Background

SSA provides financial assistance to eligible individuals through three  major benefit programs:
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI)—provides retirement  benefits to older workers and their families and to survivors of  deceased workers.
Disability Insurance (DI)—provides benefits to eligible workers who  have qualifying disabilities, and their eligible family members.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)—provides income for aged,  blind, or disabled individuals with limited income and resources.
SSA projects that the number of beneficiaries and benefit payments for  the three programs will increase over the next several years. DI and SSI  are the nation’s largest federal disability programs, and applications for  benefits have grown significantly over the last 5 years, due in part to baby  boomers reaching their disability-prone years, as well as a sustained  economic downturn and high unemployment. Retirement claims have  also steadily increased in recent years.
Although SSA’s disability programs account for only about 23 percent of  its total benefit outlays, they represent 66 percent of the administrative  expenses for these 3 programs. Complex eligibility rules and many layers  of review with multiple handoffs from one person to another make the  disability programs complicated, and therefore costly, to administer.
Both OASI and DI face long-term financial challenges. In 2012, SSA’s  Office of the Chief Actuary projected that the DI and OASI Trust Funds  would be exhausted in 2016 and 2035, respectively. If the trust funds are  depleted before legislative changes are made to restore long-term  solvency, the agency projects that it will be able to pay benefits only to  the extent that funds are available.
In support of its mission and programs, SSA’s basic functions include  maintaining earnings information, making initial eligibility determinations  for program payments, making changes to beneficiaries’ accounts that  affect their benefit payments, and issuing Social Security numbers. has over 80,000 state and federal employees and about 1,700 facilities  nationwide. Almost 182,000 people visit one of the nearly 1,300 SSA field  offices daily and more than 445,000 people call the offices daily to file  applications, ask questions, or update their information.
Social Security numbers have become the universal identifier of choice for government  agencies and are currently used for many non-Social Security purposes. been used to keep up with increases in expenses such as personnel  costs, rent, and security.

	SSA Faces Challenges in Several Key Areas

Over the next decade, SSA will experience management challenges in  four key areas: (1) human capital, (2) disability program issues, (3)  information technology, and (4) physical infrastructure.

		Human Capital

Over the next decade, SSA’s ongoing retirement wave, coupled with a  hiring freeze that has been in place since 2010, represents a significant  challenge for the agency in meeting the projected growth in work  demands. Although not all employees will necessarily retire when eligible,  nearly 7,000 headquarters employees and more than 24,000 field  employees will be retirement eligible between 2011 and 2020. The  agency projects that it could lose nearly 22,500 employees, or nearly one- third of its workforce, during this time due to retirement—its primary   The Commissioner stated in SSA’s fiscal year 2012  source of attrition.budget overview that as a result of attrition, some offices could become  understaffed, and that without a sufficient number of skilled employees,  backlogs and wait times could significantly increase and improper  payments could grow. As SSA’s workforce decreases and its workload  increases, our preliminary work suggests that the agency’s strategies for  preventing a loss of leadership and skills may prove insufficient for a  variety of reasons.
Retaining institutional knowledge and developing new leaders. SSA  could face a significant loss of institutional knowledge and expertise in the  coming years. An estimated 43 percent of SSA’s non-supervisory  employees and 60 percent of its supervisors will be eligible to retire by  2020. Regional and district managers told us they have already lost staff  experienced in handling the most complex disability cases.and DDS managers told us that it typically takes 2 to 3 years for new  employees to become fully proficient and that new hires benefit from   SSA officials  mentoring by veteran employees. Because of budget cutbacks, SSA has  also curtailed its leadership development programs, which have  historically been used to establish a pipeline of future leaders.
Succession planning. SSA’s most recent succession plan was issued in  2006, even though the agency has experienced significant changes since  that time, including a hiring freeze and greater movement toward online  services. The most recent succession plan established a target of  evaluating and updating the plan by the end of 2007. Internal control  standards state that management should ensure that skill needs are  continually assessed and that the organization is able to obtain a  workforce with those required skills to achieve organizational goals. Our  prior work also indicates that leading organizations use succession  planning to help prepare for an anticipated loss of leadership.
SSA’s 2006 succession plan states that without sound succession  planning, SSA’s loss of leadership would result in a drain on institutional  knowledge and expertise at a time when workloads are growing. This loss  of knowledge and expertise could result in increasing workloads,  backlogs, and improper payments. Several SSA officials told us  individuals with less experience and training are beginning to assume  supervisory roles and some have made poor decisions related to such  things as providing reasonable accommodations to employees with  disabilities. Some officials also told us that inexperienced managers are  also less proficient at supervising others, which leads to inefficiencies in  managing increasing workloads.
Forecasting workforce needs. Findings from OIG reports raise  additional concerns about SSA’s ability to accurately forecast workload  demands and workforce needs. These reports found methodological  flaws in the workload and work year data SSA uses to formulate and  execute its budget. For example, the reports concluded that the internal  controls and main processes related to work sampling—which SSA uses  to measure work and assign direct and indirect costs to workloads—did  not ensure the completeness and reliability of data in SSA’s Cost Analysis  System. The reports found that work samples were not consistently  performed. Furthermore, they noted no instances of peer or management  review, which could improve the accuracy of the workload data  collected.these findings.

		Disability Program Issues

SSA continues to face challenges in modernizing its disability programs,  while seeking a balance between reducing initial claims and hearings  backlogs and conducting oversight activities to ensure program integrity.
Modernizing disability programs. We designated federal disability  programs as a high-risk area in 2003, in part because these programs  emphasize medical conditions in assessing an individual’s work  incapacity without adequate consideration of the work opportunities afforded by advances in medicine, technology, and job demands.Concerns have been raised that the medical listings being used lack  current and relevant criteria to evaluate disability applicants’ inability to  work, and that by failing to consider the role of assistive devices and  workplace accommodations, SSA may be missing opportunities to help  individuals with disabilities return to work. SSA has recently taken steps  toward comprehensively updating the medical and labor market  information that underlie its disability criteria.
As of March 2013, SSA had completed comprehensive revisions of its  medical criteria for 10 of the 14 adult body systems and initiated  targeted reviews of certain conditions under these systems, as  appropriate, according to SSA officials.
SSA has recently made progress toward replacing its outdated  occupational information system, including signing an interagency  agreement with the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics  to design, develop, and carry out pilot testing of an approach to collect  data for an updated system. According to SSA officials, the agency  still needs to determine exactly how many occupations it will include in  its new system and the extent to which it might leverage aspects of  the Department of Labor’s existing occupational database, the  Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The agency also needs  to determine the extent to which the new system will include cognitive  information, according to agency officials. In addition, officials told us  the agency has not yet formalized a cost estimate and lacks a  research and development plan.
SSA has also taken steps to more fully consider individuals’ ability to  function with medical impairments in their work or other environments,  which is consistent with modern views of disability. However, SSA  disagreed with our prior recommendation to conduct limited, focused  studies on how to more fully consider factors such as assistive  devices and workplace accommodations in its disability  determinations, stating that such studies would be inconsistent with  Congress’ intentions. We noted, however, that Congress has not  explicitly prohibited SSA from considering these factors and we  believe that conducting these studies would put SSA in a better  position to thoughtfully weigh various policy options before deciding  on a course of action.
SSA has two initiatives to expedite cases for the most severely disabled individuals:  Quick Disability Determination and Compassionate Allowances. Using predictive modeling  and computer-based screening tools to screen initial applicants, the Quick Disability  Determination identifies cases where a favorable disability determination is highly likely  and medical evidence is readily available, such as with certain cancers and end-stage  renal disease. With Compassionate Allowances, SSA targets the most obviously disabled  applicants based on available medical information and generally awards benefits if there is  objective medical evidence to confirm the diagnosis and the applicant also meets SSA’s  non-disability criteria. commissioners told us that simplifying disability policy, such as by  streamlining work incentive and work reporting rules, could also help staff  better manage disability workloads.
SSA is processing more initial claims annually, but claims denied at the  initial level can be appealed and often result in a request for a hearing by  an administrative law judge. To reduce its hearings backlog, SSA has  used strategies such as hiring additional administrative law judges and  support staff, opening more hearings offices, and conducting more  hearings via video conference. Our preliminary results indicate that,  although SSA completed more hearing requests in fiscal year 2012 than  in previous years, the agency fell short of its hearings completion target  by more than 54,000 hearings, and at 321 days, the average wait time for  hearings exceeded the agency’s target by 41 days. At the same time, the  agency eliminated most of its oldest pending hearing requests.
Ensuring disability program integrity. SSA also faces disability  program integrity challenges due to budget decisions and the way it  prioritizes competing workload demands such as processing initial claims.  Continuing disability reviews (CDR) are periodic reviews that the agency  is required to perform to verify that certain recipients still meet SSA  disability rules. SSA reported that in fiscal year 2010, the agency did not  conduct 1.4 million CDRs that were due for review, in part because of  competing workloads. In June 2012, we also found that the number of  childhood CDRs conducted fell from more than 150,000 in fiscal year  2000 to about 45,000 in fiscal year 2011 (a 70 percent decrease). During  this time, the number of adult CDRs fell from 584,000 to 179,000.
This figure represents the present value of future benefits saved for OASDI, SSI,  Medicare, and Medicaid. The estimate includes savings to Medicare and Medicaid  because in some cases eligibility for SSI and DI confers eligibility for certain Medicare or  Medicaid benefits. continue to receive them, SSA officials reported that resource constraints  have made it more difficult to balance competing workloads and remain  current on the millions of CDRs it is required to conduct each year.

		Information Technology

SSA has taken steps to modernize its information technology (IT)  systems to help keep pace with workload demands, but some entities  have identified additional areas that could be improved. In addition,  increased risk exists that sensitive information could be exposed because  of internal security weaknesses.
IT modernization efforts. SSA has begun to take action on several of  our prior recommendations to improve the way it modernizes its IT  systems. For example, in May 2012, SSA released its Capital Planning  and Investment Control guide. The guide describes the roles and  responsibilities of staff under the agency’s realigned IT organizational  structure. SSA also issued an updated IT strategic plan that covers  2012-2016 and supports the updated agencywide strategic plan.  Furthermore, SSA officials told us that they intend to revisit the IT  strategic plan annually and refresh it as appropriate. Our prior work  indicates that SSA has not always had an updated IT strategic plan to  guide its modernization efforts. In the absence of regular updates, SSA  based its IT modernization efforts on program activities that were tied to  short-term budget cycles and not developed in the context of a long-term  strategic plan. While we are encouraged that SSA issued an updated IT  strategic plan, at present, it is too soon to assess the extent to which SSA  will adhere to the plan and annual reevaluation cycle.
SSA is modernizing its IT systems, in part, to support a shift toward  offering more online services. However, SSA’s OIG has expressed  concerns that the agency is continuing to rely on its legacy applications.  Many of its programs are written in COBOL, which is one of the oldest  computer programming languages and is difficult to modify and update.  The OIG noted also that the agency risks losing key institutional  knowledge relating to COBOL programming and its increasingly complex  information systems. According to the OIG, SSA has indicated that  modernizing its legacy applications will ultimately reduce operating costs  and improve service delivery. However, agency officials told us they have  conducted analyses that show the costs of moving away from using  COBOL currently outweigh the benefits. Accordingly, the OIG found that  SSA has developed an approach to gradually reduce its reliance on  COBOL for core processing of program transactions but has not yet  articulated a formal strategy for converting its legacy programs to a more  modern programming language. SSA officials disagree that such a  strategy is needed because they consider this programming language to  be sufficient for their needs and point out that it is still used by other  businesses.
Information security weaknesses. SSA uses and stores a great deal of  sensitive information, but has been challenged to effectively protect its  computer systems and networks in recent years. Our prior work states  that it is essential for agencies to have information security controls that  ensure sensitive information is adequately protected from inadvertent or  deliberate misuse, fraudulent use, and improper disclosure, modification,  or destruction. However, in fiscal year 2012, several concerns were  raised about SSA’s information security program.
SSA’s OIG identified weaknesses in some of the agency’s information  security program components that limited SSA’s overall effectiveness  in protecting the agency’s information and information systems,  constituting a significant deficiency in the agency’s information  security program under the Federal Information Security Management  Act of 2002 (FISMA).
The OIG has also noted that weaknesses in certain elements of the  agency’s information security program may challenge SSA’s ability to  use its IT infrastructure to support current and future workloads.
The agency’s independent financial auditor also identified a material  weakness in information systems controls over financial management  statements based on several concerns, many of which have been  longstanding.
SSA is implementing a multi-year plan to address many of these  weaknesses. However, the OIG stated that one of the underlying causes  for these weaknesses is that SSA needed to strategically allocate  sufficient resources to resolve or prevent high-risk security weaknesses in  a more timely fashion. Though SSA officials emphasized that the information security risks identified were internal,access to or misuse of sensitive information can have a significant  impact. For example, according to the OIG, in 2012, a former SSA  employee was found to have used her position to provide personally  identifiable information to a person outside the agency, who is accused of  using the information for criminal purposes.

		Physical Infrastructure

SSA is taking steps to centralize its facilities management, which may  standardize facilities decisions, but our preliminary results show that the  agency lacks a proactive approach to evaluate its physical infrastructure  and identify potential efficiencies.
Centralizing facilities management. SSA is beginning to centralize its  facilities management, but officials indicated it may lead to a trade-off  between efficiency and flexibility. The agency administers its programs  and services through a network of over 1,700 facilities, at an annual cost  of approximately $1 billion.facilities management process, but officials told us they are currently  moving all facilities management under SSA’s Office of Facilities and  Supply Management (OFSM). Some officials said that centralization can  lead to greater efficiencies and standardization, but cautioned that there  may be less flexibility and awareness of local circumstances—such as the  layout of specific buildings—at the regional level.
The agency has had a more decentralized  Limited facilities planning efforts. A contractor hired by the General  Services Administration (GSA) is currently working on a long-term plan for  SSA’s headquarters facilities, called the Master Housing Plan. An SSA official told us that the contractor has solicited input and feedback from  the agency on the draft plan. However, an SSA official told us the agency  lacks a comprehensive planning effort that encompasses all of the  agency’s facilities, including nearly 1,300 field offices.
Efforts to reduce office space. SSA officials told us the agency is  engaged in ongoing efforts to reduce the footprint of its headquarters  facilities. According to an SSA official, vacant space in headquarters  facilities has increased during the past few years as a result of the  shrinking workforce. SSA officials told us that OFSM is analyzing the  space needs of all offices in the headquarters area and will reassign  space according to staffing levels and other criteria. According to an  official, SSA’s efforts were motivated by several factors, including an  OMB directiveagency’s ultimate goal of terminating all commercial leasing in the  headquarters area; and, to a lesser degree, reducing current vacancies in  headquarters.   to make more efficient use of federal office space; the  In addition to these headquarters-focused efforts, SSA is reducing office  space in the field as opportunities arise, but our preliminary work shows  that it lacks a proactive plan to assess field facilities for potential space  reductions. When OFSM reviews a field-based space action (e.g., lease  renewal, move, renovation), an SSA official told us that the proposed  action is assessed to identify if there are opportunities to reduce or  otherwise change the facility’s space allocation. However, OFSM’s  standards do not call for wholesale reductions or reconfigurations of  existing space. SSA has established a workgroup that is developing  guidance to help identify opportunities to reduce space by co-locating  certain field-based facilities, such as field offices and video-based  disability hearing offices, but the workgroup’s proposals need to be  reviewed and it is not yet clear if the agency will adopt them.
Considerations for realigning the facilities structure. SSA has been  advised to consider aligning its facilities structure with its changing  methods of providing services. For example, the OIG reported in 2011  that SSA’s long-term planning efforts should assess whether the agency’s  existing office structure will align with future methods of providing  customer service. In 2011, the Social Security Advisory Board  suggested that as SSA continues to increase electronic service delivery, it  adapt its organizational structure to maximize the effectiveness of the  agency’s transformation. In prior work, we have also reported that federal  agencies may be able to increase efficiency and effectiveness by  consolidating physical infrastructure or management functions. Several  agencies—including the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Postal  Service, and the Census Bureau—plan to or have already undertaken  consolidation efforts to achieve efficiencies and save money. At the same  time, SSA has long considered face-to-face interaction to be the gold  standard of customer service, and an official has told us that any changes  away from that model would represent a major cultural shift for the  agency.
SSA has begun to take advantage of opportunities to consolidate or co- locate offices in the regions. SSA regional commissioners told us that  field offices have been consolidated in most of its of 10 regions and  several regions have co-located with the Office of Disability Adjudication  and Review to provide space to hold disability hearings within field  offices. These consolidations and co-locations can save money on rent and guard services. Regional commissioners told us that a single office  consolidation can save up to $3 million over a 10-year period.
Despite these actions, our preliminary work indicates that SSA has not  engaged in a systematic analysis of potential approaches for  consolidating its facilities or realigning its facilities with the agency’s  evolving service delivery model. The National Research Council  recommends that federal agencies use their organizational mission to  guide facilities investment decisions and then integrate these investments  into their strategic planning processes. We previously reported that  agencies should consider the potential costs and benefits of any  widespread efforts to consolidate physical infrastructure before embarking  on such an action. To support its rationale for consolidation and assess  the potential impact and challenges of consolidation, we suggested that  agencies consider issues such as how to fund up-front costs associated  with consolidation and the effect on various stakeholders.

	SSA’s Planning Efforts Are Not Adequate to Address the Long- Term Nature of Its Management Challenges

SSA has ongoing planning efforts, but we have identified two major areas  in which these efforts may fall short in addressing the long-term nature of  the agency’s management challenges: (1) its planning efforts are short- term and do not adequately address emerging issues, and (2) it lacks  continuity in its strategic planning leadership.
Need for longer-term efforts to address emerging issues. SSA’s  planning efforts, from an overall strategic plan to its service delivery plan,  typically look no more than 5 years out. For example, SSA is finalizing a  service delivery plan, but the draft document primarily contains detailed  plans for the next 5 years and focuses on existing initiatives rather than  articulating specific long-term strategies for the agency’s service delivery  model. While the draft service delivery plan acknowledges the need to  assess the agency’s workforce structure, it stops short of providing a  vision for how the workforce structure should best make use of expanded  virtual and automated service delivery channels. The plan also states that  issues such as the need to strategically develop and place self-service  options and to determine whether the Internet should be the primary  service delivery mechanism for certain services, will need to be  considered over the next 6 to 10 years, but it does not provide a specific  strategy for how to resolve these issues. Further, the plan does not  articulate SSA’s long-term costs and benefits for its investments, such as  the specific impact that moving to online services is expected to have on  backlogs and workforce needs. For many years, we have recommended  that SSA develop a comprehensive service delivery plan that outlines  how it will deliver quality service while managing growing work demands  within a constrained budget.
Similarly, our preliminary work shows that SSA’s current strategic plan  largely describes the continuation, expansion, or enhancement of existing  activities, rather than proposing new initiatives or broad changes to  address emerging issues. One of the goals of the agency’s strategic plan  is to increase the public’s use of online services, but several SSA officials  and representatives of one SSA management group told us that this shift  will not be sufficient to address growing service demands. For example,  as discussed earlier, to meet service challenges, some officials said the  agency will also need to simplify its disability policy and develop a  strategy for meeting the needs of individuals who may not have access to  computers at home or who may not be computer literate. At the same  time, however, some SSA officials noted that the agency may need to  limit the number of days per week that field offices are open to the public  to contain costs.
Various groups have called on SSA to acknowledge emerging long-term  issues by articulating them in a longer-term strategy. In 2011, the Social  Security Advisory Board called for SSA to develop a strategy for service  delivery through 2020 that will serve as the cornerstone for its IT, human  capital, policy review, and organizational restructuring plans. The SSA  OIG also called on SSA to prepare a longer-term vision to ensure that it  has the programs, processes, staff, and infrastructure necessary to  provide service in the future. Several SSA officials we spoke with told us  that developing a long-term service delivery plan should be the next  Commissioner’s top priority. Moreover, regional commissioners and field  managers said that such a plan could help to clarify issues such as what  services will be available online in the future, how these services will be  implemented, how IT modernization will support service delivery, and  which offices will have responsibility for different workloads. SSA  prepared its last long-term agency vision—which covered a 10-year  period—in 2000, motivated by many conditions which remain true today,  such as increasing workloads, advances in technology, and employee  retirements.
Senior agency officials told us that as an agency, SSA generally views  long-term planning as a secondary responsibility and is more focused on  addressing short-term, tactical issues. Several officials also noted that  uncertainty about budget resources has made it difficult for SSA to  engage in multi-year planning. One official commented that as a result of  its budget situation, the agency has been reactive and failed to consider  big picture issues. Strategic planning literature notes the success of  organizations that are flexible and adaptive; these organizations plan for  different scenarios and consider strategic options.
Need for continuity in strategic planning leadership. The GPRA  Modernization Act of 2010 charges top agency leadership with improving   SSA previously had an Office of  agency management and performance.the Chief Strategic Officer, which was responsible for overseeing strategic  planning. This office worked with all SSA components to prioritize  initiatives that would help the agency meet its goals and determined how  to link these initiatives to the agency’s budget. However, the office was  dissolved in May 2008, and since that time the agency has not had an  office dedicated to strategic planning. Senior officials said that SSA  should dedicate a position, such as a chief strategic officer, that will report  directly to the Commissioner and be solely responsible for strategic  planning in order to bring sustained, focused attention to long-term  management challenges.

	Concluding Observations

In conclusion, the challenges SSA faces will substantially affect its ability  to address critical concerns in the coming years. SSA’s efforts to meet  many of its management challenges have been complicated by budgetary  constraints and continued uncertainty about the current and future fiscal  environment. Despite these constraints, the agency will need to balance  competing demands for resources—both in terms of managing day-to-day  budget decisions and planning for emerging and long-term budget issues.  SSA already manages a substantial and diverse workload and the  demands on SSA from new retirees and individuals with disabilities will  continue to grow.
SSA’s new Commissioner will face wide-ranging challenges that will  require a comprehensive, long-range strategy that current planning efforts  do not adequately address. In the absence of a long-term strategy for  service delivery, the agency will be poorly positioned to make needed  well-informed decisions about its critical functions, including how many  and what type of employees SSA will need for its future workforce, how  the agency will address disability claims backlogs while ensuring program  integrity, and how the agency will more strategically use its information  technology and physical infrastructure to best deliver services.
Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Becerra, and Members of the  Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

	Contacts and Acknowledgments

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202)  512-7215. Michael Alexander, James Bennett, Jeremy Cox, Larry  Crosland, Alex Galuten, Isabella Johnson, Kristen Jones, Anjalique  Lawrence, Sheila McCoy, Christie Motley, Walter Vance, Kathleen Van  Gelder, and Jill Yost also made key contributions to this statement.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

SSA is responsible for providing benefits and services that affect the lives of nearly every American. In calendar year 2012, SSA paid over 62 million people more than $826 billion in Social Security retirement and disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments. However, SSA faces increased workloads and large numbers of potential employee retirements in the long term. A new Commissioner will soon be leading the agency and will face many complicated issues confronting the agency.
In this statement, GAO discusses initial observations from its ongoing review and describes (1) key management challenges SSA faces in meeting its mission-related objectives and (2) the extent to which SSA's planning efforts address these challenges. To examine these issues, GAO reviewed relevant planning documents and reports from SSA and others as well as SSA management information and data on workload and staffing projections, applicable federal laws and regulations, and interviewed SSA headquarters and regional officials, representatives of employee groups, and other experts.
This work is ongoing and GAO has no recommendations at this time. GAO plans to issue its final report in June 2013.

What GAO Found

The Social Security Administration (SSA) will experience management challenges in four key areas over the next decade.
Human capital. SSA has not updated its succession plan since 2006 although the agency faces an ongoing retirement wave and hiring freeze which will make it difficult to respond to growing workload demands.
Disability program issues. SSA faces ongoing challenges incorporating a more modern concept of disability into its programs, while balancing competing needs to reduce backlogs of initial and appealed claims and ensure program integrity.
Information technology (IT). SSA has made strides in modernizing its IT systems to address growing workload demands, but faces challenges with these modernization efforts--such as an ongoing need to refresh and adhere to its IT strategic plan and a continued reliance on legacy applications--and correcting internal weaknesses in information security.
Physical infrastructure. SSA is moving toward centralized facilities management, but the agency lacks a proactive approach to evaluating its office structure that will identify potential efficiencies, such as consolidating offices.
SSA has ongoing planning efforts, but they do not address the long-term nature of these management challenges. For example, SSA is finalizing a service delivery plan, but it only includes detailed plans for the next 5 years and focuses on existing initiatives rather than articulating specific long-term strategies for the agency's service delivery model. Its current strategic plan also largely describes the continuation, expansion, or enhancement of ongoing activities, rather than proposing broad changes to address emerging issues. Since 2008, SSA has not had an entity or individual dedicated to strategic planning. Various groups have called on SSA to articulate a longer-term strategy, which it last did in 2000, motivated by many conditions which remain true today, such as increasing workloads, advances in technology, and employee retirements, and which will need to be addressed in the future.