Audit Report

The Social Security Administration’s 

Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings 

Backlog 

A-12-15-15005 | September 2015
MEMORANDUM

Date: September 23, 2015 Refer To: 

To: The Commissioner 

From: Inspector General

Subject: The Social Security Administration’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog 

(A-12-15-15005) 

The attached final report presents the results of the Office of Audit’s review. The objective was 

to assess the Social Security Administration’s efforts to eliminate the pending hearings backlog 

and improve hearing timeliness. 

If you wish to discuss the final report, please call me or have your staff contact 

Steven L. Schaeffer, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at (410) 965-9700. 

Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr.

Attachment
The Social Security Administration’s Efforts to Eliminate the 

Hearings Backlog

A-12-15-15005

September 2015 Office of Audit Report Summary

Objective

To assess the Social Security 

Administration’s (SSA) efforts to 

eliminate the pending hearings backlog 

and improve hearing timeliness. 

Background 

In May 2007, SSA announced a plan to 

eliminate the backlog of hearing 

requests and prevent its recurrence. 

The backlog reduction plan centered 

on (1) improving hearing office 

procedures, (2) increasing adjudicatory 

capacity, and (3) increasing efficiency 

through automation and improving 

business processes. The hearings 

backlog reduction plan included 

38 initiatives. 

When the Agency announced its plan 

in May 2007, SSA’s pending level was 

743,800 cases. The average processing 

time (APT) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 

was 512 days. SSA’s goal was to 

reduce the number of pending hearings 

to 466,000 and APT to 270 days by the 

end of FY 2013. 

Findings 

SSA efforts have not been successful in eliminating the pending 

hearings backlog nor reducing APT to 270 days. As of 

March 2015, SSA had about 1 million claims awaiting a decision, 

and the APT was approximately 450 days. We have identified four 

factors that contributed to this worsening situation: (1) an increase 

in hearing requests, (2) a decrease in administrative law judge 

(ALJ) productivity, (3) a decrease in senior attorney adjudicator 

decisions, and (4) a recent decrease in the number of available 

ALJs. 

Of the 38 hearing backlog initiatives from 2007, 18 (47 percent) 

were ongoing, such as hiring new ALJs and reducing aged cases. 

Seventeen (45 percent) had been accomplished. For instance, SSA 

successfully created five new National Hearing Centers. However, 

SSA was unable to accomplish three (8 percent) initiatives. For 

instance, SSA canceled its e-pulling and auto-scheduling initiatives. 

SSA managers we interviewed stated the most important initiative 

was hiring additional ALJs. They also cited initiatives related to 

electronic processing, aged cases, video hearings, and ALJ 

productivity for their effectiveness. 

At the time of our audit, the Agency had not published a long-term, 

multi-year strategy to address the pending hearings backlog and 

APT increase. The Agency Performance Plan for FY 2016 has an 

annual timeliness goal for the FY, but it is not part of a public, 

long-term strategy, and it lacks a goal for pending hearings. After 

our draft report, the Agency shared a new tactical plan focused on 

reducing pending hearings. The Agency was still finalizing 

performance measures related to this new tactical plan. SSA should 

also examine how other agencies have defined, measured, and 

addressed their claims backlogs.

Recommendations

1. Ensure the new pending hearings tactical plan is integrated into 

the next strategic plan document, which should also provide the 

public with information on the Agency’s long-term pending 

hearings and related timeliness goals, as well as an updated 

definition of what constitutes a hearings backlog. 

2. Publish and implement annual goals that align with achieving 

the tactical and strategic plans, which could entail examining 

how other agencies established goals to address their backlogs. 

The Agency agreed with our recommendations. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Objective ..........................................................................................................................................1

Background ......................................................................................................................................1

Results of Review ............................................................................................................................1

Status of the Pending Hearings Backlog ....................................................................................2

Trends in Pending Claims, Hearing Requests, and Dispositions .........................................2

Hearing Timeliness ..............................................................................................................6

Status of Hearing Office Backlog Initiatives .............................................................................6

Status of Hearings Backlog Initiatives .................................................................................7

Ongoing Initiatives...............................................................................................................7

Accomplished Initiatives .....................................................................................................8

Initiatives Not Accomplished ..............................................................................................9

Most Effective Initiatives per Managers ..............................................................................9

Agency Planning and Performance Monitoring ......................................................................10

Strategic Planning ..............................................................................................................10

Annual Performance Planning ...........................................................................................11

New Tactical Plan ....................................................................................................................12

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................12

Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................13

Agency Comments .........................................................................................................................13

Appendix A – Scope and Methodology ..................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B – Factors That May Affect Administrative Law Judge Productivity ..................... B-1

Appendix C – Status of May 2007 Hearing Backlog Initiatives ................................................ C-1

Appendix D – Agency Comments .............................................................................................. D-1

Appendix E – Major Contributors............................................................................................... E-1

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 
ABBREVIATIONS

AAJ Administrative Appeals Judge 

ALJ Administrative Law Judge 

APP Annual Performance Plan

APT Average Processing Time

ARS Appointed Representative Services

CPMS Case Processing and Management System

DQ Division of Quality 

DTHR Division of Training and Human Resources 

FIT Findings Integrated Templates 

FY Fiscal Year

NHC National Hearing Center

OAO Office of Appellate Operations 

OCALJ Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

ODAR Office of Disability Adjudication and Review

OIG Office of the Inspector General

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OQP Office of Quality Performance

OTR On-the-Record 

SAA Senior Attorney Adjudicator

SSA Social Security Administration

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 
OBJECTIVE

The objective of this audit was to assess the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) efforts to 

eliminate the pending hearings backlog and improve hearing timeliness. 

BACKGROUND

The Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) administers SSA’s hearings and 

appeals program. The hearing process begins after an applicant for benefits appeals a denial 

made by a State disability determination services office. Administrative law judges (ALJ) and 

senior attorney adjudicators (SAA) issue decisions at hearing office locations nationwide.

In May 2007, SSA announced a plan to eliminate the backlog of hearing requests and prevent its 

recurrence.1 When the Agency announced its plan, SSA’s pending level was 743,800 cases, and

the average processing time (APT) was 512 days. SSA’s goal was to reduce the number of 

pending hearings to 466,000 and APT to 270 days by the end of FY 2013. The backlog 

reduction plan centered on (1) improving hearing office procedures; (2) increasing adjudicatory 

capacity; and (3) increasing efficiency with automation and improving business processes. The 

backlog reduction plan had 38 hearings backlog initiatives. 

We met our objective by reviewing SSA’s planning documents related to reducing its pending 

hearings backlog and improving timeliness. We analyzed trends in the number of pending cases, 

APT, dispositions, hearing requests, and productivity for ALJs and support staff. We met with 

regional office management teams to discuss the effectiveness of the 38 initiatives. Finally, we 

met with ODAR executives to discuss ODAR’s strategy for reducing and eliminating the 

hearings backlog.2

RESULTS OF REVIEW

Even with the implementation of numerous backlog initiatives since 2007, SSA’s pending 

hearings backlog had increased significantly, and APT had worsened in recent years. As of 

March 2015, SSA had over 1 million claims awaiting a decision (highest ever), and APT was 

approximately 450 days. We have identified four factors that contributed to this worsening 

situation: (1) an increase in the number of hearing requests, (2) a decrease in ALJ productivity, 

(3) a decrease in senior attorney adjudicator (SAA) decisions, and (4) a recent decrease in the 

number of available ALJs. 

1 See Addendum to Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Astrue before the Senate Finance Committee, The Social 

Security Administration: Is it Meeting its Responsibilities to Save Taxpayer Dollars and Serve the Public?, 

May 17, 2012.

2 See Appendix A for more information on our scope and methodology.

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 1

 
Of the 38 hearing backlog initiatives, 18 (47 percent) were ongoing. For example, at the time of 

our review, SSA continued hiring new ALJs, enhancing its electronic folder system, and 

focusing on aged cases. Seventeen (45 percent) initiatives had been accomplished. For instance, 

ODAR successfully created five new National Hearing Centers and expanded video hearings 

options in other areas. Finally, SSA was unable to accomplish three (8 percent) initiatives. For 

instance, SSA canceled its e-pulling and auto-scheduling initiatives. ODAR managers we 

interviewed stated the most important initiative was hiring additional ALJs. They also cited 

initiatives related to electronic processing, aged cases, video hearings, and ALJ productivity for 

their effectiveness. 

At the time of our audit, the Agency had not published a long-term, multi-year strategy that 

specifically addressed the growing pending hearings backlog and worsening timeliness. The 

FY 2016 Agency Performance Plan (APP) has an annual timeliness goal for the FY, but it is not 

part of a public, long-term strategy. The APP also lacks a similar goal for pending hearings. 

Agency managers informed us they were finalizing a new goal to achieve a 270-day APT by 

FY 2020, which ODAR would define as eliminating the backlog. After we provided our draft 

report to Agency managers, they shared the Agency’s eight-point tactical plan outlining SSA’s 

priorities through the end of FY 2016. One of the plan’s goals was to reduce pending hearings, 

with ODAR listing 35 initiatives to achieve this goal. We determined 21 of these 35 initiatives 

were variations of the initiatives we discuss in this report. The Agency was still finalizing 

performance measures related to this new tactical plan. SSA should also examine how other 

agencies have defined, measured, and addressed their claims backlogs.

Status of the Pending Hearings Backlog

SSA actions to date have not eliminated the pending hearings backlog. Since FY 2010, hearing 

requests have exceeded hearing dispositions, which has resulted in increasing numbers of 

pending claims. We identified factors that contributed to the increase in the number of pending 

claims. Because of growing pending claims, hearing timeliness has worsened in recent years. 

Trends in Pending Claims, Hearing Requests, and Dispositions 

By March 31, 2015, the number of hearing pending claims was over 1 million cases. According 

to ODAR, the number of pending claims was at the highest level in the Agency’s history. When 

the hearings backlog plan began, the Agency was able to reduce the number of pending claims to 

about 700,000 (see red-dashed line in Figure 1) by FY 2010. However, since FY 2010, hearing 

requests have exceeded dispositions causing the number of pending claims to increase. In fact, 

dispositions peaked in FY 2012 and have decreased continuously since that time. 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 2 
Figure 1: Trends in Pending Claims, Hearing Requests, and Dispositions

Factors Contributing to Growing Pending Claims

We identified four factors that contributed to the increase in the number of pending claims: 

(1) an increase in the number of hearing requests, (2) a decrease in ALJ productivity, (3) a 

decrease in SAA decisions, and (4) a decrease in the number of available ALJs. 

Hearing Requests

ODAR experienced a 48-percent increase in hearing requests from FYs 2007 to 2011. In 

FY 2011, the Agency received about 861,500 hearing requests, a record high.3 Hearing requests 

leveled off after FY 2011 but remained near this high level (see black line in Figure 1). 

ALJ Productivity

ALJ productivity decreased by 14 percent from FYs 2012 to 2014 (see Figure 2). Below, we 

discuss two factors that we believe contributed to lower ALJ productivity.4 

 Increased Agency emphasis on decisional quality, leading to more time spent on the cases 

before ALJs. In August 2011, ODAR’s Chief ALJ issued a memorandum that outlined 

specific areas on which ALJs should focus to improve the quality of their decisions. The 

memorandum referenced an Office of Quality Performance (OQP)5

 study that found more 

3 In our December 2009 report, The Office of Disability Adjudication and Review’s Staffing Plans Under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (A-12-09-29140), we describe two factors that caused an increase in 

ODAR’s disability workloads: the economic downturn and aging baby boomers. 

4 See Appendix B for an explanation of these and other factors.

5 In 2013, OQP was reorganized under the Office of Budget, Finance, Quality, and Management and is now the 

Office of Quality Review. 

 500,000

 600,000

 700,000

 800,000

 900,000

 1,000,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Cases

Fiscal Year

Pending Claims Hearing Requests Dispositions

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 3 

 
quality issues related to ALJ favorable decisions. SSA also increased monitoring quality 

issues, which included identifying and reviewing potential workload anomalies. 

 In June 2011, ODAR placed restrictions on case assignment and reassignment. In FY 2012, 

ODAR managers limited new case assignments to ALJs at 1,200 cases, annually. ODAR 

lowered ALJ case assignments to 960 in FY 2013, 840 in FY 2014, and 720 in FY 2015.6

 

Some managers said that increased scrutiny of ALJ workloads might have also decreased ALJ 

productivity because it created a disincentive for ALJs to be productive for fear of being labeled 

an “outlier.” Because of this decrease in ALJ productivity, we estimate the Agency produced 

about 155,000 fewer dispositions in the 3 intervening FYs.7

 

Figure 2: Trends in ALJ Productivity 

SAA Decisions

Because of quality concerns related to SAA decisions, ODAR placed tight restrictions on SAA 

on-the-record (OTR) decisions beginning in FY 2013. As a result, ODAR experienced a steep 

decline in the number of SAA decisions.8

 In FY 2010, SAAs issued 54,200 decisions (7 percent 

of total dispositions). By FY 2014, SAAs had issued about 1,900 decisions (about 0.3 percent of 

total dispositions). 

6 In FY 2010, there were no caps on the number of assignments or reassignments to ALJs. In our February 2012 

congressional response report, Oversight of Administrative Law Judge Workload Trends (A-12-11-01138), we noted 

that ALJs issued between 1 and 3,620 dispositions in FY 2010.

7 To calculate the total fewer dispositions for FY 2012 to FY 2014, we (1) used the absolute difference between the 

average daily ALJ productivity rate for FY 2011 and the same rate for each of the 3 successive FYs, (2) multiplied 

each of the three differences by the number of workdays in a year, and (3) then multiplied each figure by the number 

of available ALJs at the end of each of the 3 FYs. We then added the sums together from all 3 FYs. 

8 SSA implemented the SAA program in November 2007 to issue fully favorable OTR decisions while maintaining 

the current level of ALJ decision writing support. We discussed this program in our June 2013 report, Effects of the 

Senior Attorney Adjudicator Program on Hearing Workloads (A-12-13-23002). 

2.19

2.3

2.37 2.38

2.42 2.41

2.3

2.07

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

ALJ Dispositions per Day 

per Available ALJ

Fiscal Year

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 4 

 
ODAR managers had mixed feedback on the SAA initiative. Some thought it improved 

productivity and timeliness, but others had concerns over decisional quality. With the reduction 

of adjudicatory duties in recent years, most SAAs’ primary focus became decision writing.

9

 

ODAR is also piloting a program whereby SAAs conduct pre-hearing conferences with 

unrepresented claimants. The SAAs inform claimants about their rights to representation and 

helps ensure all medical records are in the file. 

Available ALJs

The last factor causing an increase in pending claims is the number of available ALJs (see 

Figure 3). From FYs 2007 through 2013, ODAR increased the number of available ALJs from 

about 1,000 to 1,350 (a 34-percent increase).10 However, by March 2015, the number of ALJs 

had decreased from 1,350 to slightly less than 1,250.11 

Figure 3: Trends in the Number of Available ALJs

ODAR executives cited recent budget constraints and working with a limited ALJ register from 

the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as the two main factors for the decrease in available

ALJs.12 For instance, ODAR managers stated that, while the Agency planned to hire 400 new 

9 Id. Our June 2013 audit of the SAA program reported that OQP found a significant drop in its decisional 

agreement rate on SAA decisions.

10 We noted earlier that hearing requests increased 48 percent from FYs 2007 to 2011. During this same period, 

available ALJs increased about 24 percent. However, as we discussed, SSA was also using SAAs during this 

period, which in FY 2011 equated to about 100 ALJs producing 500 decisions apiece. If added to the available 

ALJs in FY 2011, the increase in adjudicators from FYs 2007 to 2011 was about 34 percent.

11 We discuss FY 2015 hiring in the next section.

12 OPM has the authority to establish ALJ qualifications, administer the ALJ examination, and maintain a register of 

qualified candidates for ALJ employment by Federal agencies. We discussed some of the hiring difficulties 

experienced by SSA in our February 2013 congressional response report, Interagency Agreements with the Office of 

Personnel Management for Administrative Law Judge Services (A-05-12-22144).

1,006 

958 

1,070 

1,179 

1,246 

1,333 1,350 

1,270 

1,247 

 900

 1,000

 1,100

 1,200

 1,300

 1,400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 March

2015

Available ALJs

Fiscal Year

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 5

 
ALJs in FYs 2013 and 2014, it could obtain only 100 new ALJs from the OPM register. In our 

February 2013 report on the OPM process,13 we noted SSA’s concerns about (1) the lack of more 

frequent examinations for potential ALJ candidates, (2) the qualification process OPM used to 

identify viable ALJ candidates, and (3) issues surrounding the maintenance of candidate 

information on the ALJ register. In early 2015, a workgroup comprising individuals from SSA, 

OPM, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Justice, and the Administrative 

Conference of the United States convened to recommend ways of eliminating potential 

roadblocks in the hiring process.14 

Hearing Timeliness 

Hearing timeliness continues moving away from SSA’s APT goal of 270 days. The backlog 

timeliness goal in the Agency’s 2007 backlog reduction plan was to reduce APT to 270 days by 

the end of FY 2013. SSA reduced APT to a low of 353 days in FY 2012 (see Figure 4). 

However, as the number of pending hearings increased, APT rose and was at 454 days by the 

end of March 2015.15 

Figure 4: Trends in APT

Status of Hearing Office Backlog Initiatives

We reviewed the status of the 38 hearing backlog initiatives to identify those initiatives that were 

ongoing, accomplished, or not accomplished. We also spoke to ODAR managers to obtain their 

views on the more effective initiatives. 

13 Id.

14 At the time of our audit, the workgroup was still discussing these issues, and changes in the ALJ hiring process 

had not been announced.

15 We are also completing an information report on Hearing Office Average Processing Times (A-05-15-50083),

which we plan to issue in 2015. 

512 514

491

426

360 353

382

422

454

300

350

400

450

500

550

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 End of

March

2015

Days

Fiscal Year

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 6 

 
Status of Hearings Backlog Initiatives 

At the time of our review, 18 initiatives were ongoing, 17 were accomplished, and the Agency 

was unable to accomplish the remaining 3 (see Figure 5). We discuss the status of various 

initiatives below.16

Figure 5: Current Status of ODAR’s 38 Backlog Initiatives 

Ongoing Initiatives 

Of the 38 backlog initiatives, 18 were ongoing. We discuss some of the more notable initiatives 

below. 

 The ALJ Hiring Initiative increased the number of available ALJs at ODAR hearing offices. 

ODAR planned to hire 250 new ALJs in FY 2015, but lowered their projection to about 

200 as of August 2015. ODAR expects to lose about 100 ALJs in FY 2015. ODAR 

executives stated the ALJ hiring initiative is the most critical factor on whether the Agency 

will meet its backlog goals, with an ideal ALJ staffing level of 1,800 to 1,900 ALJs by 

FY 2018.17 

 The Transition to the Electronic Folder Initiative allowed ODAR to transform the hearings 

process from paper to electronic folders. ODAR transfers cases electronically nationwide to

improve productivity and timeliness by distributing case workloads from highly impacted 

offices to offices with more capacity to process workloads. 

16 See Appendix C for status information on all 38 hearing backlog initiatives. 

17 ODAR executives mentioned the possibility of not having sufficient facilities to accommodate 1,800 to

1,900 ALJs in FY 2018. They said they are promoting policies to address this, such as teleworking and office 

sharing. 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 7 

 
 The Electronic Business Process Initiative has standardized the hearing office operations so 

every office is using the same guidelines and procedures for case processing. The initiative

allows ODAR to transfer cases between offices for case preparation and decision writing. As 

a result, hearing office support staff do not have to focus on time-intensive case preparation 

tasks, such as photocopying and mailing. 

 The Appointed Representative Services/Electronic Records Express Initiative gave claimant 

representatives electronic access to their claimant’s folder, thereby allowing SSA staff to 

focus on other workload tasks.18 In August 2013, ODAR updated the system to provide 

representatives access to the status of appeals-level cases. In FY 2016, SSA plans to provide 

access to medical and vocational experts.

 The Service Area Realignment/Interregional Case Transfers Initiative has become an integral 

part of ODAR’s business process. To help balance hearings workloads, ODAR facilitates 

temporary regional and inter-regional service area realignments and permanent case transfers 

as well as weekly temporary transfers for decision writing and case preparation assistance.19 

In FY 2014, ODAR began to realign hearing offices in West Virginia (Philadelphia Region) 

and Kentucky (Atlanta Region) with the Kansas City Region. 

 The Reduce Aged Cases Workload Initiative requires that ODAR hearing offices process the 

oldest claims first. In FY 2009, ODAR’s aged case goal was to have less than 1 percent of 

pending hearings older than 850 days by the end of the FY. ODAR met that goal. In each 

subsequent FY, ODAR lowered its definition of an “aged case” and successfully met its

goals. In FY 2015, ODAR’s aged case goal is to have less than 0.5 percent of pending 

hearings be older than 649 days by the end of the FY.

20

Accomplished Initiatives 

Seventeen of the 38 backlog initiatives were completed. We discuss three completed initiatives 

below.21

 The Video Hearing Expansion Initiative gave ODAR greater flexibility in allocating hearing 

workloads and addressing backlogs nationwide. Our 2011 report on the Agency’s use of 

video hearings found the number of video hearings increased by 260 percent from FYs 2005 

to 2009, with the Agency conducting about 18 percent of all FY 2009 hearings by video.22 

18 SSA OIG, Congressional Response Report: Electronic Services for Claimant Representatives (A-05-11-01124), 

August 2011. 

19 For example, in 2008, the Agency temporarily realigned some of its Ohio field offices in the Chicago Region with 

a hearing office in the Philadelphia Region. 

20 SSA OIG, Aged Claims at the Hearing Level (A-12-08-18071), September 2009.

21 See Appendix C for a list of all the initiatives.

22 SSA OIG, Use of Video Hearings to Reduce the Hearing Case Backlog (A-05-08-18070), April 2011. 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 8 

 
Since then, video hearing usage had increased to 28 percent of all hearings in FY 2014. 

Video hearing expansion is complete, but video hearings have become a regular and 

prominent fixture in ODAR’s business process. Of the 38 initiatives, only this one is 

mentioned in the Agency’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan. 

 The National Hearing Centers (NHC) allow ALJs at five locations23 to assist backlogged 

hearing offices throughout the Nation with video hearings. The NHCs have also become an 

integral part of ODAR’s business process, and hearing offices nationwide now routinely 

transfer cases to the NHCs for processing.24 

 The Increase Usage of the Findings Integrated Templates was designed to improve the 

quality and legal sufficiency of the hearing decision by integrating the findings of fact into 

the body of the decision. ODAR stated it processes about 98 percent of all decisions using 

Findings Integrated Templates. 

Initiatives Not Accomplished 

SSA was not able to accomplish three of the hearing backlog initiatives, including the two 

discussed below.25 

 The Auto-scheduling Initiative was designed to automate the reservation of hearing sites and

equipment as well as schedule the participants including ALJs, claimants, representatives, 

and experts. SSA began piloting the software in FY 2011 but canceled the initiative in 

FY 2014 because the software did not increase efficiency or effectiveness. 

 The ePulling Initiative used customized software to identify, classify, and sort page-level 

metadata, thus automating some labor-intensive tasks for preparing a case in the electronic 

folder. In 2008, ODAR piloted the software at seven sites. However, ODAR canceled the 

initiative after piloting because the software did not provide the expected time efficiencies to 

justify the expense. 26

Most Effective Initiatives per Managers 

After interviewing executives in ODAR’s Office of the Chief ALJ, regional managers in all 

10 regions, and the NHC Director, we learned that the ALJ Hiring Initiative was seen as the most 

effective initiative in reducing pending claims and improving timeliness. As we discussed 

23 The five NHCs are in Chicago, Illinois; Baltimore, Maryland; St. Louis, Missouri; Albuquerque, New Mexico; 

and Falls Church, Virginia. 

24 SSA OIG, The Role of National Hearing Centers in Reducing the Hearings Backlog (A-12-11-11147), 

April 2012.

25 See Appendix C for a list of all the initiatives. 

26 SSA OIG, Electronic File Assembly (A-07-09-19069), June 2009

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 9 

 
earlier, management officials said the Agency needed more adjudicatory resources to reduce 

pending claims and lower APT. 

ODAR managers also identified these initiatives as being effective.

 Initiatives Related to Electronic Processing – Transition to the Electronic Folder, Electronic 

Business Process, Appointed Representative Services/Electronic Records Express. 

 Initiatives Related to Video Hearings - Video Hearing Expansion and National Hearing 

Centers. 

 Improve ALJ Productivity Initiative – Managers said the initiative improved the consistency 

of production and gave each ALJ and office a clear performance benchmark.

27 As noted 

earlier, we believe ALJ productivity has declined because of a number of factors, including 

an increased focus on quality, hearing assignment caps, and ALJ concerns about being 

labeled an outlier.28 

 Aged Case Initiative – Managers said that, although this initiative mainly benefited customer 

service, and not productivity or timeliness, getting decisions to claimants who had been 

waiting the longest was simply the fairest option. 

Agency Planning and Performance Monitoring

To learn about SSA’s short- and long-term goals and strategies for reducing pending hearings 

and improving timeliness, we examined the Agency’s strategic plan, reviewed 

performance-planning documents, and interviewed Agency officials. We also looked at strategic 

and performance planning documents at other Federal agencies. 

Strategic Planning 

SSA’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan did not provide the public with information on the Agency’s 

long-term pending hearings and related timeliness goals and did not include an updated 

definition of what constitutes a hearings backlog. The only backlog initiative addressed in the 

plan called for increased video hearings, which is more a means to an end rather than identifying 

the end itself. As a result, the public cannot use SSA’s current Strategic Plan as a roadmap to 

identify where the Agency wants to be in terms of its pending hearings and timeliness goals. 

In our interviews with ODAR executives and other Agency officials, we learned they were 

adopting a new goal to achieve a 270-day APT by FY 2020. ODAR managers stated that if 

ODAR achieved the 270-day APT goal, it would eliminate the backlog. ODAR executives 

27 In October 2007, ODAR’s Chief ALJ issued a letter to all ALJs asking them to issue 500 to 700 legally sufficient 

decisions each year. ODAR has retained this benchmark. 

28 See Appendix B for more on ALJ productivity issues. 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 10 

 
explained they moved away from the pending claims goal and re-defined their backlog goal to an 

APT goal because the public is more concerned about how long they wait in line rather than how 

many people are ahead of them. However, the Agency has not publicly explained the role of the 

270-day APT goal in the definition of eliminating the hearings backlog.29 For instance, in SSA’s 

FY 2016 President’s Budget Request,30 the Agency stated that with adequate, sustained funding, 

it hopes to eliminate the hearings backlog by FY 2020. However, the Agency did not 

specifically mention a 270-day APT goal or its new hearings backlog definition. 

Annual Performance Planning 

SSA’s FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan (APP)

31 contained goals for timeliness, dispositions, 

and overall productivity at the hearings level but lacked a goal for pending hearings.32 The 

Agency has lacked a pending hearings goal since FY 2011, when the APP goal was a pending 

hearings level of 668,000 by the end of the FY.33 However, the FY 2016 APP had pending goals

for cases processed at the initial and reconsideration levels (see Table 1). 

Table 1: SSA’s APP Goals for FY 2016 

Goals Level

Initial Reconsideration Hearings Appeals Council

Pending √ √

Dispositions √ √ √

APT √ √

Aged Cases √

Production per Workyear √ √

Decisional Accuracy √

The FY 2016 APP did not contain Agency goals beyond FY 2016. In addition, the APP did not 

define what constitutes a hearings backlog. Similar to the Agency’s Strategic Plan, the public 

29 SSA has made this connection in earlier documents, including congressional testimony in 2012 when 

Commissioner Astrue stated, “When we established our target of reducing the number of pending hearings to 

466,000, we based it on achieving the APT of 270 days. . . When persons request a hearing, they want to know how 

long it will take to get a decision. They are not interested in whether other people are waiting with them; rather, 

they want to know what will happen in their own individual cases.” The Social Security Administration: Is it 

Meeting its Responsibilities to Save Taxpayer Dollars and Serve the Public?: Hearing before the Senate Finance 

Committee (May 17, 2012) (statement of Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration). 

30 The President’s Budget Request is a public document that contains the Agency’s budget request justifications for 

the next FY. 

31 SSA’s APPs are public and published before the start of each FY and lists SSA’s performance goals for the 

upcoming FY.

32 Along with performance goals for the upcoming FY 2016, the document contained ODAR’s revised performance 

goals for FY 2015. 

33 The Agency did not meet its goal that year, as pending hearings was at approximately 771,300 cases at the end of 

FY 2011. 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 11 

 
cannot use the FY 2016 APP as a roadmap. For example, the FY 2016 APP stated that the FY 

APT target is 490 days, an increase from the FY 2015 target of 470 days. While the FY 2016 

timeliness goal publicly communicated that the Agency plans for worsening timeliness in the 

upcoming FY, it did not reveal how the short-term timeliness goal fit into a long-term Agency 

strategy for improving timeliness. 

SSA might also consider defining its hearings backlog and formulating its annual and strategic 

goals in a way that combines the key indicators for pending, timeliness, and aged cases into one 

simple measurement. For example, SSA could define its disability claims backlog as any 

pending claim older than 270 days, and set a FY goal to have less than a specific percent of its 

disability claims defined as backlogged by the end of the FY. We found SSA already had an 

internal measure for the percent of hearing cases older than 270 days. As of May 2015, 

50 percent of the hearing requests were pending for more than 270 days. By having a single, 

clear, strategic, and annual goal, SSA would likely make the Agency’s goals and achievements 

more understandable to the public, as well as within the Agency. Consequently, it would likely 

make it easier for these parties to track progress and gauge performance. SSA should also 

examine how other agencies have defined, measured, and addressed their claims backlogs, be it 

average age of pending or some other means. 

New Tactical Plan 

After we provided our draft report to Agency managers, they shared the Agency’s eight-point 

tactical plan outlining SSA’s priorities through the end of FY 2016. One of the plan’s goals was 

to reduce pending hearings by (1) increasing adjudicatory capacity, (2) improving process and 

decisional quality, (3) increasing accountability and the focus on aged cases, and (4) leveraging 

technology improvements. This tactical plan included 35 initiatives. We determined 21 of these 

35 initiatives were variations of the initiatives we discussed earlier in the report. Among the 

other new initiatives, ODAR planned to conduct pre-hearing conferences using SAAs, establish 

judge-only video hearing sites, and reconsider an earlier regulation stipulating that evidence must 

be provided 5 days prior to a hearing. The Agency was still finalizing performance measures 

related to this new tactical plan.

CONCLUSIONS

With approximately 1 million hearing claims awaiting a decision, SSA’s hearings pending level 

is the largest in the Agency’s history. Moreover, in recent years, hearing timeliness has 

worsened to about 450 days of processing time per case. The Agency is still using 

approximately half of the earlier backlog initiatives to tackle the growing backlog with new ALJ 

hiring being a central part of this strategy. That said, SSA has not published a long-term, multiyear strategy to address the growing number of pending hearings and worsening timeliness. 

Agency managers are finalizing a new goal to achieve a 270-day APT by FY 2020, which 

ODAR would define as eliminating the backlog. To the extent this plan is shared with the public 

and related goals are clearly highlighted in planning documents, SSA will provide the public 

with a useful roadmap and status reports as it attempts to eliminate the pending hearings backlog.

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 12 
RECOMMENDATIONS

To ensure sufficient information on the Agency’s hearings backlog plan and goals is available, 

we recommend SSA: 

1. Ensure the new pending hearings tactical plan is integrated into the next strategic plan 

document, which should also provide the public with information on the Agency’s long-term 

pending hearings and related timeliness goals, as well as an updated definition of what 

constitutes a hearings backlog. 

2. Publish and implement annual goals that align with achieving the tactical and strategic plans, 

which could entail examining how other agencies established goals to address their backlogs. 

AGENCY COMMENTS

The Agency agreed with our recommendations (see Appendix D). 

Steven L Schaeffer, JD, CPA, CGFM, CGMA

Assistant Inspector General for Audit 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 13 
APPENDICES 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) 
Appendix A – SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

To accomplish our objective, we:

 Reviewed Social Security Administration (SSA) policies and procedures as well as the 

Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law Manual guidelines.

 Reviewed prior Office of the Inspector General reports on processing the hearing workloads 

and SSA congressional testimony. 

 Reviewed and analyzed Fiscal Years (FY) 2007 to 2015 data from the Office of Disability 

Adjudication and Review’s (ODAR) workload management systems and management 

information reports. 

 Reviewed Agency initiatives to reduce pending hearings and average processing time. 

 Examined the status of these initiatives and reviewed future Agency plans in these areas.

 Reviewed SSA’s strategic plans, annual performance plans and reports, and budget 

documents.

 Interviewed ODAR executives, Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge management, 

regional and National Hearing Center management teams, management and staff from 

ODAR’s Office of Budget, Facilities and Security, and SSA’s Office of the Chief Strategic 

Officer. 

 Interviewed officials from the Administrative Conference of the United States. 

 Reviewed the best practices of other Federal agencies. 

We found the Case Processing and Management System data used in this review to be 

sufficiently reliable to meet our objective. We did not verify information in other Agency 

management information systems nor the outcomes of the Agency’s 38 initiatives. The entity 

audited was the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge under the Office of the 

Deputy Commissioner for Disability Adjudication and Review. We conducted this performance 

audit from January through April 2015 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and conduct the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) A-1
Appendix B – FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT ADMINISTRATIVE 

LAW JUDGE PRODUCTIVITY

Motivational and Work Ethics

Our earlier work highlighted administrative law judge (ALJ) and hearing office productivity. In 

an August 2008 report,1 we identified such factors as motivation and work ethic as reasons for 

varying levels of ALJ productivity. The report also identified disability determination services

case development, staff levels, hearing dockets, favorable rates, individual ALJ preferences, and 

Agency processes as factors that could impact ALJ and hearing office productivity and 

processing times.

Increased Management Oversight

With increasing attention on ALJ performance, ODAR’s senior executives have continued 

refining their management oversight process and identifying issues that require immediate 

management action. As we reported in an earlier audit,2 senior executives in ODAR,3 along with 

a newly created Triage Assessment Group4 in the Office of the Chief ALJ (OCALJ), worked 

with ODAR’s Division of Management Information and Analysis to develop an ALJ early 

monitoring system. ODAR began testing an early monitoring system in summer 2011. For 

instance, the ALJ monitoring system was devising ways to create new management information 

after combining multiple risk factors related to ALJ performance, such as number of 

dispositions, number of on-the-record (OTR) decisions, and the frequency of hearings with the 

same claimant representative. 

According to ODAR executives, an early monitoring system examines factors that, in and of 

themselves, would not represent an issue but might become problematic when coupled with other 

factors. ODAR stated early monitoring system factors were selected based on lessons learned in 

recent years and new directives to hearing office managers.5

 ODAR managers were already able 

1 SSA OIG, Congressional Response Report: Administrative Law Judge and Hearing Office Performance

(A-07-08-28094), August 2008. 

2 SSA OIG, Identifying and Monitoring Risk Factors at Hearing Offices (A-12-12-11289), January 2013.

3 ODAR’s senior executives include the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Executive Director 

of the Office of Appellate Operations (OAO), Deputy Executive Director of OAO, Chief ALJ, and Deputy Chief 

ALJ.

4 OCALJ formed the Triage Assessment Group in FY 2012. Its members include the Chief ALJ, Deputy Chief ALJ, 

and Division Directors, as appropriate. The Group meets periodically to review the status of workload and 

performance issues among the ALJs, such as noncompliance with policies and procedures. 

5 For instance, in FY 2011, the Commissioner established an annual ceiling on dispositions per ALJ and the Chief 

ALJ established new controls over the transfer of cases from one ALJ’s docket to another to ensure proper case

rotation.

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) B-1

 
to monitor some of these risk factors separately using existing management information (MI) 

reports, but the early monitoring system provides a more comprehensive view of each ALJ’s 

performance. Using the early monitoring system, each of these risk factors is normalized and 

combined with one another to produce an overall score. Hence, an ALJ with high productivity 

and a low number of OTR decisions would have a different score than an ALJ with high 

productivity and a high number of OTR decisions. ODAR senior executives can then determine 

whether those ALJs who scored high on a combination of risk factors need further attention. 

In FY 2010, ODAR asked the newly created Division of Quality (DQ) in OAO to conduct 

focused reviews on ALJ-related issues to ensure compliance with Agency policies and 

procedures (see Figure B–1). ALJ issues identified during the testing of the early monitoring 

system were added to DQ’s workload. DQ has conducted numerous focused quality reviews of 

ALJ issues, including the dispositions of ALJ outliers in terms of decisional outcomes and case 

rotation between ALJs and claimant representatives.

Figure B–1: ODAR Oversight Process

DQ reported the results of its studies to ODAR’s senior executives. DQ-focused review findings 

have led to additional ALJ and SAA training to improve decisional quality as well as compliance 

with policies and procedures. For instance, after a number of DQ reviews identified ALJ and 

SAA procedural errors when evaluating treating source opinions and questionable phrasing of 

claimants’ residual functional capacity, OCALJ created a mandatory training program for all 

Management Information 

Reports

• Case Processing and 

Management System

• Disability Adjudication 

Reporting Tools

• ALJ Early Monitoring 

System 

Senior Executives

Office of Disability Adjudication 

and Review

Triage Assessment Group

Office of the Chief Administrative

Law Judge

Office of Appellate 

Operations

Division of Quality

Administrative Actions

• Training

• Directives

• Discipline

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) B-2 
adjudicators to address this issue. Other DQ reviews have identified cases where the ALJ was 

not following Agency policy. In these cases, ODAR’s senior executives issue directives 

requiring that the ALJ comply with policy.6 If the ALJ fails to comply, ODAR can seek 

disciplinary actions against the ALJ. However, according to SSA, it cannot take disciplinary 

actions against an ALJ based solely on the ALJ’s decisional outcomes.

7

 

Quality Reviews

In FY 2011, ODAR’s OAO began reviewing a sample of ALJ allowances to identify potential 

shortcomings in ALJ processing. These pre-effectuation reviews allowed quality issues to be 

resolved before the Agency paid the case. Between FYs 2011 and 2014, OAO completed 

approximately 22,000 pre-effectuation reviews. In addition, SSA’s Office of Quality Review

performs a periodic quality review of a sample of hearing decisions issued by ALJs to assess the 

ALJ decision rationale. 

Agree Rates on Appeals Council Decisions

To improve the focus on quality, ODAR developed new metrics related to the Appeals Council 

outcome on ALJ cases. Called the “agree rate,” this rate represented the percentage of requests 

for review that the Appeals Council denies compared to the number of request for review 

dispositions after subtracting those remands that fall outside of an ALJ’s control.8 For instance, 

excluded remands include cases where new evidence was submitted to the Appeals Council, 

subsequent allowances, incomplete or inaccurate records because of a lost or inaudible recording, 

lost record or evidence, or evidence belonging to another claimant. 

6 As appropriate, DQ has referred some issues to the OIG.

7 SSA’s basis for this belief comes from its interpretation of the Merit System Protection Board’s ruling In re 

Chocallo, 1 M.S.P.R. 605, 610-11 (1980) (holding that the Board will not find good cause to discipline an ALJ 

based solely on decision outcomes, and it will carefully examine for satisfaction of the good cause standard any 

proposed discipline based on an ALJ’s performance of an adjudicatory function). For more information, see SSA 

OIG, Congressional Response Report: The Social Security Administration’s Review of Administrative Law Judges’

Decisions (A-07-12-21234), March 2012. 

8 SSA OIG, Subsequent Appellate Actions on Denials Issued by Low-Allowance Administrative Law Judges 

(A-12-13-13084), July 2014.

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) B-3 

 
Cap on the Number of ALJ Dispositions

In FY 2010, there were no caps on the number of ALJ dispositions. In our February 2012 

report,9 we noted ALJs issued between 1 and 3,620 dispositions. In June 2011, ODAR placed 

restrictions on case assignment and reassignment. In FY 2012, ODAR managers limited new 

case assignments to ALJs at 1,200 cases, annually. ODAR lowered ALJ case assignments to 

960 in FY 2013, 840 in FY 2014, and 720 in FY 2015. 

9 SSA OIG, Congressional Response Report: Oversight of Administrative Law Judge Workload Trends 

(A-12-11-01138), February 2012. 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) B-4 

 
Appendix C – STATUS OF MAY 2007 HEARING BACKLOG INITIATIVES

The Social Security Administration’s (SSA) May 2007 Hearings Backlog Plan comprised 38 initiatives designed to eliminate the 

backlog and decrease average processing times (APT). Here is the objective and latest status for each initiative.

Table C–1: Hearing Backlog Initiatives 

Number Title ODAR Objective Status

1 Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) Hiring Hire additional ALJs to increase adjudicatory capacity. 

Ongoing – As of August 2015, the Office of Disability

Adjudication and Review (ODAR) projected it would hire 

about 200 new ALJs in total for the fiscal year (FY), with 

the expectation that about 100 will be lost to attrition.

2 

Appointed Representative 

Service (ARS)/ Electronic 

Records Express 

ARS allows appointed representatives to access status 

reports, view files, and upload or download files. The 

Electronic Records Express is used by appointed 

representatives, medical experts, and vocational experts to 

upload files. 

Ongoing – In August 2013, ODAR said it had updated 

ARS to provide claimant representatives’ access to the 

status of Appeals Council cases, and, as of September 

2014, over 12,000 representatives had enrolled in ARS. In 

FY 2016, SSA plans to develop a similar program for 

medical and vocational experts.

3 Auto-Scheduling

Develop an automated calendaring function that will 

incorporate scheduling of experts, hearing sites and hearing 

rooms, equipment, and ALJ availability.

Not Accomplished – In FY 2011, a contractor completed 

development; however, the software could not perform the 

scheduling function efficiently, and ODAR decided not to 

move forward with the initiative. 

4 Automated Noticing

ODAR’s Case Processing Management System (CPMS) 

will be able to automatically produce the appropriate notice 

based on stored data.

Accomplished – CPMS now produces the required notices.

5 Balanced Uniform 

Monthly Processing

To create a standard practice requiring that hearing offices

process their workload each week. 

Ongoing – ODAR said it trained its managers in Balanced 

Uniform Monthly Processing, and it has since become a 

regular part of the hearing office business process. ODAR 

said it established metrics to focus on moving cases along 

at each step of the business process. 

6 Central Print & Mail

Provide high-speed, high-volume printing for all ODAR 

offices. Documents generated in the Document Generation 

System are sent electronically from the individual hearing 

offices to a print server for mailing by a contractor.

Accomplished – ODAR stated centralized printing has been 

completed for all major templates, and ODAR hearing 

offices are printing over 6 million notices a year using this 

technology. 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) C-1 
Number Title ODAR Objective Status

7 Co-location To create co-located hearing sites with local field offices to 

fully and effectively support the electronic hearing process

Ongoing – As of June 2015, ODAR stated it had 44 

hearing offices and 97 permanent remote sites that were colocated with field offices throughout the Nation. In 

addition, ODAR had 182 claimant-only video sites located 

in field offices. Working with Operations, ODAR 

identified 96 offices that can serve as claimant-only video 

sites. ODAR said it was now working to upgrade these 

rooms so the space can function as claimant-only video

sites. 

8 

Disability Determination 

Services Informal Remand 

Project

Using profiles developed by the Office of Quality 

Performance (OQP), unworked paper cases from the ODAR 

backlog of cases will be screened and remanded to disability 

determination services to determine whether an allowance 

can be issued without a hearing.

Accomplished – ODAR said this initiative contributed to 

9,046 dispositions in FY 2012 and 5,822 in FY 2013. 

Because of the low reversal rate, ODAR discontinued this 

initiative in FY 2014. 

9 

Electronic Business 

Process/Standardized 

Hearing Office Process

Facilitate timely and legally sufficient hearings and 

decisions by achieving and maintaining effective, efficient, 

and consistent case processing methods and office 

organizational structures throughout ODAR.

Ongoing – ODAR said all hearing offices are now 

operating using the Electronic Business Process. 

10 Enhance Hearing Office 

Management Information

Enhance the hearing office management information system 

to provide additional methods to monitor hearing office 

workloads. 

Accomplished – ODAR stated that in April 2012 Appeals

Council remand information became available to hearing 

office staff via the “How MI Doing?” tool. Specific 

training modules are linked to this tool to allow 

adjudicators to see why a case was remanded and take 

immediate training on the specific issue. ODAR said it 

continues to add new reports to their management 

information menus. 

11 ePulling

Develop customized software that can identify, classify, and 

sort page level data; re-organize the images after 

classification; and identify duplicates.

Not Accomplished – In July 2009, a pilot office study of 

ePulling versus traditional pulling times concluded that 

ePulling was not efficient, and the initiative was 

terminated.

12

eSignature/Provide the 

Ability to Sign Decisions 

Electronically

Increase efficiency by allowing ALJs and Attorney 

Adjudicators to sign decisions electronically. 

Accomplished – ODAR stated that all hearing adjudicators 

can sign decisions through eSignature.

13

Fill ALJ Dockets to 

Capacity–DCO 

(Operations) Overtime 

Assistance

Use the resources of other SSA components to assemble

folders and other grade-appropriate tasks on overtime in the 

most heavily affected hearing offices. 

Accomplished – ODAR stated in FY 2010, DCO 

employees worked 44,156 overtime hours in ODAR 

components. This initiative was discontinued in FY 2011.

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) C-2 
Number Title ODAR Objective Status

14

Fill ALJ Dockets to 

Capacity–Streamlined 

Folder Assembly

Increase ODAR’s adjudicatory capacity by instituting a 

streamlined folder assembly process for pending paper 

cases.

Accomplished – ODAR’s Chief Judge’s Bulletin 10-03 

stipulated the folder assembly process that must be used for 

all electronic folders. 

15 Implement Quality 

Assurance Program

A quality assurance program for the hearing process will be 

based on an in-line review of the claims file to ensure 

ODAR is providing timely and legally sufficient hearings 

and decisions. 

Ongoing – ODAR stated the In-Line Quality Review 

process is fully functional in all 10 regions as well as at the 

National Hearing and National Case Assistance Centers. 

16

Improve ALJ Alleged 

Misconduct Complaint 

Process

Implement efficiencies and improve the alleged misconduct 

complaint process

Ongoing – ODAR stated that, in January 2013, the Agency 

published Social Security Ruling 13-1p to clarify and revise 

its procedures for reviewing, investigating and responding 

to complaints of ALJ bias and misconduct; and in April 

2013, the Agency published detailed instructions on the 

processing of ALJ bias/misconduct complaints. In June 

2015, ODAR’s Division of Quality Service began a pilot 

automation program to replace paper allegation folders 

with electronic allegation folders. 

17 Improve ALJ Productivity

On October 31, 2007, the Chief ALJ issued a letter to all 

ALJs asking them to issue 500 to 700 legally sufficient 

decisions each year, timely move cases out of ALJcontrolled categories, and hold scheduled hearings absent a 

good reason to cancel or postpone hearings.

Ongoing – As noted in the body of the report, ALJ 

productivity has decreased since FY 2012. As of June 

2015, 78 percent of ALJs were on pace or within 50 cases 

of being on pace to issue 500-700 dispositions in FY 2015. 

ODAR stated it continues to emphasize the importance of 

timeliness, policy, compliance, and legal sufficiency in 

decisions.

18 Improve Decision Writer 

Productivity

Hearing offices will continue using the decision writer 

statistical index report introduced at the beginning of FY

2007 to assess decision writer productivity. The Decision 

Writer Statistical Index uses an average standard of 4 hours 

for a decision writer to complete a favorable decision and 8 

hours for a decision writer to complete an unfavorable 

decision. 

Ongoing – ODAR stated that hearing offices still use this 

report to assess decision writer productivity. ODAR is 

developing a Decision Writer Productivity Index, an 

improvement to the Decision Writer Statistical Index 

because it breaks the drafted decisions into types that are 

more precise. ODAR expects to begin using the new index 

in FY 2016. 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) C-3 
Number Title ODAR Objective Status

19

Improve Training for 

Hearing Office 

Management

Use the latest information, tools, and methodologies to 

develop an effective, dynamic, and challenging training 

curriculum for newly promoted ODAR management 

officials. This training will consist of a three-phase 

approach involving orientation, distance learning and 

hearing operation specific classroom training. Goal: deliver 

timely ODAR Hearing Operation specific training to newly 

promoted ODAR hearing office managers beginning in 

summer 2007.

Ongoing – ODAR stated that in FY 2014, its Division of 

Training and Human Resources (DTHR) revamped core 

and supplemental training cadres for Hearing Office Chief 

ALJs, Hearing Office Directors, and Group Supervisors; 

revised SharePoint sites for instructors and students for 

continuous updating; and supported virtual training 

sessions, in addition to conducting a full schedule of 

classroom training. In addition, DTHR supported field 

management by training on revised bargaining unit 

contracts. DTHR maintained a distance learning (Phase II)

program for all management positions requiring completion 

of 20-22 modules in a 12-month period, while working 

with a mentor. ODAR said cadres continue to update the 

training web and SharePoint sites, and expand virtual 

training and mentoring options.

20

Increase Data 

Propagation to Electronic 

Folder

Increase efficiency by reducing the need for manual data 

entry to the electronic folder, where possible. Increased 

propagation decreases the chance of erroneous input and 

saves hearing office staff time.

Accomplished – With the transition to the electronic folder,

this initiative has been completed.

21

Increase Usage of the 

Findings Integrated 

Templates 

Create a streamlined fully favorable decision format to 

minimize hand-offs and increase use of Findings Integrated 

Templates Decision Writing System for all types of 

decisions to improve productivity and legal sufficiency. 

Accomplished – ODAR said Findings Integrated Templates 

usage is at 97 to 98 percent. 

22 Medical Expert Screening

Identify cases that may meet or equal one of the Listings of 

Impairments as early in the hearing process as possible 

through the prudent use of pre-hearing interrogatories to 

medical experts. 

Not Accomplished – In 2011, ODAR stated it developed 

interrogatory templates for medical experts and screening 

tools to identify cases that meet or equal one of the Listings 

of Impairments. However, ODAR said that, in practice, 

medical expert screening could not identify many such 

cases and did not produce expected efficiencies. As a 

result, hearing offices moved away from using it. 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) C-4 
Number Title ODAR Objective Status

23 National Hearing Center

Increase adjudicatory capacity and efficiency with a focus 

on an electronic hearings process. ALJs at the National 

Hearing Center use video technology to conduct all their 

hearings with claimants in hearing offices or other sites 

nationwide. Transfer of workload from heavily backlogged 

hearing offices will be much easier with electronic files, thus 

allowing the National Hearing Center to target assistance to 

these offices. 

Accomplished –ODAR opened five National Hearing 

Centers in Chicago, Illinois; Baltimore, Maryland; St. 

Louis, Missouri; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Falls 

Church, Virginia. The National Hearing Centers have 

effectively assisted hearing offices with high caseloads. 

Though ODAR does not plan for new National Hearing 

Centers, the existing Centers are now a regular part of 

ODAR’s business process. 

24

New Appeals Council 

Case Processing 

System/Appeals Review 

Processing System 

Increase efficiency by developing a new case processing and 

management system that will allow the Appeals Council to 

process electronic folders as well as provide additional 

online information to the hearing and field offices. 

Accomplished– ODAR stated conversion to the new 

system took place in March 2008. 

25 Non-Disability Process

ODAR is developing a two-pronged approach to address the 

current backlog of overpayment cases in ODAR and provide 

a long-term strategy for better development of cases 

received from field offices.

Ongoing – In 2015, ODAR and Operations agreed to 

collaborate on a pilot project to streamline and improve the 

processing of non-disability appeals. Under the pilot 

procedures, the field office uploads a complete non-medical 

hearing request package to the claims management system 

and alerts the servicing ODAR hearing office. This pilot 

began in April 2015 in the Denver Region. In its response 

to our draft report, the Agency informed us it expanded the 

pilot in July 2015 to include the Birmingham Hearing 

Office and Processing Service Center. ODAR said only a 

few cases have met the pilot criteria. ODAR continues to 

monitor and evaluate the pilot, and plan to expand it in the 

near future. 

26 OQP Review of Recon 

Denials

OQP will expand pre-effectuation review of reconsideration 

denials to provide feedback to disability determination 

services and SSA management, make recommendations for 

addressing problems, and ultimately reduce the volume of 

hearing requests.

Ongoing – ODAR stated that the Office of Quality Review, 

which replaced OQP in FY 2013, had instituted a 

reconsideration denial review; and that in FY 2015, the 

Office of Quality Review’s goal is to conduct a quality 

review on 50,000 denials.

27 One SSA

To ensure the exchange of clear and concise information 

between ODAR and Operations components to formulate a 

united approach to reduce the disability pending backlog. 

Accomplished – ODAR stated the regions had discontinued 

backlog meeting with Operations, but the regions still 

regularly communicated with Operations in monthly and 

quarterly meetings.

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) C-5 
Number Title ODAR Objective Status

28 Ready to Adjudicate Identify targeted cases that are potentially ready for a 

hearing.

Accomplished – ODAR stated this objective was 

completed when ODAR’s business process was 

established, which provides that cases be scheduled when 

they are ready for scheduling. ODAR said that its business 

process no longer necessitates that certain cases be targeted 

for a hearing. 

29 Reduce Aged Cases 

Workload

To improve the hearing office business process by working 

down the oldest cases. 

Ongoing – ODAR has made substantial progress with aged 

cases and lowered the aged case target every FY. In FY 

2015, ODAR’s aged case definition is a case that will be 

649 days or older at the end of the FY. As of March 27, 

2015, SSA stated 58 percent of these aged cases had been 

closed.

30 Reduce Appeals Council 

Remands

To assist in reducing hearing-level receipts by making 

technical corrections to decisions whenever possible instead 

of remanding them to the hearing level. 

Ongoing – ODAR said that its Administrative Appeals 

Judges continue to work with their staff to identify 

appropriate cases. ODAR said the implementation of the 

Appeals Council Case Processing System, along with the 

Division of Quality reviews, has provided more feedback 

and improved training to hearing office staff to improve 

policy compliance, which has helped reduce the number of 

Appeals Council remands. ODAR noted the Appeals 

Council grant review rate has decreased from 21percent at 

the end of FY 2012 to less than 15 percent in May 2015. 

31

Send Additional 

Documents to the 

Electronic Folder

Allow such documents as earnings records and queries to be 

sent directly to the electronic folder, eliminating the need for 

hearing office employees to print them and scan them into 

the electronic folder. 

Accomplished – ODAR stated, in July 2010, a Systems 

release included a new Document Generation System 

utility to upload queries generated by Query Master into the 

electronic folder. ODAR said it will add additional queries 

in the eFolder as needed. 

32

Senior Attorney 

Adjudicator/Virtual 

Screening Unit

Increase adjudication capacity by giving attorney 

adjudicators the authority to make “on the record” fully 

favorable decisions. This improves public service by 

expediting fully favorable decisions and conserving ALJ 

resources for the more complex cases and cases that require 

a hearing.

Ongoing – Since FY 2011, the number of SAA decisions 

has decreased from about 53,300 decisions to about 1,900

in FY 2014. SAAs can now only issue decisions that are 

referred by the National Screening Unit. ODAR is testing a 

pilot to have SAAs conduct pre-hearing conferences with 

unrepresented claimants to inform them about their rights 

to representation and ensure all medical records are in the 

file.

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) C-6 
Number Title ODAR Objective Status

33

Service Area 

Realignment/Interregional 

Case Transfers

To assist the most heavily impacted hearing offices with 

processing their workloads. It is a two-pronged initiative. 

The first phase will include permanent inter-regional case 

transfers. The second phase will involve realignment of 

targeted hearing office service areas.

Ongoing – ODAR regularly transfers cases from hearing 

offices with backlogs, and each region constantly evaluates 

its workload and realigns its service area accordingly. In 

FY 2014, ODAR began to realign offices in West Virginia 

(in the Philadelphia Region) and Kentucky (in the Atlanta 

Region) with the Kansas City Region. 

34 Shared Access to 

Electronic Folder

Provide shared jurisdiction allowing temporary transfer of 

electronic cases for pulling and decision writing assistance. 

Ongoing – ODAR stated it is working on an upgrade 

allowing temporary assisting offices to make changes in 

CPMS. 

35 Streamlined Fully 

Favorable Decision

Improve decision writing productivity by minimizing the 

hand-offs between ALJs and decision writers. Decision 

writers will be able to focus on the more complex cases.

Accomplished – ODAR said in FY 2011 it completed the 

rewrite and revision of all of the major Findings Integrated 

Templates.

36 Transition to the 

Electronic Folder

During FY 2007, ODAR implemented a major change in its 

business process that involved transition from processing 

hearings using paper folders to processing hearings using 

electronic folders.

Accomplished – ODAR said the Agency plans to eliminate 

the few remaining paper cases in FY 2015. 

37 Update Hearing Office 

Systems Infrastructure

Support electronic folder processing by increasing the 

capacity of the infrastructure and by providing equipment 

required to support new automation initiatives for ODAR.

Ongoing – ODAR stated that the Agency’s Office of 

Systems has the lead on updating SSA systems 

infrastructure. Current initiatives include Network, server 

refreshment, Single Device Strategy (workstation refresh), 

and Exchange 2013 migration.

38 Video Hearing Expansion Increase the number of video hearings and subsequently 

decrease ALJ travel and increase ALJ productivity.

Accomplished – Video hearings are an ongoing part of the 

business process. From FYs 2008 to 2014, video hearings 

increased from about 56,000 to about 171,500. 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) C-7 
Appendix D– AGENCY COMMENTS

SOCIAL SECURITY

MEMORANDUM

Date: September 11, 2015 Refer To: S1J-3 

To: Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr.

Inspector General

From: Frank Cristaudo /s/

 Executive Counselor to the Commissioner 

Subject: Office of the Inspector General Draft Report, “The Social Security Administration’s Efforts to 

Eliminate the Hearings Backlog” (A-12-15-15005)--INFORMATION 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. Please see our attached comments. 

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. You may direct staff inquiries to 

Gary S. Hatcher at (410) 965-0680. 

Attachment

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) D-1 
COMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DRAFT REPORT, 

“THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’S EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE THE 

HEARINGS BACKLOG” (A-12-15-15005) 

General Comments

In 2007, we developed an aggressive plan to reduce the hearings backlog. We worked diligently 

to address the backlog by successfully implementing many of the initiatives in our plan. We 

hired additional administrative law judges (ALJ), and established National Hearing Centers and 

National Cases Assistance Centers. We also expanded our national videoconferencing network 

that allowed us to process more work efficiently and timely. The 2007 plan produced positive 

results. However, we have encountered difficulties in reducing the hearings backlog because we 

were unable to hire enough ALJs and support staff, received an increase in requests for hearing, 

and experienced years of funding below our budget request. 

For fiscal year 2016, we are developing a multi-faceted plan to address the increase in pending 

hearings that takes into account our current operating environment. Our plan depends on 

adequate ALJ capacity, and includes several complementary initiatives relating to quality, 

business process efficiencies, regulatory changes, and employee engagement. Any significant 

setbacks in ALJ hiring will pose a serious challenge to reducing the number of pending hearings. 

We rely upon the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to provide us with a sufficient 

quantity of qualified applicants for more than 160 hearing locations across the country. To make 

progress, we need a larger, and continually updated, list of qualified ALJ candidates from OPM 

and adequate, sustained funding from Congress. 

While ALJ hiring is critical, we will continue our focus on quality, maximizing operational 

efficiencies in our business process, pursuing appropriate regulatory reforms, and developing a 

workforce that delivers excellent customer service. 

Recommendation 1

Ensure the new pending hearings tactical plan is integrated into the next strategic plan document, 

which should also provide the public with information on the Agency’s long-term pending 

hearings and related timeliness goals, as well as an updated definition of what constitutes a 

hearings backlog.

Response 

We agree. Our next agency strategic plan, scheduled for publication in February 2018, will integrate

a backlog plan that includes a clear definition of backlog. Until then, we will integrate our 

backlog reduction initiatives into our annual performance plan goals and other short-term 

planning documents. 

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) D-2 
Recommendation 2

Publish and implement annual goals that align with achieving the tactical and strategic plans, 

which could entail examining how other agencies established goals to address their backlogs.

Response 

We agree.

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) D-3
Appendix E – MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS

Walter Bayer, Director, Chicago Audit Division

Nicholas Milanek, Audit Manager, Crystal City Audit Office

Ken Wong, Auditor-in-Charge

SSA’s Efforts to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog (A-12-15-15005) E-1
MISSION

By conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations, and investigations, the Office of 

the Inspector General (OIG) inspires public confidence in the integrity and security of the Social 

Security Administration’s (SSA) programs and operations and protects them against fraud, 

waste, and abuse. We provide timely, useful, and reliable information and advice to 

Administration officials, Congress, and the public.

CONNECT WITH US

The OIG Website (http://oig.ssa.gov/) gives you access to a wealth of information about OIG. 

On our Website, you can report fraud as well as find the following.

• OIG news

• audit reports

• investigative summaries

• Semiannual Reports to Congress

• fraud advisories

• press releases

• congressional testimony

• an interactive blog, “Beyond The 

Numbers” where we welcome your 

comments

In addition, we provide these avenues of 

communication through our social media 

channels.

Watch us on YouTube

Like us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Subscribe to our RSS feeds or email updates

OBTAIN COPIES OF AUDIT REPORTS

To obtain copies of our reports, visit our Website at http://oig.ssa.gov/audits-andinvestigations/audit-reports/all. For notification of newly released reports, sign up for e-updates 

at http://oig.ssa.gov/e-updates.

REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE

To report fraud, waste, and abuse, contact the Office of the Inspector General via

Website: http://oig.ssa.gov/report-fraud-waste-or-abuse

Mail: Social Security Fraud Hotline

P.O. Box 17785

Baltimore, Maryland 21235

FAX: 410-597-0118

Telephone: 1-800-269-0271 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

TTY: 1-866-501-2101 for the deaf or hard of hearing