR is
> implemented in 90 percent of the states. It will improve the accuracy
> of the Death Master File SSA is required by law to share with other
> federal agencies. It will also facilitate automated cross matching of
> birth and death records, thereby deterring the fraudulent use of the
> SSN to establish identity.

-   *Online Verification:* Online verification of documents and
    claimant's allegations will detect and prevent overpayments better
    than traditional methods, will reduce administrative costs
    associated with the current paper-bound processes, and will improve
    service by decreasing processing time.

*[Debt Collection Activities]{.underline}:* SSA will step up the
emphasis on collecting the debt we detect. Our goal is to control as
much debt as possible by collection arrangement. Mandatory cross-program
recovery of SSI debt from Social Security benefits and credit bureau
referrals and administrative offset for delinquent SSI debts have also
been implemented. SSA is currently writing regulations to institute
administrative wage garnishment for public and private sector employees
who have outstanding Social Security overpayments.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # **B2. Strategic Objective: Strengthen the integrity of the SSN**    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

This objective covers activities to prevent and detect SSN fraud, as
well as development and implementation of policies in partnership with
other government entities to strengthen enumeration and homeland
security.

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

  SSNs issued                         FY 2003: 16,000,000

                                      FY 2004: 16,000,000
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

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

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

  2003                      99.8%

  2004                      TBD
  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

**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\--Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services (BCIS), 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 has 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 a numeric goal has not been
established for FY 2004 due to the lack of baseline data.

**Means and Strategies for Strengthening the Integrity of the SSN :**

Public and private use of the SSN as a personal identifier, coupled with
the public's increased Internet usage, has increased vulnerabilities to
SSN fraud and identity theft. The General Accounting Office and SSA's
Inspector General identified SSN misuse and identity theft as a Major
Management Challenge. The Social Security Advisory Board has expressed
concern that the fraudulent use of the SSN has become a significant
public policy issue that is expected to grow as the number of
SSN-related crimes escalates. Strengthening the enumeration and
verification process is a top Agency priority.

Our commitment to strengthen the integrity of the SSN will bring major
improvements to the enumeration and verification process. Below are
recently implemented strategies that go toward strengthening efforts to
ensure the integrity of the SSN.

The full impact of the following activities will not be realized until
the end of 2003:

-   January 2002, began verifying refugees through the Department of
    State (DOS);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   June 1, 2002, began verifying birth certificates for U.S. born
    individuals age one and over; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   September 2002, fully implemented verifying documentation/status
    with BCIS for non-citizens.

Additionally, we are testing the effectiveness of a Social Security Card
Center in Brooklyn, New York (jointly staffed by employees from SSA and
BCIS) to process requests for original and duplicate Social Security
cards for residents of the borough of Brooklyn. Centralizing this
workload has improved service to the public and has expedited the review
of documents that must be verified under the new requirements we have
established. In addition, it helps ensure that only qualified
individuals with valid documents receive new Social Security numbers or
replacement cards.

The strategy to improve the enumeration process is threefold: (1)
decreasing reliance on applicant submitted evidence; (2) tightening up
other evidentiary requirements; and (3) making better use of the
information in automated systems to detect potential fraud.

-   *Decreasing reliance on applicant submitted evidence:* Enumeration
    at entry is a process designed to issue SSN cards based on data
    collected as part of the immigration process. It will prevent fraud
    and ensure the integrity of the SSN because SSA will receive
    enumeration information directly from BCIS. In the first phase, DOS
    will collect enumeration information from adult applicants applying
    for admission into the U.S. as permanent residents, and will send
    the enumeration data to BCIS. When BCIS admits a person to the U.S.,
    it will electronically send the enumeration data directly to SSA.
    After the first phase of this project is implemented in early FY
    2003, SSA, DOS, and BCIS will evaluate the experience and initiate
    expansion to other groups of aliens.

-   *Tightening other evidentiary requirements:* Proposed regulations to
    require mandatory interviews for all applicants age 12 or older, and
    to require evidence of identity of all applicants regardless of age,
    are out for public comment. Current requirements call for
    face-to-face interviews for SSN applicants 18 or over, and allow
    waiver of evidence of identity for children under age 7 applying for
    original SSNs. We expect to publish final regulations in 2004.

-   *Making better use of the information in automated systems to detect
    potential fraud:* In FY 2003, we will implement systems changes to
    delay issuance of an SSN in situations where an individual is shown
    as the parent of an unusually high number of children. We will also
    begin to develop requirements to interrupt issuance of an SSN in
    situations where an unlikely number of SSN cards have been requested
    for the same address, as well as alert field offices to investigate
    and refer any potential fraud cases to IG. We will continue to
    investigate additional measures, e.g., limitations on replacement
    cards issued to an individual, including more robust security
    features.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **B3. Increase the accuracy of earnings records**

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

The Earnings Suspense File (ESF) is a file that houses earnings that
cannot be posted to an individual's earnings record because of incorrect
name and/or SSN information reported to the Agency. SSA's Inspector
General designated the integrity of the earnings reporting process and
reduction of the Earnings Suspense File as a Major Management Challenge.
This objective addresses reducing the number of items already in the ESF
as well as reducing its growth.

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Output Measure**                    | **Projection**               |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| ## Annual earnings items processed    | FY 2003: 260,000,000         |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
|                                       | FY 2004: 265,000,000         |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+

Outcome Measure: Reduction in the size of the Earnings Suspense File

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

  2003                      18 million

  2004                      12 million
  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** This goal relates to suspense file items for years
prior to 2001. The goal is to find the correct earnings record and post
30 million or more suspense items for years 2000 and earlier, before
2005. New processes being developed by the Office of Quality Assurance
(OQA) will be used.

**Data Source:** OQA records of items removed from suspense and posted
to the correct earnings records. Also, a comparison of the current
suspense file will be made to the suspense file at the end of FYs 2003
and 2004.

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

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

  2003                      2%

  2004                      5%
  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** Earnings that remain in suspense after the annual
posting cycle are wage or self-employment earnings that are 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 first earnings
cycle to which the indicator will be applied will be in 2002, therefore,
the 2003 goal applies to the 2002 cycle. The FY 2004 goal of

5 percent represents the cumulative effect of the FYs 2003 and 2004
efforts.

**Data Source:** Items in the suspense file at the end of the full 2002
cycle compared to items removed by the new process

Means and Strategies for Increasing the Accuracy of Earnings Records:

Despite efforts to improve the quality of earnings reported to the
Agency, including sending out letters to employers who submit reports
where the name and SSN are inconsistent with SSA records, the ESF
continues to grow. To augment existing strategies to increase the
accuracy of earnings records, SSA has launched an earnings improvement
effort that includes:

-   Increasing the use of electronic filing by employers;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Providing online filing status and error information; and

-   Expanding the pilot to encourage greater use of SSN verification
    services that allow more employers to verify online a valid name/SSN
    combination.

As part of SSA's suspense file clean-up effort, SSA is building new
processes that will electronically find the correct earnings record for
many millions of the items posted in suspense. The new processes
integrate analysis of earnings and benefit records into the matching
process.

Employers who use our electronic services provide SSA with wage reports
that contain fewer errors than those who file using magnetic media and
paper. Electronic reporting will improve accuracy and result in a
decline in the growth of the ESF. This will also result in
administrative savings by reducing the number of notices and phone calls
to correct errors, and improve the accuracy of earnings statements and
benefit payments.

We will educate employers about electronic reporting through promotional
materials, payroll and employer focused conferences, articles for trade
publications, and direct contact with employers. We will continue to
make on-site visits with large payroll service providers and other
companies, encouraging them to report electronically.

SSA is undertaking an aggressive educational campaign to inform the wage
reporting community of various error detection tools available to them
prior to submitting entire wage reports to SSA. The Agency began
notifying all employers of every name/SSN discrepancy reported by the
employer on the Form W2 (Annual Wage and Tax Report) submitted to SSA
for tax year 2001. These notices request the employer to provide
corrected information to the Agency within 60 days.

Additionally, we will continue to send out Social Security Statements so
that people can review the earnings history we have for them to ensure
its completeness and correctness.

SSA is currently gathering and analyzing baseline information concerning
the impact of these initiatives on the accuracy and growth of the ESF.
Based on this analysis, SSA will continue to examine its key outcomes
and strengthen its performance measures accordingly.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **B4. Strategic Objective: Efficiently manage Agency finances and
  assets and effectively link resources to performance outcomes**

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

This objective encompasses the Presidential Management Agenda items on
financial management, budget and performance integration, and
competitive sourcing as well as several other Agency priorities such as
improved productivity and information security.

Outcome Measure: Percent improvement in Agency productivity

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

  FY 2003                2%

  FY 2004                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 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 work year (PPWY)

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

  FY 2003                264

  FY 2004                268
  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** This indicator represents the average number of DDS
cases processed per work year expended for all work. A work year
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 plus doctors under contract to the DDS.

**Data Source:** National Disability Determinations Service System.

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

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

  FY 2003                101\*

  FY 2004                104
  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------

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

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

\*Note: For comparability purposes, the FY 2003 target includes only SSA
hearings. The Administration's plan is to transfer the Medicare hearings
function to the Department of Health and Human Services starting with FY
2004. The FY 2003 target including Medicare hearings is 112.

**Outcome Measure:** Percent of commercial positions competed or
converted

######### 

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

  2003                        15%

  2004                        15%
  --------------------------- -------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** This performance measure represents the percentage
of SSA's commercial activities competed with commercial sources or
directly converted to contract by the end of each fiscal year.

**Data Source:** Total commercial positions: Year 2000 Federal
Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act inventory;

Commercial positions competed per Competitive Sourcing Plan

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

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

  2003                        0

  2004                        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:** By 2005, substantially complete the most
significant projects in the Social Security Unified Measurement System
(SUMS) and Managerial Cost Accountability System (MCAS) plan, and
complete the plan by the end of 2008.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SUMS FY 2003 Goals**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  Use of the SUMS Title XVI Post-eligibility Operational Data Store |
|     (PEODS) and SUMS Work Measurement Data Warehouse (WMDW) as the    |
|     sole source of agency information for managing the                |
|     redetermination and limited issue workloads. Complete corrections |
|     to the cases in the data warehouse.                               |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  Complete the first stage of the national rollout of the Customer  |
|     Service Record (CSR) through the Visitor Intake Process (VIP)     |
|     system in SSA field offices. The Customer Service Query (CSQ)     |
|     will contain an extract of data from 8 databases and will be      |
|     displayed in VIP.                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  Data contained in the Title II Integrated Workload Management     |
|     System (IWMS) will be moved to the Title II Operational Data      |
|     Store (ODS) and will be the basis for the new processing time     |
|     reports and SUMS counts.                                          |
|                                                                       |
| 4.  Data on Title XVI Initial Claims processing time from the SSI     |
|     Claims Report (SSICR) will be moved to the WMDW and accessed from |
|     the Common Front End to provide web-based processing time         |
|     reports.                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SUMS FY 2004 Goals**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  Implementation of SUMS Continuing Disability Review (CDR) ODS as  |
|     the sole source of agency information for managing the CDR        |
|     workload. A relational database and the architecture to house the |
|     CDR data and establish the files and protocols needed for ad hoc  |
|     querying will be created, as well as workload control listings    |
|     and reports using the Common Front End.                           |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  Establish common standards for SUMS projects and a common         |
|     web-based delivery of SUMS reports and workload listings.         |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  Creation of an ODS to replace the current Post Entitlement        |
|     Management Information (PEMI) system. Phase One will provide new  |
|     data for Title II Recomputations, adjustments and                 |
|     post-entitlement workloads and will provide means for ad hoc      |
|     querying of this information.                                     |
|                                                                       |
| 4.  SUMS will have a single access point established for applications |
|     called the Common Front End that will have standardized formats   |
|     for listings and reports and be in compliance with Section 508.   |
|     PEODS and SSI processing times will be the applications that are  |
|     initially included.                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **MCAS FY 2003 Goals**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  **Cost Analysis System (CAS) Renovation - OHA Work Counts:**      |
|     Release 7 of the CAS Renovation project under the umbrella MCAS   |
|     project will substantially automate the manual processes          |
|     currently used to compute basic workload count and work time by   |
|     workload information for the Office of Hearings and Appeals and   |
|     to enter that data to SSA\'s Cost Analysis System. This project   |
|     will reduce the time and effort required to produce these data    |
|     and will enhance the accuracy and integrity of SSA\'s managerial  |
|     cost accounting processes.                                        |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  **Complete Vision and Scope Document for Time Allocation.** This  |
|     document will complete the user planning and analysis phase of    |
|     the Time Allocation project and will provide the basis for        |
|     development of detailed requirements and project plans for time   |
|     allocation.                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **MCAS FY 2004 Goals**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  **Cost Analysis System (CAS) Renovation - OEO Work Counts:**      |
|     Release 8 of the CAS Renovation project 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 the CAS. This project will reduce the time and       |
|     effort required to produce these data and will enhance the        |
|     accuracy and integrity of SSA\'s managerial cost accounting       |
|     processes.                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  **Time Allocation Requirements:** Requirements will be defined    |
|     for all management information processes that depend on time      |
|     allocation to be complete. Requirements for workload processing   |
|     times to assess service delivery, assess performance, and compare |
|     service delivery channels will be developed. Additionally,        |
|     requirements for workload costs used to determine budget and      |
|     operational impacts will be included.                             |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  **Determine MCAS Reporting Requirements:** 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.                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| 4.  **MCAS Release 1 - Convert SSA\'s Cost Analysis System to a       |
|     Relational Database:** 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 FY 2005.                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| **Year**         | **Goal**                                          |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| FY 2003 and      | Receive an unqualified opinion                    |
|                  |                                                   |
| FY 2004          |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

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

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

  FY 2003    100% of initiative plans receive "green" for progress

  FY 2004    Achieve an overall rating of "green" on at least 3 of 5 PMA
             initiatives on status
  ---------- -------------------------------------------------------------

**Data Definition:** Receiving a "green" score on PMA initiative
improvement plans for FY 2003 and PMA scores for FY 2004

**Data Source:** OMB PMA initiative improvement plan rating and overall
PMA score

**Means and Strategies for Efficiently Managing Agency Finances and
Assets and Effectively Linking Resources to Performance Outcomes:**

This objective focuses on the management aspects of administering the
Social Security programs. Likewise, OMB is using a diagnostic
Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to examine aspects of the
administration of the SSI aged and Disability Insurance programs. See
Part V, beginning on page 56 for a complete discussion. The crosscutting
nature of these initiatives and priorities impacts all of the strategic
objectives. This objective encompasses three President Management Agenda
items that have been identified as Agency priorities:

*[Competitive Sourcing:]{.underline}* Competitive Sourcing uses
public-private competitions on commercial services currently performed
by federal employees to increase government efficiency and
effectiveness. The

FY 2003 goal is to compete and/or directly convert 15 percent of
commercial activities. For SSA, this equates to approximately 1,800
positions to be competed with commercial sources or directly converted
to contract by September 30, 2003. SSA is currently building the
infrastructure to institutionalize public-private competition and is
proceeding with planned competitive sourcing activities.

*[Improved Financial Management]{.underline}*: SSA plans to build upon
its aggressive efforts at reducing erroneous payments and collecting
related debt by increasing cost effective program integrity initiatives.
SSA's SSI Corrective Action Plan focuses on 1) overpayment prevention
through electronic access to records of financial institutions to
determine if an applicant owns unreported assets, 2) increased emphasis
on debt collection using a new debt collection measurement tool that
will enable us to identify those portions of our debt portfolio that are
subject to collection agreements and those portions that are not set up
in a repayment agreement, and 3) better overpayment detection through
online access to data to improve our ability to verify documents and
claimant's allegations.

[*Budget and Performance Integration* (also identified as a major
management challenge by the IG):]{.underline} Plans for budget and
performance integration have the overall objective to strengthen the
linkage between resources and performance through:

-   Developing a new budget formulation system with modeling
    capabilities to estimate what level of performance to expect for
    different levels of funding, and be integrated with modernized SSA
    accounting and management information systems;

-   Developing and implementing integrated work measurement and cost
    accountability systems that capture all the work we do and provide
    the detailed information managers need to make informed decisions;

-   Strengthening accountability for meeting performance goals;

-   Ensuring that SSA's budget formulation and execution processes
    continue to reflect the Agency's strategic and performance plans,
    with a greater emphasis on aligning outputs and costs to outcomes;
    and

-   Exploring the possibility of obtaining contractor support to assist
    with documenting the relationship between funding and outcomes.

There are a number of other management themes and Agency priorities that
emerged from top-level management meetings to define the Agency's
strategic direction. These priorities, discussed below, address external
and internal program evaluations.

###### Agency Productivity Improvements: The Agency has set a goal of achieving an average of at least 2 percent per year improvement in productivity. Advances in automation will be the key to SSA's productivity improvement, however process and regulation changes will also contribute positively. Some major initiatives include:

-   Accelerated eDib will capture and store all essential material from
    the disability folder electronically, allowing all components in the
    disability claims process immediate access to the file. The file
    will contain more data and reduce the need for contacting the
    claimant. Folder handling and mail time will be eliminated with the
    electronic folder.

-   Ongoing projects that use technology to improve SSA's wage reporting
    system, the claims process, and the postentitlement reporting
    process.

-   The OHA Information Technology Strategy and Implementation consists
    of four projects:

> \--digital recording of hearings that will reduce remands caused by
> the loss of audio cassette or
>
> faulty recordings;
>
> \--speech recognition software that will save time in drafting
> decisions;
>
> \--video teleconferencing that allows ALJs to conduct hearings with
> claimants who are located a
>
> distance from the hearings office; and
>
> \--bar coding for case tracking in the Office of Appellate Operations.

-   Expansion of the e-Government Internet initiative increases
    opportunities for the public to conduct business with SSA
    electronically and provides access to several claims and
    postentitlement options.

Additionally, we are implementing some process changes that will
contribute to the overall productivity improvements. Examples include:

-   Enumeration at Entry -- SSA is working with the DOS and the BCIS to
    enumerate aliens as part of the immigration process; and

-   Enhancing early screening and analysis of hearings cases to identify
    cases for possible "on the record decisions."

######## *Management Information Improvements*: The Agency's management information improvements directly support the PMA initiatives for budget and performance integration and improved financial management, and the IG's Major Management Challenge. This area encompasses SSA's efforts to provide timely, useful and reliable data to assist internal and external decisionmakers in effectively managing programs, evaluating performance, and ensuring that performance and financial data are valid and reliable.

Two major initiatives address improvements to the management information
systems\--SUMS and MCAS. These two projects are key enablers in
monitoring and reporting on the Agency's progress in achieving its
strategic goals and objectives and the resources each consumes. Both
will facilitate effective stewardship over SSA's resources and programs.

The objective of the SUMS project is to create a unified measurement
system for all SSA operational components that counts and measures all
work in a consistent manner, regardless of where the work is processed.
It provides the detailed information managers need to monitor service,
forecast workloads, and make informed decisions on how best to manage
work and resources.

MCAS focuses on critical performance and financial information needed by
managers and employees. MCAS will assemble and process a wide variety of
information from widely dispersed SSA management, program, workload and
financial systems, combining these data into a modern managerial
accountability system. Additionally, MCAS will promote accountability
for performance throughout programs SSA administers.

*[The SSA Security Plan]{.underline}:* The Security Plan, as required by
the Computer Security Act and the Government Information Security Reform
Act, documents the Agency's initiatives to develop, implement and
maintain an Agency-wide security program. The plan covers the
establishment of security controls in the following major areas:

-   *Rules of Behavior and Personnel Controls:* Personnel controls
    include separation of duties, application of the principle of
    "least" privileges and individual accountability, as well as
    criteria determined by the Office of Personnel Management to
    identify position sensitivity risk levels for automated information
    systems.

-   *Training:* SSA's three-pronged training program includes basic
    awareness training for all employees to adequately fulfill their
    responsibilities, training adaptable for specific needs to all
    employees requiring it, and education for employees whose primary
    responsibility is security.

-   *Incident Response Capability:* SSA has long had reporting
    procedures in place for various incidents. The plan includes the SSA
    Security Response Team, which was formed to address threats against
    the Agency's electronic systems and to assist the workforce with
    handling systems incidents.

-   *Risk Management:* SSA's Risk Management Program ensures a
    continuous review of the automated systems critical to the Agency's
    mission, i.e., an annual review and re-certification of these
    systems. SSA uses a number of approaches to satisfy risk management
    of requirements, i.e., risk analysis, risk management reviews, the
    consolidated integrity review process and the systems security life
    cycle process. Security personnel are included and consulted at each
    stage of systems development.

-   *Continuity of Support:* Contingency planning and disaster recovery
    are used to minimize the impact of situations that can affect the
    availability and reliability of computer services. These processes
    are consistent with Presidential Decision Directives (PDD) 63
    and 67. PDD 63 calls for a national level effort to assure the
    security of increasingly vulnerable and interconnected
    infrastructures, and provides for a protection plan for national
    assets from both physical and cyber attack. SSA's effort is
    supported by our Agency-wide Critical Infrastructure Protection
    Workgroup. In accordance with PDD 67, SSA developed a plan outlining
    a comprehensive Agency approach to address physical security,
    continuity of operations, and information systems security.

######## *Safety/Physical Security*: We have expanded SSA's current physical security program. As a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, SSA now complies with the federally directed higher alert level. SSA uses funding from this initiative to identify and remediate new vulnerabilities and replace aging equipment when its shelf life ends. We have expanded environmental health and safety (EHS) programs to obtain information about building systems and employee concerns, and to identify and resolve existing and potential problems so that all SSA employees work in safe surroundings. Since September 11, we have guards on duty at all our offices whenever they are open. This initiative also provides for education and resources to prevent accidents and exposures, and to respond appropriately and timely whenever EHS accidents occur.

######## *IT Infrastructure*: All of SSA's programmatic and administrative workloads, and most of SSA's service delivery channels rely on a complex information technology (IT) infrastructure. This initiative will provide for upgrading hardware and software, refreshing obsolete technology and improving economies of scale in SSA's IT environment. The foundation for this project rests on three tenants of operation:

1.  Availability -- SSA users must have access to SSA IT infrastructure
    services while field offices and telephone access is offered.
    Non-employee access (e.g., data exchange partners, the public, etc.)
    is required at times approaching 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.

2.  Stability -- The platforms must be available, without patterns of
    even brief periods of outage.

3.  Maintainability -- IT hardware and software in widespread, critical
    production use must be maintained at near-current release levels to
    ensure continued and quality support services from vendor suppliers.

*[Reconcile IG/GAO Recommendations]{.underline}:* Through the years, IG
and GAO have audited our internal processes, performance measures, and
responses to Agency challenges. While we have agreed with and
implemented many of their recommendations, some have been overtaken by
other priorities. The Commissioner has completed a comprehensive review
of all audit recommendations and will determine if they are still
relevant. Additionally, the Agency is involved in ongoing discussions
with IG and GAO concerning their recommendations. The Agency tracks
progress on audit recommendations until they are completed or
implemented.