AGENDA FOR SOCIAL SECURITY:

CHALLENGES FOR THE NEW CONGRESS

AND THE NEW ADMINISTRATION

Social Security Advisory Board

February 2001
Social Security Advisory Board

An independent, bipartisan Board created by the Congress and appointed by the

President and the Congress to advise the President, the Congress, and the Commissioner of

Social Security on matters related to the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................i

I. Ensure the Long-Range Solvency of the Social Security System......................1

The Value of Social Security to Workers and Their Families .....................................................1

The Looming Financing Shortfall ..............................................................................................1

The Status of the Trust Funds ...................................................................................................4

The Advantages of Acting Sooner Rather Than Later................................................................5

II. Reform the Disability Insurance and Supplemental

Security Income Disability Programs............................................................7

The Need for Comprehensive Review.......................................................................................7

Major Issues Need to Be Addressed .........................................................................................8

The Elements of Reform ......................................................................................................... 11

III. Improve the Social Security Administration’s

Service to the Public...........................................................................................15

Present and Future Challenges to Providing Quality Service...................................................15

What the New Administration and the New Congress Need to Do .........................................17

IV. Increase Public Understanding of Social Security...............................................21

SSA’s Obligation to Communicate with the Public .................................................................21

What the Public Thinks About Social Security ........................................................................21

What SSA Should Do to Increase Public Understanding of Social Security ............................23

V. Improve the Quality of Service and the Integrity of the

Supplemental Security Income Program ...................................................25

The Impact of the SSI Program on the Functioning of the Agency ..........................................25

The Need for a Better Understanding of the Service Needs of the SSI Population ..................27

Integrating Program Integrity and Quality of Service ..............................................................28

VI. Address the Problem of Misuse of Social Security Numbers ..........................33

VII. Strengthen the Agency’s Capacity to Provide

Greater Policy Leadership ...............................................................................35

VIII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 37

How the Board Has Conducted Its Work............................................................................39

The Social Security Advisory Board .....................................................................................43
• Issuing Social Security Numbers – SSA

employees must evaluate the validity of

documents proving identity, age, and citizenship

or alien status when taking applications for

Social Security numbers.

• Maintaining Wage Records – SSA maintains

records of the lifetime earnings of all workers

who are covered by Social Security. In

calculating benefits, both the amount and the

number of years of earnings are considered.

• Determining Eligibility for OASDI Benefits –

SSA employees must verify work history, age,

and marital or survivor status before awarding

Social Security retirement or survivor benefits.

They also obtain medical and work history

information needed for State disability agencies

to determine Disability Insurance eligibility.

• Determining Eligibility for SSI – SSA

employees review applicants’ income, assets,

living arrangements, age, and citizenship to

determine eligibility and payment amount for

SSI old age and disability benefits. Disability

applications (which are more than 90 percent of

all SSI applications) also require employees to

develop medical information for eligibility

determinations by State disability agencies.

• Keeping Up With Changes in Beneficiary

Circumstances (Postentitlement Changes) –

SSA employees record address changes, replace

lost checks, work with beneficiaries to resolve

over and underpayments, conduct

redeterminations of eligibility, and monitor

representative payees. They also adjust SSI

payment amounts as needed. In addition,

SSA and State disability agency employees

conduct continuing disability reviews to

determine whether individuals remain eligible

for disability benefits.

• Delivery of Related Beneficiary Services –

SSA determines eligibility for Medicare, and

also performs work on behalf of the

Medicaid, Food Stamp, Railroad Retirement,

and Black Lung programs. Field offices also

provide beneficiaries with information

regarding other public and private programs

available in their communities, such as

vocational rehabilitation and welfare.

• Providing Public Information – SSA

employees prepare pamphlets, use the public

media, and give speeches in local

communities to communicate with the public.

In October 1999, SSA began mailing Social

Security Statements to all taxpayers age 25

and over showing the amount of Social

Security taxes they have paid and their

estimated benefits.

• Developing Program Policy – SSA adopts

rules and regulations to ensure its programs

are administered according to law. It

conducts research and analysis to help policy

makers address problems and develop

proposals for change.

• Resolving Disputes – Individuals may appeal

Social Security decisions through an

administrative appeals process, including a

hearing before an administrative law judge.

The responsibilities of the Social Security Administration in serving the public are numerous and

complex. In summary, they include:

SSA’s RESPONSIBILITIES
INTRODUCTION

Social Security touches nearly every family in immediate and direct ways. Today, about 154

million workers are engaged in employment covered by Social Security and, together with their

employers, are paying the taxes that are used to support the system. About 45 million individuals

are receiving retirement, survivors, or disability benefits.

Since the Social Security program was enacted in 1935, responsibility for ensuring that taxes

are properly credited to a worker’s account and beneficiaries receive monthly checks that are

accurate and paid on time has rested with the Social Security Administration or its predecessor

institution, the Social Security Board. SSA is also responsible for issuing Social Security numbers,

determining whether individuals are disabled and whether low-income individuals qualify for

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, and for performing other functions as well. How

well the agency fulfills its complex and numerous responsibilities has a profound impact on the

well-being of the public at large.

In the years prior to the enactment of legislation that established SSA as an independent agency,

there was a growing sense that important policy and administrative issues were not being brought to

the attention of policy makers so that shortcomings could be rectified. It was believed that this was

at least partially due to the fact that SSA was a subordinate unit within another government

department and the Commissioner was unable to deal directly with the President and the Congress.

The Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 gave SSA new

responsibilities and new opportunity to fulfill its mission. The position of Commissioner was

significantly elevated. The Commissioner is now at a level equivalent to a cabinet officer, and

reports directly to the President and the Congress. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner

have six-year terms with the Commissioner, once confirmed, being removable only for cause.

The 1994 law also created an independent, bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board to advise

the Congress, the President, and the Commissioner of Social Security on issues relating to the

Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs. The Board has operated to help the

agency set its agenda and provide a bridge to the Congress and the public, so that problems of

policy and of service to the public will be recognized and addressed.

The establishment of this new leadership structure for Social Security has made it possible to

focus increased attention on issues that are critically important to the future of the Social Security

i

Social Security touches nearly every family in

immediate and direct ways. Today, about 154 million workers

are engaged in employment covered by Social Security and,

together with their employers, are

paying the taxes that are used to support the system.

About 45 million individuals are receiving retirement,

survivors, or disability benefits.
and SSI programs. Since the Board began meeting in the Spring of 1996, it has issued a series of

reports on major issues that need to be addressed if public confidence in these programs is to be

ensured. As the Board’s reports have made clear, many of the agency’s problems are longstanding and stem from many factors. The agency has made headway in addressing some of them,

but much remains to be done.

Social Security’s problems are twofold, involving both financing of benefits and program

operations. Policy makers and the public are well aware of the first of these – there is

widespread recognition that change is needed to ensure the long-term solvency of the Social

Security system. But there is relatively little awareness of the changes that are needed if the Social

Security Administration is to be able to meet its public service and public information

responsibilities, which are also important to public confidence.

The purpose of this report is to provide the new Congress and the new Administration an

overview of the major issues that confront the Social Security and SSI programs and the Social

Security Administration. The analyses and the recommendations for changes that are presented

are based on the work the Board has conducted over the last four and a half years.

Reflecting the mandate that the Congress gave the Board in the 1994 legislation, the Board’s

work has been focused on a broad range of major issues. Our approach to these issues has been

on a nonpartisan basis because we believe that both Social Security and the Social Security

Administration are too important to the American people to allow partisanship to intrude on the

effort to preserve and strengthen them for future generations.

One of the first concerns of the Board was how SSA, as an independent agency, could be

strengthened so that it can meet the policy development responsibilities that the Congress has

given it. The Board’s first report recommended that the agency establish a policy office that

would have the capability of addressing major policy issues.

Subsequently, the Board has issued a “primer” on the Social Security financing problem that

has been used by both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress and by the White House.

ii

Social Security’s problems are twofold, involving both

financing of benefits and program operations. Policy

makers and the public are well aware of the first of

these there is widespread recognition that change is

needed to ensure the long-term solvency of the Social

Security system. But there is relatively little awareness

of the changes that are needed if the Social Security

Administration is to be able to meet its public service and

public information responsibilities, which are also

important to public confidence.

*

The Board’s reports are listed on page 40. All of the reports are available on the Board’s web site at

www.ssab.gov.

*
It has also issued reports recommending structural reform and other changes in the disability

programs, changes that need to be made to improve the Social Security Administration’s service to

the public, and how the Social Security Administration can increase public understanding of Social

Security.

Many of the changes the Board has recommended are within the purview of SSA itself, and

over the last two years the agency has responded by issuing a number of reports that have outlined

the steps the agency is taking to address the Board’s concerns. These include, among others,

reports on managing the disability programs, short-term initiatives to improve 800 number

telephone service, workforce planning for the agency, and informing the public about Social

Security. Most recently, in response to the Board’s recommendation that the agency develop a

service delivery plan for how it intends to handle its rapidly growing workloads, the agency issued

a 2010 Vision, which outlines the principles for service delivery in the future. These are useful

beginnings that can be built upon in the coming years.

In addition, there are many other changes recommended by the Board – particularly those

relating to the disability programs and service to the public – that will require legislative or

funding changes. The agency will have to work closely with policy makers in the new Congress

and the new Administration to make the case for why these changes are needed. We pledge our

support in this effort.

The Social Security Administration has important strengths. The agency’s field operations

remain fundamentally strong, with dedicated and experienced employees and effective national

reach. The agency’s management ranks among the top of government agencies. Employees in the

agency continue today, as they have in the past, to regard SSA as the premier Federal agency.

They have a tradition of loyal service to the agency and the public. As we emphasize in this

report, however, there are serious policy and service delivery challenges that need prompt

attention. We hope that this report will be helpful to the new Congress, the new Administration,

and the agency as they consider how these challenges will be met.

The Social Security Administration has important

strengths....As we emphasize in this report, however, there

are serious policy and service delivery challenges that need

prompt attention. We hope that this report will be helpful to

the new Congress, the new Administration, and the agency as

they consider how these challenges will be met.

iii
iv
 For the last several years the Nation has

been engaged in an important discussion about

the future of Social Security. There is broad

consensus on the high value of the Social

Security program to the American people both

now and in the future, but there are many

different views about the kinds of changes that

should be made to ensure its solvency over the

long term.

Social Security is a social insurance

program to which nearly all workers, along

with their employers, are required to contribute

in order to provide income protection for those

who have reached the age of retirement or who

risk loss of wages due to disability or death of

a worker. Retired workers make up 62 percent

of all beneficiaries, and Social Security is the

major source of income for most of them,

I. ENSURE THE LONG-RANGE SOLVENCY

OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM1

providing 40 percent of the total income to the

aged and making up more than half of the

income of about two-thirds of the aged.

The program’s income protection extends

beyond retired workers. According to estimates

by Social Security’s actuaries, about 4 out of

10 young men, and 3 out of 10 young women,

who are now age 20 will die or become

disabled before reaching age 67. Today, 10

percent of all Social Security beneficiaries are

workers who are disabled and have not

reached retirement age; 11 percent are

spouses and children of retired and disabled

workers; and 16 percent are spouses and

children of deceased workers. Whatever

changes are enacted, Social Security must

continue to protect these vulnerable

individuals.

1

The demographic changes that are occurring in the United States

mean that in future years there will be more retirees, but relatively

fewer workers to pay for their benefits.

The Value of Social Security to Workers and Their Families

The Looming Financing Shortfall

1 The analysis presented here is based on the Advisory

Board’s July 1998 report, Social Security: Why Action

Should Be Taken Soon.

Current projections of income and spending

for Social Security indicate that there will not be

enough money coming into the program to meet

the obligations of the program to future

beneficiaries. This is because most of the money

used to pay benefits for current retirees comes

from the payroll taxes paid by current workers

and their employers. The demographic changes

that are occurring in the United States mean that

in future years there will be more retirees, but

relatively fewer workers to pay for their benefits.

There will be more retirees...

A major shift in the relative size of the

working age and elderly populations will begin to

occur in the first few years of this century. The

large numbers of people born during the postWorld War II “baby boom” currently make up
most of the workforce paying Social Security

taxes. But they are nearing retirement age, and

the oldest of the baby boomers (those born in

1946) will reach age 65 in 2011. By 2030,

about 20 percent of the population is expected

to be 65 and over as compared to about 12

percent in 1990. When the baby boomers move

from being taxpayers to being beneficiaries, the

cost of the Social Security program will rise

quickly.

Chart 1. - Relative Age of U.S. Population

CY 1950 - 2050

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

195019701990201020302050

Another factor contributing to increasing

retirement costs is that people are living

longer. Longer lives for retirees mean more

years receiving Social Security benefits. In

1940, when the first Social Security benefits

were paid, a man who reached 65 could look

forward to fewer than 13 years of life, and a

woman had a life expectancy of fewer than 15

years. By 2030, when virtually all the

boomers will have retired, life expectancy at

age 65 is projected to be nearly 18 years for

men and more than 20 years for women.

Percent

Male

Female

2075

2060

2040

2020

2000

1980

1960

1940

Year attaining age 65

Chart 2. - Life Expectancy at Age 65

Number of years

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

12.7

14.7

17.4

13.2

19.0

14.8

19.2

15.9

19.8

16.9

21.0 18.1

22.0 19.1

22.7 19.9

When the baby boomers move

from being taxpayers to being

beneficiaries, the cost of the

Social Security program will

rise quickly. Another factor

contributing to increasing

retirement costs is that people

are living longer. Longer

lives for retirees mean more

years receiving

Social Security benefits.

2

0 5 10 15 20 25

Age 65 and over

Age 20 to 64

Age under 20
...and relatively fewer workers

While spending for Social Security will

continue to grow, other factors will cause a

slowdown in the growth of the labor force.

Projections indicate that the average rate of

growth of the labor force will slow from the 2

percent a year it achieved from 1960 through

1989, to 1.2 percent annually for the years

1990 through 1999, 0.9 percent for the years

2000 through 2009, and slowing to 0.2 percent

by 2075.

The major reason for this slowdown is the

decline in the birth rate that began in the

1960s. During the mid- to late-1960s, fertility

rates began to decline dramatically, shrinking

from above 3.00 children per woman from

1947 to 1964 to a low of just 1.74 by 1976.

Since then it has edged up slightly, to just

above 2.00. Over the long run, the Social

Security actuaries project a fertility rate of

about 1.95. Because of lower birth rates, there

will be fewer workers to replace the baby

boomers as they retire.

Another reason for the slower growth in

the number of workers is that the rapid growth

in labor force participation by women is

expected to level off. The female labor force

participation rate increased from 34 percent in

1950 to 60 percent in 1999. Greater labor

force participation among women has offset

some of the costs of the growing number of

Social Security retirees, but this trend must

eventually end. Over the long term, female

participation rates are expected to increase

only slightly above today’s level.

Chart 3. - Number of Workers Per

Social Security Beneficiary

CY 1960 - 2070

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

196019701980199020002010202020302040205020602070

5.1

3.4

2.1 1.9

With more retirees and little growth in the number of

workers, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries will

decline substantially for several decades.

The decline in the number of

workers per beneficiary

Since most of the money used to pay

benefits under the Social Security program

comes from the payroll taxes paid by current

workers and their employers, the number of

workers relative to the number of beneficiaries

affects the ability of society to meet obligations

to retirees. With more retirees and little growth

in the number of workers, the ratio of workers

to beneficiaries will decline substantially for

several decades. In 2000 there were 3.4

workers for every beneficiary. This ratio will

decline to 2.1 workers per beneficiary over the

period 2030 to 2040. Between 2040 and 2075,

the number of workers per beneficiary will

continue to decline slowly, reaching 2.0 in the

period 2045 to 2060, and 1.9 in the period

2065 to 2075.

3
x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

The current situation

 In 2000, total income to the Social

Security Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability

Insurance Trust Funds exceeded spending by

about $150 billion, and the amount of this

excess income is expected to increase over the

next 13 years. At the end of 2000, the Trust

Funds had assets of more than $1 trillion.

Assets are expected to grow to more than $6

trillion by 2023. By law, Social Security

income that is not needed to pay benefits is

invested in U.S. Treasury bonds.

In 1999, payroll taxes accounted for nearly

87 percent of income to Social Security,

interest on Trust Fund investments accounted

for almost 11 percent, and income from taxes

on Social Security benefits accounted for about

2 percent.

Income from payroll taxes and taxes on

benefits is expected to be higher than spending

for benefits and administrative expenses until

the year 2015. Thus, until 2015 the Social

Security program will be a net plus for the

Federal budget. This surplus currently

accounts for most of the surplus in the socalled “unified Federal budget,” which includes

the operations of both the general funds of the

government and a number of trust funds

designated for special purposes, such as the

Social Security, Medicare, and Highway Trust

Funds. The U.S. Treasury borrows Social

Security’s surplus income, uses it for other

government activities or to retire the national

debt, and issues bonds to the Social Security

Trust Funds.

Income from payroll taxes and taxes on benefits is expected to be

higher than spending for benefits and administrative expenses

until the year 2015. Thus, until 2015 the Social Security program

will be a net plus for the Federal budget.

Spending will exceed taxes in 2015

Beginning in 2015, Social Security

expenditures will be higher than tax income.

At that time, an amount equal to all of the tax

income and a part of the interest due to the

Trust Funds on outstanding bonds will be

needed to pay the benefits that are due. The

Federal government will either have to find

additional funds elsewhere, or (if the budget is

in surplus without considering Social Security

tax income) retire less publicly held debt.

Spending will exceed taxes plus

interest in 2025

Beginning in 2025, Social Security

spending will exceed total Social Security

income (taxes plus interest on the bonds). At

this point the government will have to begin

paying back the funds it has borrowed from

Chart 4. - Social Security Income,

Outgo, and Assets

(in billions)

$7,000

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

0

2000200620122018202420302037

Outgo

Income

Assets

4

The Status of the Trust Funds
Social Security. This will provide the

government with a public finance issue that will

need to be addressed because, in order to pay the

benefits that are due, the Treasury will have to

redeem the bonds held by the Trust Funds.

By cashing in the bonds, Social Security

will be able to pay the full amount of promised

benefits until 2037. In that year, all of the assets

of the Trust Funds will have been used up and

the ongoing income to the program will be

insufficient to meet all of the benefit obligations.

The situation in 2037

 By 2037, income to Social Security will be

equal to about three-fourths (72 percent) of the

promised benefits. However, the rate of growth

in benefit obligations will increase faster than

the rate of growth in tax income, so the

The Congress has never allowed the

finances of the Social Security program to reach

the point that benefits could not be paid, and it

is not expected to do so in the future. There are

many options that can be considered. However,

as time goes by the size of the Social Security

problem grows, and the choices available to fix

it become more limited. Thus, there are

important reasons for making changes earlier.

• There are more choices available earlier.

For example, the sooner you change the

way Social Security benefits are financed or

By 2037, income to Social

Security will be equal to

about three-fourths

(72 percent) of the promised

benefits....dropping to about

two-thirds (67 percent) for

the year 2074, and it is

expected to continue to

fall after that.

calculated, or the age at which people can

receive benefits, the more choices you have

about how to make the changes.

• Changes can be phased in more gradually.

By acting sooner, you can avoid making

extreme changes at a future crisis point, and

can instead phase them in gradually. Making

gradual changes avoids creation of the large

differences in benefit or tax levels between

successive generations of retirees and workers

that can result when modifications are made

precipitously.

• The cost of repairing Social Security can be

spread more evenly over more generations

of workers and beneficiaries. The cost of

fixing Social Security will be the same

whenever the changes are made, but the

possibilities for distributing this cost across

generations will diminish as time passes. The

net effect of delaying action is to reduce or

eliminate the burden of repairing Social

Security on earlier generations and to place an

even heavier burden on later generations.

5

The Congress has never

allowed the finances of the

Social Security program to

reach the point that benefits

could not be paid, and it is

not expected to do

so in the future.

The Advantages of Acting Sooner Rather Than Later

percentage of the benefits that can be paid with

current income will continue to decline,

dropping to about two-thirds (67 percent) for the

year 2074, and it is expected to continue to fall

after that.
• The longer change is delayed, the

heavier the impact will be on each

individual who is affected. Larger

increases in tax rates or benefit cuts greatly

increase the magnitude of the loss in wellbeing experienced by each individual.

Conversely, making smaller changes in

benefits or taxes soon, so that they could

apply over a longer period of time, would

affect more people – but by less per

person.

• There will be more advance notice for

those who will be affected, so they can

plan for their retirement. For those still

in the workforce who need to build reliable

pension and investment strategies for

retirement, knowing what they can expect

from Social Security is a critical factor.

Some changes in program benefits are

already occurring. Beginning in 2000,

scheduled increases in the normal

retirement age from 65 to 67 are resulting

in a decline in Social Security replacement

rates for all new retirees. The effect of

delaying change is to deprive workers of

important information upon which they can

base their lifetime plans for retirement

security.

• Confidence in the ability of Social

Security to continue to pay benefits to

future generations of retirees will be

strengthened. According to a 1999

survey, only 36 percent of those polled

were very or somewhat confident that

Social Security retirement benefits “will be

there for you when you retire.” Fixing the

program quickly would eliminate the

uncertainty that is currently eroding

confidence in the program.

• There will be less disruption in labor

market participation. Changes in either

Social Security benefits or taxes affect the

work and retirement decisions of

individuals and the hiring decisions of

employers. Benefit cuts, for example,

would likely induce some people to stay in

the labor force longer, while payroll tax

increases may in the short run cause

employers to hire fewer workers and thus

limit employment opportunities for older

workers. The sooner that both employees

and employers know about future changes,

the more time they have to alter their

choices gradually and avoid creating

sudden shifts in the availability of workers

or jobs.

• There will be less disruption in decisions

about consumption and saving. Social

Security can affect household decisions

about how much to consume and save.

Raising taxes reduces the take-home pay

of households and forces people to either

consume less, save less, or work more.

Reducing expected benefits during

retirement years causes people to either

save more during their working years or

work more to make up for the loss, or to

have a reduced standard of living in

retirement. The sooner that households

become aware of the changes so that they

can plan ahead, the smaller would be the

disruptions to consumption and saving.

6

Future Board Report

The Board intends to revise and update its July 1998 report, Social Security: Why Action Should

Be Taken Soon. The new report will include a description of options that have been proposed to

address the long-term solvency issue, including the impact on costs and savings.
The Nation’s two primary disability

programs – Social Security Disability

Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security

Income (SSI) disability – are a vital but

complex part of our social insurance and

welfare systems, requiring vigilant attention in

order to keep their policy and administrative

structures sound and up to date.

These programs have grown steadily over

the years to the point where in fiscal year 2001

they are expected to account for about $90

billion in Federal spending, or nearly five

percent of the Federal budget. They require a

growing portion of the time and attention of

Social Security Administration employees at

all levels. In 2001, about two-thirds of the

agency’s $7.1 billion administrative budget,

nearly $5 billion, is expected to be spent on

disability work.

As the baby boomers reach the age of

increased likelihood of disability the growth in

these programs will accelerate. The Social

II. REFORM THE DISABILITY INSURANCE

AND SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME

DISABILITY PROGRAMS 2 1960 1970 1980

199020002010

10

8

6

4

2

0

Millions

Chart 5. - Number of

Disability Beneficiaries

CY 1960 - 2010

DI SSI Disability

Historical Estimated

2 For more information on this subject, see the

Advisory Board’s January 2001 reports, Charting

the Future of Social Security’s Disability Programs:

The Need for Fundamental Change and Disability

Decision Making: Data and Materials, as well as

How SSA’s Disability Programs Can Be Improved,

issued in August 1998.

Security Administration’s actuaries project that

between now and 2010 the number of DI

beneficiaries will increase by nearly 50 percent.

The growth in SSI disability is projected to be

slower, increasing by 15 percent. This projected

growth in the number of disability claimants

threatens to overwhelm a policy and

administrative infrastructure that is already

inadequate to meet the needs of the public.

In recent decades, disability policy has come

to resemble a mosaic, pieced together in

response to court decisions and other external

pressures, rather than the result of a well

This projected growth in

the number of disability

claimants threatens to

overwhelm a policy and

administrative

infrastructure that

is already inadequate

to meet the needs

of the public.

7

The Need for Comprehensive Review
thought out concept of how the programs should

be operating. Compounding the problem, the

disability administrative structure, now nearly a

half century old, has been unable to keep pace

with the increasing demands that have been

imposed upon it. Policy and administrative

capacity are dramatically out of alignment in the

sense that new and binding rules of adjudication

frequently cannot be implemented in a reasonable

manner, particularly in view of the resources that

are currently available.

It has been more than two decades since

either the Congress or the Administration has

reviewed in a comprehensive manner the question

of whether the administrative structure

established nearly five decades ago should be

strengthened or changed. Numerous regulations

and rulings affecting how disability decisions are

made have been implemented without review by

policy makers. The question of whether the

definition of disability for adults should be

changed has not undergone close examination for

more than 30 years.

In recent decades, disability

policy has come to resemble

a mosaic, pieced together in

response to court decisions

and other external pressures,

rather than the result of

a well thought out concept

of how the programs

should be operating.

grew to nearly 72 percent in 1995, fell to 63

percent in 1998, and grew again to 66 percent in

2000.

 For many years both Members of Congress

and others who have studied the disability

programs have expressed concern about

variations such as these. Analysts have

identified many factors which they believe

contribute to inconsistencies in outcomes, such

as economic and demographic differences among

regions of the country, court decisions, the fact

that the claimant has no opportunity to meet with

the decision maker until the face-to-face hearing

at the ALJ level, and the record remains open

throughout the appeals process.

But many who are knowledgeable about the

programs – including disability examiners in the

State agencies as well as administrative law

judges – have long believed that there are also

reasons relating to program policy, procedures,

and structure that are responsible for some if not

many of these inconsistencies. In a recent study

of SSA’s quality assurance processes, the Lewin

Group found that although the information on

8

Major Issues Need to Be Addressed

Are disability decisions consistent

and fair?

There are substantial data that show striking

differences in decisional outcomes over time,

among State agencies, and between levels of

adjudication, raising the question of whether

disability determinations are being made in a

uniform and consistent manner.

For example, in 2000 the percentage of DI

applicants whose claims were allowed by a State

agency ranged from a high of 65 percent in New

Hampshire to a low of 31 percent in Texas. As

another example, a strikingly large percentage of

cases denied by State agencies are reversed upon

appeal to an administrative law judge hearing,

and, at least at the State level, there appears to be

no correlation between high State agency

allowance rates and low ALJ reversals of these

decisions. Both State agency and hearing level

allowance rates have varied substantially over the

years. The hearing level allowance rates

(allowances as a percent of all decisions) for both

DI and SSI disability stood at 58 percent in 1985,
Number Percent

 Total 1,106,344 100.0

 Initial Applications 759,191 68.6

 Reconsiderations 90,805 8.2

 ALJs 253,615 22.9

 Appeals Council ** 1,999 0.2

 Federal Court *** 734 0.1

Number Percent

 Total 1,106,344 100.0

 Initial Applications 759,191 68.6

 Reconsiderations 90,805 8.2

 ALJs 253,615 22.9

 Appeals Council ** 1,999 0.2

 Federal Court *** 734 0.1

Allow

 38%

Remand

22%

Dismiss

2%

Deny

 74%

Remand

48%

Dismiss

6%

Deny

 39%

Dismiss

12%

Deny

 29%

Deny

 84%

Allow

 16%

Allow

59%

Allow

2%

Allow

6%

Deny

 62%

current consistency of the disability programs is

somewhat mixed and not as definitive as one

would like, “The evidence of inconsistencies is

compelling....” 3

Despite the long-standing concern about

consistency, the agency has no effective

mechanism to provide the information needed to

understand the degree to which the programs’

own policies and procedures – including their

uneven implementation – are causing

inconsistent outcomes in different regions of the

country and different parts of the disability

As long as variations in decision making remain

unexplained, the integrity and the fairness of the disability

programs are open to question. These programs are too

valuable and important to the American public for this

issue not to be addressed.

3

 The Lewin Group, Inc. and Pugh Ettinger McCarthy

Associates, L.L.C., Evaluation of SSA’s Disability

Quality Assurance (QA) Processes and Development

of QA Options That Will Support The Long-Term

Management of The Disability Program,

June 21, 2000, p. C-24.

9

Chart 6. - DI and SSI Disability Determinations and Appeals*

FY 2000

* Data relate to workloads

processed (but not necessarily

received) in fiscal year 2000,

i.e., the cases processed at each

adjudicative level may include

cases received at 1 or more of

the lower adjudicative levels

prior to fiscal year 2000. Not

all denials are appealed to the

next level of review.

 ** Includes ALJ decisions not

appealed further by the

claimant but reviewed by the

Appeals Council on “own

motion” authority.

 *** Remands to ALJs by the Appeals

Council and courts result in

allowances in about 60 percent

of the cases.

Total Allowances

system. As long as variations in decision making

remain unexplained, the integrity and the fairness

of the disability programs are open to question.

These programs are too valuable and important to

the American public for this issue not to be

addressed.

Initial Level

1,988,425

Reconsiderations

584,540

ALJ Dispositions

433,584

Appeals Council

122,780 **

Federal Court

Decisions***

12,011
10

Is disability policy being developed

coherently and in accord with the

intent of the Congress?

Although Congress has not changed the law

defining disability for adults for more than 30

years, the determination of what constitutes

disability has changed in fundamental ways. For

example, there has been a gradual but persistent

trend away from decisions based on the medical

listings to decisions that increasingly involve

assessment of function. Today, many more

decisions involve mental impairments than was the

case in the past. In addition, changes in agency

rules mean that now all adjudicators must adhere to

more complex and intricate requirements regarding

such matters as determining the weight that should

be given to the opinion of a treating source and

making a finding as to the credibility of claimants’

statements about the effect of pain and other

symptoms on their ability to function. All of these

changes have made decision making more

subjective and difficult.

These policy changes have been made through

changes in regulations and rulings. A number of the

most significant changes have grown out of court

decisions, many of which have not been appealed.

None of them have been reviewed by the Congress

as to their effect on decision making or whether

they are operationally sustainable for a program

that must process massive numbers of cases.

Can today’s administrative structure

support future program needs?

When the DI program was enacted in 1956, the

expectation was that the program would be

There are many who believe that the Social Security Act definition

of disability, which requires claimants to prove they cannot work

in order to qualify for benefits, is inconsistent with the Americans

with Disabilities Act and is at odds with the desire of many

disabled individuals who want to work but who still need

some financial or medical assistance.

relatively small. But over the last half century,

the original Federal-State administrative structure

has had to accommodate a growth in program size

and complexity that it has been ill equipped to

handle. In addition to working within a

fragmented administrative structure, employees at

all levels have been buffeted by periodic surges in

workloads and funding shortfalls.

At the present time, all parts of the

applications and appeals structure are

experiencing great stress with every indication

that the difficulties each is facing will continue to

grow unless changes are made. There are about

15,000 disability adjudicators throughout the

disability system. Their qualifications and the

rules and procedures they follow differ, sometimes

dramatically. For example, adjudicators at the

State agency and ALJ levels may receive vastly

different training and draw upon very different

resources. Factors such as these raise questions

about how well the administrative structure will

be able to handle the growing workload.

Is Social Security’s definition of

disability appropriately aligned with

national disability policy?

There are many who believe that the Social

Security Act definition of disability, which

requires claimants to prove they cannot work in

order to qualify for benefits, is inconsistent with

the Americans with Disabilities Act and is at odds

with the desire of many disabled individuals who

want to work but who still need some financial or

medical assistance. Recent Ticket to Work

legislation is aimed at helping people who are

already on the disability rolls to return to
The Elements of Reform

To build a disability system that can meet

the challenges of the future will require changes

in policy, procedure, and structure. The Board

has proposed a number of changes that we urge

policy makers in the Congress and the

Administration to consider. These changes

would represent fundamental reform. In

summary, they include the following elements.

Strengthen SSA’s capacity to

manage

SSA’s ability to manage the disability

programs is undermined by three major

shortcomings —

There is a lack of management

accountability. Nearly every staff component

of the agency has a role in administering the

disability programs.

The policy infrastructure is weak. There

are too many voices articulating disability

policy. Adjudicators in different parts of the

system are bound by different sets of rules.

Important policy elements are out of date. As

the result of downsizing and lack of new staff

to replace those who have left the agency

through retirement or otherwise, the level of

expertise in areas such as medical and

vocational factors has declined.

The agency lacks a quality management

system that can provide the comprehensive

information that is needed for accurate and

consistent decision making.

The Board recommends that SSA address

these shortcomings by —

work by providing increased services and new

incentives, but does not fully address these basic

inconsistencies.

In recent testimony the Consortium of

Citizens with Disabilities questioned whether the

Social Security definition of disability

adequately captures “the spectrum and

continuum of disability today. Does it reflect

the interaction of vocational, environmental,

medical and other factors that can affect the

ability of someone on SSI or SSDI to attain a

level of independence?”

• organizing the agency so as to ensure greater

accountability and unified direction for the

disability programs,

• developing a single presentation of policy to

guide all adjudicators and enhancing the

medical and vocational expertise of its staff,

and

• developing and implementing a new quality

management system that will (1) provide

the information that policy makers and

administrators need to guide disability

Reform of the disability programs must be

evaluated within the context of clear goals and

objectives:

• All who are truly disabled and cannot work

should receive benefits.

• Those who can work but need assistance to do

so should receive it.

• Vocational rehabilitation and employment

services should be readily available and

claimants and beneficiaries should be helped

to take advantage of them.

• Claimants should be helped to understand the

disability rules and the determination process.

• The disability system should provide fair and

consistent treatment for all.

• The disability system should ensure high

quality decisions by well-qualified and trained

adjudicators.

• The disability system should provide

expeditious processing of claims. When cases

are complex and require more time, claimants

should be informed so that they will

understand why there is delay.

Reform Should Have Clear

Goals and Objectives

11
ensure high quality, uniform administration

throughout the country.

The issue of federalizing the disability

determination process needs to be examined in the

light of anticipated future needs of the

disability programs. In the short term we believe

it is necessary to strengthen the present FederalState arrangement. Underpinning this view is the

fact that SSA currently lacks the administrative

and staffing capacity to take on the significant

additional responsibility that federalization would

entail. Nevertheless, the present arrangement is

inadequate to meet the needs of the disability

programs today, and problems need to be

addressed as quickly as possible.

SSA’s regulations should be revised to

improve the agency’s ability to manage State

agency operations and to provide greater national

uniformity. States should be required to follow

specific guidelines relating to educational

requirements and salaries for staff, training,

12

* Processing times shown above are additive.

** Field office processing time includes all components of the field office work, including taking the claim and

processing it after the State agency makes a determination.

*** SSA reports DDS initial processing time by programs; average total processing time (DI and SSI) is not available.

**** SSA does not have data available for SSI reconsideration processing times.

Chart 7. - DI and SSI Claims Process: Steps and

Average Processing Time*

FY 2000

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

SSA Field Offices**

 DI: 23.2 days

 SSI: 35.5 days

Office of Hearings and Appeals:

Administrative Law Judges

297 days

Office of Hearings and Appeals:

Appeals Council

505 days

Disability Determination Services

Initial Decision ***

DI: 81.5 days

SSI: 84.5 days

Disability Determination Services

Reconsideration ****

DI: 62.8 days

FEDERAL COURTS

18 months

2

3

4

5 6

1

STATE AGENCIES

Claimant starts here

policy and procedures and (2) ensure accuracy

and consistency in decision making.

Change the disability adjudication

process

Strengthen the Federal-State

arrangement. – Although the law gives SSA

the basic responsibility for administering the

disability programs, it requires that disability

decisions be made by State agencies rather than

by SSA itself. The Federal government pays

100 percent of the cost.

Whether the disability decision making

authority should belong to the States or to SSA

has been a subject of debate since Congress

established the Federal-State arrangement

nearly five decades ago. Proponents of

federalizing the process argue that the present

structure is inherently difficult to manage and

that federal administration is necessary to
13

carrying out quality assurance procedures, and

other areas that have a direct impact on the

quality of their employees and their ability to

make decisions that are both of high quality and

timely.

Reform the hearing process. – The

formal right of claimants to a hearing was

adopted in 1940 with only 12 “referees” to hear

appeals. But with the enactment of the disability

programs, the hearing process has become

massive, with about 1,000 administrative law

judges and nearly 7,000 other employees.

Along with becoming a much larger

operation than originally envisaged, SSA’s

hearing process has also changed as the result of

the fact that most claimants are now represented

by attorneys or other representatives. Because

the agency is not represented as well, many

believe the hearing process has become too onesided. We think that having an individual

present at the hearing to defend the agency’s

position would help to clarify the issues and

introduce greater consistency and accountability

into the adjudicative system and, as in a more

traditional court setting, would help to carry out

an effective cross-examination. Consideration

should also be given to allowing the individual

who represents the agency at the hearing to file

an appeal of the ALJ decision.

We also recommend that the Congress and

SSA review again the issue of whether the record

should be closed after the ALJ hearing. Leaving

the record open means that the case can change

at each level of appeal, requiring a de novo

decision based on a different record. Many ALJs

have told the Board that leaving the record open

gives attorneys an incentive to withhold evidence

in order to strengthen an appeal at a later stage,

and provides an inherent incentive to withhold

evidence in order to prolong the case and

increase fees. Other ALJs do not believe that

representatives hold back evidence for these

reasons. If evidence is held back, they maintain,

it is because the rules for presenting evidence are

lax and representatives do not take the time or

spend the money to obtain additional evidence

unless required to do so as a result of an

unfavorable hearing decision. Closing the record

would heighten the need to develop the record as

fully as possible before the decision is made in

order to ensure that claimants are not unfairly

penalized. Closing the record would not

preclude filing a new application.

Third, we recommend that consideration be

given to establishing a system of certification for

claimant representatives and to establishing

uniform procedures for claimant representatives

to follow. The objective would be to provide for

a more orderly and expeditious hearing

procedure than currently exists.

Consider changes in the current

provisions for judicial review. – Concerns

about national uniformity in policy and

procedure have led many to consider whether

there is a need for change in the current

provisions for judicial review. Under the current

system, Federal courts frequently issue decisions

that vary from district to district and circuit to

circuit. Over the years a number of bills have

been introduced in the Congress that would

create either a Social Security Court or a Social

Security Court of Appeals that would specialize

in Social Security cases, thus establishing a

framework that could produce greater uniformity

in decision making. The statutorily-established

Commission on Structural Alternatives for the

Federal Courts of Appeals, chaired by Justice

Byron White, stated in its final report in

December 1998 that Congress should seriously

consider proposals that would place judicial

review of Social Security cases in an Article I

court. We believe that the question of whether

existing arrangements for judicial review should

be retained or replaced by a new court structure

deserves careful study by the Congress and the

Social Security Administration.

Align policy and administrative

capacity

Nearly every part of the Social Security

Administration has been affected by the
...disability policy and

administrative capacity are

now seriously out of

alignment and threaten to

become more so...

institutional arrangements, and funding. In

addition, the Board has urged the agency to

develop a comprehensive workforce plan and

base its appropriations requests on this plan, as

directed by the 1994 independent agency

legislation. We also urge the Administration

and the Congress to exclude SSA’s

administrative budget for Social Security from

the statutory cap that imposes a limit on the

amount of discretionary government spending.

Examine ways to improve

incentives for early rehabilitation

and employment

The issue of whether the present structure

of assistance to the disabled provides sufficient

help and incentive for employment needs

careful review. Many experts believe that the

most effective intervention is to help disabled

individuals return to work as quickly as

possible. More comprehensive research on

ways to improve incentives for rehabilitation

and employment early in a period of disability

is needed. This may include new or different

arrangements for cash or medical benefits or

for rehabilitation and employment services.

The experience of other countries and of both

private and public employers in the United

States should be taken into account.

Included as part of this comprehensive

research effort should be a study of whether

providing some type of short-term disability

assistance, combined with rehabilitation

services, would improve assistance for those

who have disabilities while also relieving

pressure on the permanent disability programs.

The studies that are conducted should include

cost-benefit analyses. Where needed, specific

legislative authority and funding for these

studies should be provided.

14

The issue of whether the present structure of assistance to

the disabled provides sufficient help and incentive for

employment needs careful review.

downsizing and restraint on government hiring

that has occurred over the last two decades. But

for various reasons, the disability programs in

particular have tended to suffer. As resources

have been constrained, SSA has issued numerous

regulations and rulings that require more time and

expertise on the part of all adjudicators than was

the case in the past and workloads have grown

substantially. The result is that disability policy

and administrative capacity are now seriously out

of alignment and threaten to become more so as

the agency moves toward national implementation

of several new initiatives.

Of particular importance are the “process

unification” rulings issued by SSA in 1996, which

were aimed at bringing State agency and ALJ

decisions closer together. Many State agency

administrators claim that some of them are so

complex that State agency employees cannot

adhere to them without spending substantially

increased time on a large percentage of the cases

they are adjudicating. In addition, these new rules

for adjudicating cases require analytical and

writing skills that many employees do not have.

 Both the new Administration and the new

Congress will share the responsibility for

making the changes that are needed to ensure that

disability policy and administrative capabilities

are properly aligned. This will likely involve a

combination of changes in policy, processes,
15

III. IMPROVE THE SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION’S SERVICE

TO THE PUBLIC 4

The magnitude of the Social Security

Administration’s service delivery responsibilities

is reflected in its basic workload statistics. In

fiscal year 2000, the agency processed more

than 277 million earnings reports and more than

6.6 million claims for Social Security and

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.

The agency’s 1,300 field offices had about 27

million visitors and about 87 million calls were

placed to its 800 number. A determination as to

whether a claimant was disabled was made on

behalf of more than two million individuals.

SSA’s capacity to serve the public is

increasingly at risk

Despite a dedicated workforce, SSA is

facing serious service delivery problems in

carrying out its important responsibilities. These

problems stem from a combination of factors,

including a prolonged period of downsizing, a

growing workload, and increasing program

complexity. Since 1982, downsizing has

resulted in a 29 percent decline in the number

of employees who work in the agency’s

regional and field offices, teleservice centers, and

program service centers. The agency’s effort to

meet the 15-to-1 staff-management ratio

recommended by the National Performance

Review in 1993 has reduced the number of

managers and supervisors in field offices and

teleservice centers by nearly one-half, reducing

the capacity to provide the training, mentoring,

and other activities necessary to ensure the

quality and accuracy of the work that is being

performed.

Employees throughout the agency’s field

operations are having increasing difficulty in

keeping up with their growing workloads, and

the emphasis on meeting processing time goals is

causing burnout and affecting employee morale.

Overworked managers and supervisors lack the

time to provide the training and perform the

quality reviews that are needed to ensure the

accuracy and integrity of the Social Security and

SSI programs.

4

 For more information on this subject, see the

Advisory Board’s September 1999 report, How the

Social Security Administration Can Improve Its

Service to the Public.

 Chart 8. - SSA On-Duty Employment*

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

197519801985199019952000

Total

Field **

 * Includes full-time, part-time, temporary,

 seasonal, and student employees as of the end

 of the fiscal year.

**Includes employees in regional and field offices,

program service centers, and teleservice centers.

Present and Future Challenges to Providing Quality Service

FY 1975 - 2000

(in thousands)
16

The agency’s workload will increase

significantly in future years as the

baby boom generation ages

The agency will face additional challenges

in the coming years that will test its

administrative capacities even more. According

to actuarial projections, beginning in this decade

the agency’s workload will increase greatly.

SSA will have to process increasingly larger

numbers of Social Security retirement claims.

More taxing on its resources, however, will be

the greatly increased numbers of disability

claims that it will receive. As noted earlier in

this report, disability applications are highly

labor intensive. They are often difficult to

evaluate and require carefully informed

judgment. SSI claims, which are also growing,

require time-consuming efforts to verify each

claimant’s income, resources, citizenship, and

living arrangements. The combination of the

growth in workloads with a large wave of

retirements by SSA’s own aging workforce will

place extraordinary pressures on the agency to

meet the public’s needs for service. SSA

estimates that by 2010 over 28,000 of its

Federal employees will retire and another

10,000 will leave the agency for other reasons.

This is more than half of the current workforce.

Chart 9. - Increase in Beneficiaries

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1980 2000 2020

DI SSI OASI

The combination of the

growth in workloads with a

large wave of retirements by

SSA’s own aging workforce

will place extraordinary

pressures on the agency to

meet the public’s needs for

service.

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

20002005201020152020

Chart 10. - Estimated SSA Retirees

CY 2000-2020

Although SSA’s workforce

continues to be highly committed

and productive, major service

delivery problems need prompt

attention

Although the agency’s difficulties will

grow over the coming years, it has a number of

service delivery problems that need attention

now. Telephone service is inadequate, with too

many callers unable to get prompt service

either through the agency’s 800 number or in

field offices. In 2000, of the more than 76

million calls actually received by the 800

(in thousands)

CY 1980-2020
17

number, approximately 12 percent of the callers

received a busy signal. Nearly 17 million calls

were abandoned by the caller, either while waiting

for an agent to handle the call or before using

automated services. This means that only about

66 percent of the calls placed were actually

served.

Many who visit one of SSA’s field offices

encounter overcrowded waiting areas and long

waits for service. Field office managers have told

the Board that in many offices, primarily urban

offices, waits of 2, 3, or 4 hours are not

uncommon.

What the New Administration and

the New Congress Need to Do

Within this context, in its September 1999

report the Board made four overarching

recommendations for how SSA should proceed

in order to be able to improve the quality of

service that it provides to the public.

The agency needs to develop a

service delivery plan that describes

how it will deliver service over the

short term and the long term

SSA needs to resolve how it will handle its

growing workloads, whether through increases

in staffing, technological improvements,

changes in the way the agency processes its

work, or a combination of these approaches.

In response to the Board’s recommendation,

the agency recently took a first step in this

planning effort by issuing what it calls the

2010 Vision, which outlines the principles for

service delivery in the future. The new

Administration should advance the work the

agency has begun by developing a

comprehensive and detailed plan for how the

agency will meet its needs in the areas of

human resources, technology, and work

processes. This plan should address both the

short-term and the long-term objectives of the

agency.

SSA’s administrative problems will not be

easy to address. There are both external and

internal factors that impose constraints on the

agency’s ability to act, including the fact that

the budget is not under its control but is

determined by the legislative process, other

agencies have significant authority over

personnel and acquisition rules and policies,

and management-union agreements establish

parameters for how the agency conducts its

business. More than 60 years of history have

produced a service delivery system that can be

changed only with energy and commitment.

SSA needs to resolve how it

will handle its growing

workloads, whether through

increases in staffing,

technological improvements,

changes in the way the agency

processes its work,

or a combination

of these approaches.

Heavy workloads and pressures to meet

processing times mean that field office employees

often do not have sufficient time to help claimants

understand complex disability eligibility rules or

to help them file adequately documented disability

claims. The result may be an improper denial of

benefits, and a claimant may suffer a prolonged

period without benefits while going through the

agency’s slow and overloaded appeals process.

Heavy workloads are also contributing to a

rapidly growing backlog of postentitlement

actions that are necessary to maintain the

accuracy of the benefit rolls.
18

The Administration and the Congress

need to ensure that SSA has the

resources it needs to carry out its

plan

In our September 1999 report the Board made

the point that the agency cannot sustain any

further reductions, and in fact now faces staffing

shortages in key parts of its organization. We

were pleased that the Commissioner used the

authority provided to him in the 1994 independent

agency legislation to submit a budget request for

2001 that provided for much-needed but modest

increases in staffing for the agency. Although the

Office of Management and Budget and the

Congress did not agree to support this increase,

the Commissioner’s action reflected an important

shift from the position that the agency has taken

in prior years that it would somehow manage to

carry out its work even though the appropriation

was inadequate for its needs.

SSA will need the support of the

Administration and the Congress in order to meet

its human resource needs. The agency should

develop a comprehensive workforce plan and base

its appropriations requests on this plan, as

directed by the 1994 legislation. The plan should

reflect the real needs of SSA’s programs. It

should be developed using a work measurement

system that accurately assesses the work to be

done and the amount of time required to perform

it in a manner that ensures a high quality of

service. A workforce-based budget will allow the

President and the Congress to make betterinformed decisions about appropriate funding

levels for the agency. SSA should also continue

its work to develop a new work measurement

system that will provide a better understanding

than the agency now has of the time employees in

the field are spending in carrying out the agency’s

many varied responsibilities.

As noted earlier in this report, we urge the

new Administration and the new Congress to

exclude SSA’s administrative budget, like its

program budget, from the statutory cap that

imposes a limit on the amount of discretionary

government spending. Both workers and

employers contribute to the self-financed Social

Security system, and are entitled to receive service

that is of high quality. It is entirely appropriate

that spending for administration of Social Security

programs be set at a level that fits the needs of

Social Security’s contributors and beneficiaries,

rather than requiring it to compete with funding

for health, education, and other human services

functions within the current government cap on

discretionary spending.

...we urge the new

Administration and the new

Congress to exclude SSA’s

administrative budget, like its

program budget, from the

statutory cap that imposes a

limit on the amount

of discretionary

government spending.

The agency needs to make major

improvements in a number of its

service delivery practices and

strategies

The agency should follow the example of the

most successful public and private entities and

become much more oriented toward meeting

The agency should follow the example of the most successful

public and private entities and become much more oriented

toward meeting the needs and expectations of its clients.
19

changing the culture of the agency. The

problems include a culture that discourages open

discussion and timely resolution of problems,

weaknesses in communication between SSA’s

headquarters and operations in the field, and

inadequate teamwork. We have observed that in

more recent months the agency’s leadership has

been working to address these problems and

some progress has been made. But it will

require continued strong leadership to build

upon these beginnings.

The need to encourage open

discussion of agency problems. – As we

noted in our September 1999 report on service

to the public, SSA has a strong institutional

resistance to open discussion of the agency’s

problems. Although this attitude has apparently

existed for many years and may be related to the

agency’s historic “can do” approach, it is

particularly inappropriate and troubling today,

given the scope and magnitude of the agency’s

problems. This kind of problem is difficult to

correct. It requires a fundamental change in

agency culture – a change that can be brought

about only by strong leadership from the top.

the needs and expectations of its clients. It

should improve the way it measures its service to

the public and use the information it receives to

guide its decisions on how to deliver high quality

service most cost-effectively. SSA also needs to

improve the way it measures its performance,

and should test its performance against that of

successful organizations in the public and

private sectors.

We were pleased that in the fall of 2000 the

agency accepted the Board’s proposal for joint

sponsorship of a forum on the measurement and

use of customer service information. This forum

brought together experts from the private sector

and academia to advise the agency on ways it

can improve its measurement and use of

customer service information so as to improve

the quality of service it provides to the public.

SSA has made delivering “customerresponsive world-class service” one of the five

major goals in its current five-year strategic

plan. SSA has thus set a goal, which we believe

to be appropriate, that will require the agency to

measure its service against the best that is

offered in both the public and private sectors. If

it is to meet this goal in the foreseeable future, it

must make dramatic improvements in its

telephone service, accelerate its ability to

develop and use new technologies, and

restructure and improve the way it conducts

much of its work, particularly with respect to the

disability programs. In order to implement many

of the changes that are needed, it will need the

support of both the Administration and the

Congress.

The agency’s leadership needs to

address long-standing institutional

problems

Although SSA’s long-standing institutional

problems relate to all of the agency’s work, they

directly affect SSA’s ability to serve the public.

These are problems that have grown over many

years and to some degree are endemic to any

large institution. To address them will require

...SSA has a strong

institutional resistance to

open discussion of the

agency’s problems. Although

this attitude has apparently

existed for many years and

may be related to the

agency’s historic “can do”

approach, it is particularly

inappropriate and troubling

today, given the scope

and magnitude of the

agency’s problems.
20

The need for better communication

between management in headquarters

and employees in the field. – A related

problem is a feeling of misunderstanding

between SSA’s managers in headquarters and

employees in the field, including in State

disability agencies. Many employees in the

field have expressed concern that SSA’s

management in headquarters is unaware of the

problems they are having in serving the public

and uninterested in hearing their suggestions for

how these problems might be resolved.

Consistent with these observations, a recent

report on organizational culture conducted by

SSA’s Office of Workforce Analysis found that

“employees in the field feel strongly that SSA

Headquarters is out of touch with them.”5

This finding underscores the need for the

agency to do far more than it has been doing in

the past to assure employees in the field that

what they are saying is actually being heard and

that their suggestions for improvements will

receive thoughtful consideration within the

agency. The outreach that the agency

conducted in developing its 2010 Vision is an

illustration of the kind of effort that needs to be

made on a systematic and consistent basis.

SSA should consider organizational

changes to create a more serviceoriented agency. – A reorganization of SSA

in 1979 established the agency’s first functional

organization, replacing an organization based

on program bureaus that went back to the early

days of the program. Over the last 20 years

there has been an expansion of the number of

functional components, leading to a dispersion

of responsibility and a narrowing of

accountability. Many of the components have

overlapping lines of authority, requiring a great

deal of coordination.

SSA needs to make organizational changes

to satisfactorily address its service delivery

problems. Clearer lines of responsibility and

more precise accountability for major segments

of the agency’s work would be desirable. In

addition, the agency should address a number

of fundamental questions relating to how it is

organized to serve the public, including how far

can, and should, the agency go to reduce

reliance on resource-expensive face-to-face

settings, and how far can, and should, the

agency go to increase the use of the telephone,

and in turn, electronic communications, to

provide more responsive service at lower cost.

The Board urges the new Commissioner to

undertake a study of the agency’s organization,

with a view toward providing a sharper focus

on how the agency can improve its service to

the public.

The Board urges the new Commissioner to undertake a

study of the agency’s organization, with a view toward

providing a sharper focus on how the agency can

improve its service to the public.

5

 See Organizational Culture Project: Final Report,

Social Security Administration, May 2000, p. 6.
21

SSA has a responsibility to communicate

in an authoritative, credible, accurate, and

accessible manner with two important groups:

first, the 154 million workers who pay the

taxes needed to finance the Social Security

system; and second, the 45 million individuals

who are currently receiving Social Security

benefits.

SSA has a particular obligation to inform

workers, whose dedicated taxes pay for Social

Security, about the benefit protections provided

to them by Social Security, the financing of

benefits, and the operations of the Trust Funds.

The agency’s efforts to communicate with

the public should extend beyond providing

basic descriptions of the Social Security

program. SSA should take the lead among

government agencies in educating workers and

their families about retirement planning.

Adequate retirement income depends on the

strength of each of the legs of the “three-legged

stool” – Social Security, employer pensions,

and private savings. Helping individuals

understand what they need to do to ensure their

economic security in retirement should be a

major objective of the agency.

IV. INCREASE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING

OF SOCIAL SECURITY 6

SSA’s Obligation to Communicate with the Public

The public also needs balanced and

objective information about the complex issues

involved in ensuring the long-term solvency of

Social Security. SSA has the opportunity and

the responsibility to provide information and

analysis that will be helpful in the national

debate on this issue.

SSA has a responsibility

to communicate in an

authoritative, credible,

accurate, and accessible

manner with two important

groups: first, the 154 million

workers who pay the taxes

needed to finance the Social

Security system; and second,

the 45 million individuals

who are currently receiving

Social Security benefits.

6

 For more information on this subject, see the Advisory

Board’s September 1997 report, Increasing Public

Understanding of Social Security.

What the Public Thinks About Social Security

Over the years the Social Security program

has enjoyed widespread public support. Despite

this strong support, the numerous studies and

surveys of public understanding of Social

Security that have been made in recent years

show that understanding of many aspects of

Social Security is weak.

There is confusion about what Social

Security does and does not do

A 1999 survey by SSA shows that more than

half (52 percent) of people surveyed think they

know some about Social Security and an

additional 11 percent think they know a lot.
22

About 80 percent know that Social Security

provides for disability and survivor benefits, as

well as retirement benefits. But there are major

areas of confusion. For example, one-fifth of

respondents erroneously think that Social Security

pays for the food stamp program and an

additional one-third are unsure whether it does or

not. Sixty percent think that Social Security taxes

go to pay for the SSI program and an additional

one-third are uncertain. Only 8 percent correctly

think that Social Security taxes are not used to

pay for SSI.

Another 1999 survey conducted by nongovernmental institutions backs up these findings.

Asked why the system is in trouble, more people

(65 percent) selected “money in the Social

Security trust fund is being spent on programs

other than Social Security” than any other

reason.7

Over the years there has been a widely held

view that there is a significant amount of fraud

and abuse in the program. This view continues to

prevail. The non-governmental survey referred to

above found that more than half (54 percent) of

those surveyed think that fraud and abuse by

people who are not entitled to benefits is a major

reason why the program faces financing

difficulties.

Public confidence in the program has

declined...

Public confidence in the program declined in

the late 1970s and early 1980s, a period of

extensive media coverage of the short-term

financing problems of Social Security that

preceded the reform amendments of 1983. It rose

again in the late 1980s before beginning

another decline in the early 1990s, when the

issue of long-term solvency of Social Security

became a frequent topic of media attention. In

the 1999 SSA survey more than half of nonretirees who were polled were only a little

confident or not confident at all that Social

Security retirement benefits will be there for

them when they retire. The 1999 nongovernmental survey found that 52 percent

hold the view that the program has major

problems, and an additional 30 percent think

the program is in crisis. Three-quarters said

that the program is likely to go bankrupt if

Congress fails to take any action.

...but there is continuing strong

public support

This same survey suggests that concern

about the future of Social Security does not

imply a lack of public support for the program.

When given a list of Federal government

programs, 85 percent of respondents said that

Social Security was very important – more

than for any other program listed, including

Medicare (80 percent) and Medicaid (67

percent). Nearly three-quarters (73 percent)

said that helping make Social Security

financially sound should be one of the top

priorities for the use of any budget surplus,

compared to 57 percent for Medicare and 50

percent for increased spending on domestic

programs, such as health, education, and the

environment.

...concern about the future

of Social Security does not imply a lack of public

support for the program.

7 Survey conducted by National Public Radio, the

Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University’s

Kennedy School of Government, May 1999.
23

What SSA Should Do to Increase

Public Understanding of Social Security

In its September 1997 report, Increasing

Public Understanding of Social Security, the

Board made a number of specific

recommendations for changes the agency

should make to increase public understanding

of Social Security. The Board recommended

that SSA:

• Develop a long-range plan for how the

agency can take a far more active role in

informing the public about Social Security

and how it fits into an individual worker’s

long-term financial planning.

• Take the lead among government agencies

in educating workers about retirement

planning.

• Use new tools to improve public

understanding, including the Social

Security Statement (formerly called the

Personal Earnings and Benefit Estimate

Statement), the Internet, and other modes

of communication. The Board urged the

agency to make the Social Security

Statement one of its highest priorities and

to improve its content and design so that it

can be an effective tool in enhancing public

understanding of the program and in

individual financial planning.

• Target efforts on areas where public

understanding is weak, including ensuring

long-term solvency, improving

understanding of disability and survivors

benefits, informing younger workers

regarding Social Security taxes and

benefits, informing the public about the

already-scheduled increase in the

retirement age, and clarifying that SSI

benefits are funded out of general revenues

rather than Social Security taxes.

• Assure that the Office of Communications

and field offices have sufficient staff to

perform their public information

responsibilities and that they have

appropriate experience and training.

• Make the most of agency resources by

maximizing the ability of the Commissioner

to call the attention of the media to Social

Security issues and by placing renewed

emphasis on increasing public understanding

through the agency’s field office managers

and other employees.

The agency has taken steps to

improve communications with

the public

Since the issuance of the Board’s report,

SSA has taken a number of steps to improve its

communications with the public. Strengthening

public understanding of Social Security has

become one of the five goals in the agency’s

strategic plan. SSA has established the objective

of having 90 percent of the public knowledgeable

about the Social Security program in five areas

by 2005. These areas include basic program

facts, the financial value of the program to

individuals, the economic and social impact of

Since the issuance of the

Board’s report, SSA has

taken a number of steps to

improve its communications

with the public.

Strengthening public

understanding of

Social Security has

become one of the five

goals in the agency’s

strategic plan.
24

the program, the current financing arrangement,

and financing issues. SSA has developed a

process to measure improvement.

The agency has also been conducting an

outreach campaign, which includes holding public

events and media campaigns, developing new

brochures and printed materials, improving the

Social Security Statement, and expanding the

information and services that it makes available

through the Internet. Recently, for example, the

agency has provided a “Retirement Planner” on its

Web site that allows workers to compute estimates

of their future Social Security retirement benefits.

In the past, SSA depended largely on field

representatives who worked in field offices and

had the specific responsibility of maintaining

communications with their communities through

visits to local organizations and working with the

media. In 1982 there were 1,400 field

representatives, but as the agency has been

downsized, these positions have been reduced to

about 400 today, and the focus of their work has

been shifted away from public information.

Today, most of SSA’s communications efforts are

being handled by staff professionals, including

about 100 public affairs specialists who work in

major local media markets. The agency has also

been providing communications training to its field

office managers and regional public affairs officers

and has conducted an “Ambassadors Program” to

educate all employees on financing and other

major issues. As the Board noted in its 1997

report, however, we are concerned that field office

managers and others who work in communities

throughout the country are so hard pressed by

heavy workloads and inadequate resources that

they no longer have time to carry out important

public information activities.

Another area of concern is the notices that

SSA sends to millions of individuals each year.

The agency mails approximately 240 million

notices annually to its claimants, beneficiaries,

and their representatives. These notices explain

program policy, administrative processes, and the

criteria upon which SSA’s decisions have been

made on individual cases. The quality and clarity

of many of these notices have been called into

question by reviewers both inside and outside of

SSA, including a recent study conducted by the

Pacific Consulting Group. Many of SSA’s

notices are produced by an automated notice

production system that has been criticized by

experts both within and outside the agency as

outdated. In addition, about 150 million notices

are produced manually, most of which are

preprinted form letters that may contain

superseded, out-of-date policy information. While

the agency has included “notice improvements”

among its key initiatives outlined in its

performance plan for fiscal year 2001, and

improvements are being made, we believe that the

agency should strengthen its efforts.

Much remains to be done

Although increasing public understanding has

become a major focus for the agency, as the

statistics above show there is still much that needs

to be done. The agency’s efforts to improve the

work that it is doing will need the support of both

the Administration and the Congress. The

recommendations made by the Board in 1997 and

summarized above continue to provide a useful

framework for assessing how well the agency is

doing in improving understanding of Social

Security not only by the beneficiaries of the

program, but even more importantly, by the

workers and employers who support it.

...we are concerned that field office managers and others who

work in communities throughout the country are so hard pressed

by heavy workloads and inadequate resources that they no longer

have time to carry out important public information activities.
25

V. IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF SERVICE AND THE

INTEGRITY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY

INCOME PROGRAM8

8

 For more information on the Board’s work

regarding the SSI program, see the “Additional

Statement by the Social Security Board” that has

accompanied SSA’s Annual Report of the

Supplemental Security Income Program for fiscal

years 1998, 1999, and 2000.

In 1972, when the Supplemental Security

Income program was enacted, questions were

raised in the Congress and elsewhere about

SSA’s capacity to absorb administrative

responsibility for the complex new welfare

program without compromising its ability to

administer the much larger Social Security

retirement, survivors, and disability programs.

The Congress ultimately chose the Social

Security Administration to administer the SSI

program, in part because of the agency’s

network of offices accessible to the public and

its reputation for providing high quality

service.

The Congress believed that the SSI

program, which was intended to serve as a

supplement to the Social Security programs,

could function best in close connection with

them. It was hoped that joint administration of

the programs would result in improved service

for low-income aged, blind, and disabled

individuals, and that they would experience

less stigma than under the prior Stateadministered welfare programs.

The agency had difficulties from the

beginning in taking over the complex

responsibility of administering the meanstested SSI program, and over the last 25 years

the impact of the SSI program on the

functioning of the agency has grown. Today SSI

continues to represent a major challenge for

SSA’s management and for employees in the

field.

The SSI program is inherently more

complex to administer than Social

Security

As a means-tested program, SSI is inherently

more difficult to administer than the earned-right

Social Security program. Social Security

eligibility depends upon generally objective and

stable factors, such as date of birth, date of

death, and marital status. In contrast, under SSI

the fact and degree of eligibility can change from

month to month based on changes in income,

resources, individual living arrangements, and

place of residence.

Administration is further complicated by the

fact that the SSI program has become

predominantly a disability program and thus

shares with Social Security all of the

The agency had difficulties from the beginning in taking over the

complex responsibility of administering the means-tested SSI

program, and over the last 25 years the impact of the SSI program

on the functioning of the agency has grown. Today SSI continues

to represent a major challenge for SSA’s management and

for employees in the field.

The Impact of the SSI Program on the Functioning of the Agency
26

complexities involved in the multi-step disability

determination process. Today, 91 percent of SSI

applications are for disability benefits. The 5.2

million SSI disability beneficiaries greatly

outnumber the 1.3 million beneficiaries who

receive benefits on the basis of age. This is in

contrast with the situation prevailing at the time

the SSI program began, when the aged

constituted the majority of beneficiaries.

SSI disability applications often present

special complexities. Many applicants lack

documentation of work or medical histories.

This requires more work on the part of SSA and

State agency employees to gather medical

evidence and makes it more difficult to determine

whether these individuals are able to work. In

1999, 59 percent of disabled SSI beneficiaries

had a mental impairment. Adjudicating mental

impairment cases can require the use of much

more subjective judgment than is required in the

case of most physical impairments. In addition,

nearly a quarter of all SSI disability applications

are for children, whose conditions often change

rapidly over time, requiring more frequent

reviews than other cases.

As a result of all these factors, the cost of

administering the SSI program (including both

old age and disability benefits) is high in

proportion to benefit outlays. Although in 2000

SSI accounted for only about 7 percent of SSA’s

benefit outlays, it accounted for about 36 percent

of the agency’s administrative budget (as

compared to about 47 percent for the Social

Security programs and 16 percent for Medicare

measures, however incremental, that will

simplify the SSI program from the standpoint of

the individual applicant and beneficiary, and

from the standpoint of the agency. The Congress

should also be cognizant of the desirability of

program simplification, and consider legislative

changes where they are appropriate.

responsibilities). The proportion of SSA’s

administrative budget devoted to SSI has grown

since the early years of the program. In 1980, SSI

accounted for only 27 percent of SSA’s total

administrative costs.

The agency’s service delivery could almost

certainly be improved if the complexity of SSI

program rules were reduced. While not

underestimating the difficulty of the task, we

encourage SSA to take the lead in developing

The agency’s service delivery could almost certainly be improved

if the complexity of SSI program rules were reduced. While not

underestimating the difficulty of the task, we encourage SSA to

 take the lead in developing measures, however incremental, that

will simplify the SSI program from the standpoint of the individual

applicant and beneficiary, and from the standpoint of the agency.

Chart 11. - Spending for

Administration by Program

FY 2000

OASDI

47%

Medicare

16%

SSI

36%
27

Better data are needed to help the

agency target its efforts to improve

service

All of these recommendations appear to

have validity. At the present time, however,

SSA has very little data that it can use to

determine how it should target its efforts to

improve service to the diverse SSI population.

For example, although the agency has data that

identify service satisfaction levels for the SSI

population as a whole, it does not systematically

collect and use data relating to large and

important segments of the SSI population – the

aged, disabled, those who are working, disabled

children, or those with specific types of

impairments. It also lacks data that present a

picture of clients’ needs or satisfaction with

specific aspects of the agency’s responsibilities

— performance in field offices, State disability

agencies, or the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

The Need for a Better Understanding of the

Service Needs of the SSI Population

Because of the factors discussed above

relating to the complexity of SSI rules and

procedures and the special characteristics of the

population, SSA has been called upon to take on

substantial casework responsibility, a

responsibility that it is presently not staffed to

fulfill.

Many SSA field office personnel, as well as

advocates for the poor, believe that the agency

should do more to assist aged and disabled

individuals. Specific recommendations the

Board has heard include:

• SSA should provide more assistance to SSI

claimants than it is currently providing,

particularly to those who are infirm or have

disabilities that make it difficult for them to

pursue their claims on their own.

• The agency should be more diligent and

careful in helping to obtain representative

payees for those who are unable to manage

their own resources, and in monitoring how

their funds are spent.

• SSA should find ways to make it easier for

individuals to report income and other

changes that will result in a change in

benefits and should process these reports

quickly and reliably.

• The agency should do more to help SSI

applicants and beneficiaries find and retain

employment.

Many SSA field office personnel, as well as advocates for

the poor, believe that the agency should do more to assist

aged and disabled individuals.

At the present time...SSA has

very little data that it can use to

determine how it should target

its efforts to improve service to

the diverse SSI population.

SSA would be able to target its efforts and

improve its performance much more efficiently

and effectively if it collected data such as these

and used them to drive its actions.
A more accurate work measurement

system should be a high agency

priority

Along with expanding and improving its

measures of the service needs and satisfaction

of SSI claimants and beneficiaries, SSA should

make its current effort to develop a new and

more accurate work measurement system a high

priority. Field employees who spoke to us

about the current system universally described it

as inaccurate and unfair. Among other

problems, they believe that it fails to give

appropriate credit for many SSI-related

activities, particularly SSI postentitlement

work. They also view the system as tilted

toward quantity and speed of work at the

expense of quality and responsiveness to

claimants’ needs. Because SSA’s work

measurement system is used to allocate staffing

for all regions of the country, it has a strong

influence on how employees conduct their work.

SSA established a working group that has

recommended numerous changes in the work

measurement system. Many of the

recommendations are complex and

implementing them will require significant

changes in computer systems. It will take

strong leadership to give changes in the work

measurement system the priority that they

deserve within the agency. But work

measurement, like measurement of client

satisfaction, can undermine quality service if it

is not carried out appropriately. And a system

that is as widely criticized as the present work

measurement system can only serve to

undermine the confidence of the agency’s own

employees in the fairness of the agency’s

procedures.

There is a strong relationship between

measures of client satisfaction and work

measurement. Both of these measures are

important drivers of behavior, affecting the dayto-day actions of individual employees as well

as the priorities of the agency as a whole.

These measures need to be developed in

coordination so that they will reinforce each

other and serve as consistent reminders of what

the agency values as high quality service to the

public.

Along with expanding and

improving its measures of the

service needs and satisfaction

of SSI claimants and

beneficiaries, SSA should

make its current effort to

develop a new and more

accurate work measurement

system a high priority.

Integrating Program Integrity and Quality of Service

Because of resource limitations and

pressures to process work quickly, program

integrity and serving the public are viewed by

many within the agency as competing objectives.

But program integrity is in fact integral to good

service to the public. Certainly taxpayers who

support the SSI program view it as good service

if their tax dollars are accurately dispensed.

Similarly, beneficiaries view it as good service if

their payments are correct and they do not have

the inconvenience or hardship of either

overpayments or underpayments.

The concern about program

integrity

In fiscal year 2000, SSA processed 3.3

million SSI overpayments, more than twice as

28
many as in 1990. Despite this large number of

clearances, the number of unresolved SSI

overpayments pending in field offices at the end

of fiscal year 2000 was twice what it was at the

end of 1990.

excellent, half rated their SSI claims work as

only fair or poor.

In our observation, many of the problems

that can lead to inaccurate benefit payments

stem from the fact that too often employees in

the field lack the time they need to process their

workloads with proper care. There are many

examples of this. For instance, overworked

employees in field offices have told us that they

sometimes do not pursue certain lines of

questioning, such as the details of an

individual’s living arrangements, because it

takes too long to resolve the issues that may be

raised. Agency employees are not processing

reports of earnings or changes in living

arrangements as promptly as they should

because interviewing claimants who are sitting

in overcrowded waiting rooms is a higher

priority. And many report that they do not have

time to investigate properly the quality and

reliability of the representative payees whom

they assign to manage payments on behalf of

beneficiaries who are physically or mentally

impaired.

...many of the problems

that can lead to inaccurate

benefit payments stem

from the fact that too

 often employees in the

field lack the time they

need to process their

workloads with

proper care.

We have been told of similar concerns in

State disability agencies, where examiners are

pressed to meet processing times that make it

difficult or impossible for them to gather all the

evidence that is needed to make accurate and

fully substantiated disability determinations.

29

According to the agency’s data, the SSI

payment accuracy rate, measuring the accuracy of

current, retroactive, and estimated future

payments, increased from 93 percent in fiscal year

1997 to 94.2 percent in 1999. However, both of

these numbers are below those reported in the

earlier part of the decade. For example, in fiscal

year 1991 the SSI payment accuracy rate stood at

96.2 percent.

The General Accounting Office has placed the

SSI program on its list of government programs

that are at “high risk” of waste, fraud, and abuse,

and the Board has talked with many in the agency,

particularly in field offices, who are also

concerned about the integrity of the program. The

results of a 1999 survey of field office managers

underscore the concerns that we have heard. The

survey, conducted by the National Council of

Social Security Management Associations,

included 111 managers representing a crosssection of offices from all regions, ranging from

large metropolitan offices to small rural offices.

While three-quarters of those responding rated the

quality of their office’s Social Security retirement

and Disability Insurance claims work as good or

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Chart 12. - SSI Overpayments Pending in

Field Offices

(in thousands)

1990 1995 2000
We believe that both the employees who

administer SSI and the individuals who benefit

from it would have a much more favorable view

of both program integrity and quality of service if

there were greater emphasis on preventing

problems before they occur.

SSA’s efforts to correct errors in

payments

SSA conducts two types of reviews to catch

errors in payments to SSI beneficiaries. It has

made redeterminations of SSI non-disability

eligibility factors a high priority, and over the

last decade has been conducting between 1.5 to

more than 2 million redeterminations a year.

SSA also conducts reviews of the disability

status of SSI beneficiaries. Until the last few

years, the agency conducted very few of these

reviews. In 1993, SSA processed only 12,000

SSI continuing disability reviews (CDRs).

Legislation requiring additional CDRs for

SSI beneficiaries and special earmarked funding

enacted by the Congress in 1996 enabled the

agency to increase this number to more than

672,000 in 2000. The agency has also

supported expanded program integrity efforts by

the Office of the Inspector General, which has

We believe that both the

employees who administer

SSI and the individuals who

benefit from it would have a

much more favorable view of

both program integrity and

quality of service if there

were greater emphasis on

preventing problems

before they occur.

acquired increased resources and has

significantly stepped up its investigations of

fraud and abuse in the SSI program. In fiscal

year 2000, the Office of the Inspector General

recovered or saved $118 million as the result of

its SSI investigative activities.

The agency is to be commended for these

important efforts. We believe, however, that

these efforts should go hand in hand with

increased emphasis on careful handling of

claims at the front end of the process.

The need for a better balance

between meeting processing time

goals and careful claims processing

As we indicated in our report on SSA’s

service to the public, there is always a danger

that the pressure to meet processing time goals,

because they are easily measured, will override

program needs that are also essential but are

more difficult to quantify, such as careful

claims processing, adequate levels of training

and review, and appropriate attention to client

needs. The agency needs to take steps to

achieve balance between better performance

and workload processing so that program

integrity and high quality service will be an

integral part of all of the agency’s work.

The agency needs to take

steps to achieve balance

between better performance

and workload processing so

that program integrity and

high quality service will be

an integral part of all of the

agency’s work.

30
We understand that more careful

interviewing, better training, and increased

monitoring for quality will require additional

resources in some if not many offices. This is

another area where the agency needs the support

of both the Administration and the Congress in

order to ensure that its staffing needs are met.

As indicated above, the agency should ensure

that its work and performance measurement

systems provide an appropriate balance between

quality and quantity. For example, currently,

when field office employees try to provide good

public service by responding to general inquiries

and referring people to other sources of

assistance, they are given no work credit for this

activity. And if, as the result of a careful

interview and thorough explanation of the rules,

an individual decides not to file a claim, the

incomplete claim is not counted, while completing

a claim for someone who is clearly ineligible is

counted as a work unit.

The agency is taking more and more claims

by telephone and it is also exploring ways to

increase the kinds of work that it can perform by

Internet. Although these efforts to increase

efficiency and reduce costs are needed and will

expedite service delivery to many whom SSA

serves, the agency needs to take great care to

build in safeguards that will ensure program

integrity. Many SSA and DDS employees have

told the Board that they are concerned that the

reduction in face-to-face contact with claimants is

increasing the likelihood of errors and of fraud

and abuse, as well as making it more difficult to

process claims in an accurate and timely manner.

Problems in the agency’s quality

assurance program

SSA should also reexamine its quality

assurance program as it relates to SSI. In the

last few years, SSA has dramatically reduced

the number of full time staff who work on the

quality review of SSI workloads. At the start of

fiscal year 1993, the agency had 325 individuals

in the field who performed this work. As of the

end of September 2000, the number had been

reduced to 187 – a 42 percent reduction. We

have heard from individuals who perform this

work in the field that because of downsizing

they do not have time to make the careful checks

they think are needed. For example, they are

relying more on telephone interviews to obtain

information to verify accuracy rather than

making home visits.

There are other problems as well. There is

a widely held view in the field that SSA’s

quality assurance program for disability is not

uniformly applied among the regions of the

country, and that it is applied differently to

cases at different levels of review. Employees in

the field also think that it would be helpful if

more information about SSA’s quality assurance

procedures and findings were shared with them

so that they could use it to improve their

operations. It is a matter of serious concern

when SSA and State agency employees question

the validity and usefulness of the quality

measuring system.

31

We understand that more careful interviewing, better training,

and increased monitoring for quality will require additional

resources in some if not many offices. This is another area where

the agency needs the support of both the Administration and the

Congress in order to ensure that its staffing needs are met.
32

The need to build quality into work

processes from the beginning

Improvements in quality cannot rest only or

even primarily on quality assurance and

investigations of fraud and abuse, important as

these activities are. While these efforts will

discover serious systemic problems, they are not

currently operating in a way that helps local

offices improve the quality of their products.

Quality needs to be built into work processes from

the beginning, not just measured at the end.

Downsizing and the accompanying reduction

in the number of managers and supervisors have

led to a decline in the amount of review, training,

and mentoring in the field. Managers across the

country have told us that the reduction in firstline supervision has raised questions about the

quality of work that is being performed in their

offices. Review, training, and mentoring will be

increasingly important as SSA begins to hire

large numbers of new employees to replace the

experienced employees who will soon be lost to

retirement.

Quality needs to be built into work processes from the beginning,

not just measured at the end....Review, training, and mentoring

will be increasingly important as SSA begins to hire large

numbers of new employees to replace the experienced

employees who will soon be lost to retirement.
33

include the use of stolen and counterfeit SSNs to

obtain employment, establish credit, and defraud

Federal programs. Individuals also misuse SSNs

to conceal their true identity while committing a

variety of other crimes.

In 1999, the OIG fraud hotline received over

75,000 allegations of fraud, over 80 percent of

which involved misuse of the SSN. About half

of these instances involved SSA programs, with

the other half involving other types of activity.

The OIG expects these numbers to escalate and

has been stepping up fraud investigations where

SSN misuse is alleged.

In September 2000, the OIG issued a report

indicating that there may be serious problems

with the validity and types of documentation that

SSA accepts for identity verification. The OIG

conducted a non-random sample review of 3,557

SSNs and found that the assignment of

28 percent of them was based on invalid or

inappropriate documents. Inappropriate

assignment of SSNs has a direct impact not only

on the accuracy of SSA’s wage and earnings

data, but also on the integrity of payments made

from both Trust Fund and general fund programs

administered by the agency. The IG’s report

stated that to effectively combat criminals and

reduce the occurrences of fraudulent SSN

attainment, SSA must employ effective front-end

controls in its enumeration process.

VI. ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF MISUSE OF

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

The Social Security number (SSN) is

increasingly being used for purposes not related

to the administration of the Social Security

program. Within the Federal government it is

used for cross-program identity verification and

data collection. Its use in programs from civil

service to income taxes to student loans is

mandated by Federal law. It is used widely by

State and local governments, especially in

welfare and Medicaid programs, and for purely

State level purposes, such as drivers’ licenses.

The SSN is also widely used by private

businesses.

The Social Security number

(SSN) is increasingly being

used for purposes not related

to the administration of the

Social Security program.

Because of its wide availability and use, the

Social Security number has become a prime tool

for illegal activity. In a report issued by SSA’s

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in May

1999, investigators concluded that most identityrelated crimes involve the fraudulent use of a

Social Security number. Reports by the Federal

Trade Commission, law enforcement agencies,

and inspectors from the United States Postal

Service have indicated that the nationwide

incidence of identity-related crimes is growing

rapidly.

According to SSA’s Inspector General, the

introduction of the SSN into the stream of

electronic commerce has been accompanied by a

dramatic increase in SSN misuse. Examples

Because of its wide

availability and use, the

Social Security number has

become a prime tool for

 illegal activity.
34

Until recently, SSA’s view has been that

identity-related crimes involving the fraudulent

use of SSNs are a law enforcement issue and

outside of the agency’s jurisdiction. Hard data

on identity-related crimes and other misuses of

SSNs are not collected in a systematic way,

making the magnitude of the problem difficult

to discern. Suggestions, such as those made in

the past by former Senator Daniel Patrick

Moynihan and others, that SSA replace the

current paper Social Security card with one

that is tamper-resistant have been rejected by

the agency as too costly. Given the upward

trend in SSN misuse, it may be time for SSA

to take a new look at options for a secure

Social Security card.

The Board has become increasingly

concerned about the growing fraudulent use of

the Social Security number. We have been

examining both the authorized and

unauthorized uses of Social Security numbers,

vulnerabilities in SSA’s enumeration process,

and the role that Social Security numbers play in

identity-related crimes. As part of our studies, we

have consulted with the Consumer Protection

Bureau of the Federal Trade Commission on the

role that Social Security numbers play in identity

theft and other identity-related crimes. We have

also discussed with the Inspector General the role

that SSA can and should play in reducing the

misuse of the SSN.

Recently, SSA has become involved in

developing pilot projects with the State

Department and the Immigration and

Naturalization Service to increase the integrity of

the SSN enumeration process for immigrants and

travelers. This is a promising initiative. We urge

the Congress and the Administration to study

carefully additional actions that should be taken to

address the serious and growing issue of SSN

misuse, including actions that the agency should

take on its own initiative as well as any changes

that should be made in the law.
35

VII. STRENGTHEN THE AGENCY’S CAPACITY

TO PROVIDE GREATER POLICY LEADERSHIP 9

One of the motivating forces behind the

enactment of the 1994 independent agency

legislation was the expectation that, as an

independent agency, SSA would be more likely to

exercise appropriate policy leadership on Social

Security issues.

In the debate on the Senate floor leading up to

passage, it was noted that SSA, as a component

of the Department of Health and Human Services,

had failed to bring to the attention of the

Congress a number of important questions of

policy, such as whether drug addicts and

alcoholics should be eligible for disability benefits

and the need for improved coverage of domestic

employees. The hope was expressed that an

independent Social Security Administration would

be more mindful of the need to address such

issues and would have the research and analytical

capacity to do so.

In its first report, issued in March 1997, the

Board’s primary recommendation was that SSA

should provide greater policy leadership on Social

Security and SSI issues, and should strengthen its

ability to carry out policy research. The Board

observed that the Commissioner should place a

high priority on policy, research, and program

evaluation, and should establish a policy

development office headed by an individual who

would report directly to the Commissioner.

The Board noted that, as an independent

agency, SSA has the opportunity and the

responsibility of providing policy makers with

objective research and analysis on important

policy questions, including long-term financing

and the future of the disability programs. It urged

the agency to move swiftly to enhance its

capability by recruiting additional qualified policy

and research staff from outside the agency and

developing staff within the agency.

The Social Security Administration has

subsequently created a new high level policy

office as the Board recommended, and it has hired

additional staff in the policy and research offices.

It has also established “effective policy

development, research, and program evaluation” as

one of the five goals in its five-year strategic plan.

Consistent with the objectives of the Congress,

we believe that SSA, as the administering agency

for Social Security and SSI, has an obligation to

assume policy leadership on issues related to these

programs. Taking the leadership role in addressing

policy issues is critical to maintaining the agency’s

credibility with the Congress and with the public.

We urge the agency and the Congress to build on

the initial improvements that have already been

made by assuring that adequate resources are

provided. The Board also intends to exercise its

responsibility to advise the agency with respect to

the policy issues that it should be addressing.

9 For more information on this subject, see the Advisory

Board’s March 1997 report, Developing Social Security

Policy: How the Social Security Administration Can

Provide Greater Policy Leadership, and the January

1998 report, Strengthening Social Security Research:

The Responsibilities of the Social Security

Administration.

Taking the leadership role in

addressing policy issues is

critical to maintaining the

agency’s credibility with the

Congress and with the public.

We urge the agency and the

Congress to build on the initial

improvements that have

already been made by assuring

that adequate resources

are provided.
36
37

The purpose of this report is to provide the new Congress and the new Administration an

overview of the major policy and administrative issues relating to the Social Security and

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. The analyses and recommendations for change that

are presented are based on the work of the Social Security Advisory Board over the last four and

one-half years.

In addition to outlining the reasons why it is important to act sooner rather than later to address

the shortfall in the long-term financing of the Social Security program, this report highlights the

reasons why the Congress and the Administration should make it a high priority to improve the

administrative capacity of the Social Security Administration to fulfill its important responsibilities

to serve the public.

The agency’s service delivery problems stem from a combination of factors, including a

prolonged period of downsizing, a growing workload, and increasing program complexity. SSA will

face additional challenges over the coming decade as the large baby boom generation begins to file

for disability and retirement benefits at the same time that the agency faces its own wave of

retirements. Although SSA’s employees have a strong commitment to providing high quality service,

the agency’s capacity to serve the public is not as strong as it should be and changes are urgently

needed. This report summarizes why these changes are needed and provides an outline of what we

believe needs to be done.

SSA’s administrative budget shortfall, which is undermining its ability to provide an appropriate

level of service to the American people, needs to be addressed. The Congress and the Administration

should exclude SSA’s administrative budget from the statutory cap that imposes a limit on the

amount of discretionary spending, and provide the agency with a budget that fits the needs of Social

Security’s contributors and beneficiaries.

SSA must also make changes. Last year it made a beginning by issuing a 2010 Vision that

outlines how the agency expects to deliver service by the end of this decade. This vision needs to be

translated into a tangible service delivery plan that will describe how the agency will handle its

VIII. CONCLUSION

In addition to outlining the reasons why it is important to act

sooner rather than later to address the shortfall in the long-term

financing of the Social Security program, this report highlights

the reasons why the Congress and the Administration should

make it a high priority to improve the administrative capacity

of the Social Security Administration to fulfill its important

responsibilities to serve the public.
38

growing workloads, whether through increases in staffing, technological improvements, changes in

policy, changes in the way the agency processes its work, or a combination of these approaches.

Addressing the problems of administering the disability programs is particularly urgent. In

addition, major improvements need to be made in a number of the agency’s service delivery practices

and strategies, including the measurement of customer service needs and agency performance. A

new quality management system capable of providing the information needed to ensure high quality

and consistent decision making in the disability programs needs to be implemented. Issues relating

to SSI program integrity and misuse of the Social Security number need to be addressed.

Organizational changes should be considered. Clearer lines of responsibility and more precise

accountability for major segments of the agency’s work are needed if SSA is to be able to manage its

vast responsibilities.

The agency also has to address longstanding institutional problems. For many years, SSA has

had a culture that discourages open discussion and timely resolution of problems. There have been

problems in communication between SSA’s headquarters and operations in the field, and inadequate

teamwork. In recent years efforts have been made to address these problems and some progress has

been made. But the present situation developed over many years and it will require strong leadership

over a sustained period of time to provide an agency culture that will ensure that problems will be

addressed and the public will receive the high quality service that it deserves.
HOW THE BOARD HAS

CONDUCTED ITS WORK

The Social Security Advisory Board began its work in the Spring of 1996. Since then, the

Board has met with Social Security Administration officials, officials from other Federal and State

organizations, Congressional staff, claimant advocates, union and employee organization officials,

and representatives from the White House. We have traveled to Social Security offices throughout

the country and met with employees in all parts of SSA’s administrative structure. We have also

held public hearings, where we heard from public officials, experts, advocacy groups, and other

individuals who shared their views with us.

Meetings of the Board. Since 1996, the Board has generally met monthly at its offices in

Washington, D.C. It has also held conference calls.

Site Visits. The Board has visited Social Security Regional Offices in Boston, San Francisco,

Philadelphia, Dallas, New York City, Kansas City, Chicago, and Atlanta. We have visited hearing

offices, including offices in Boston, Massachusetts; Pasadena, Downey, and Oakland, California;

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Lansing, Michigan; Brooklyn and New York, New York; New Orleans,

Louisiana; Richmond, Virginia; Fort Worth, Texas; and Birmingham, Alabama. The Board has

visited SSA field offices throughout the country, including Boston; Los Angeles; Philadelphia;

Dallas; Atlanta, Rome, Marietta, and Tucker, Georgia; Fort Lauderdale and Miami, Florida;

Kansas City, Kansas; Kansas City, Missouri; Chicago; Fort Worth; and New York City. We have

met with employees in SSA’s teleservice centers and program service centers in San Francisco,

Philadelphia, Dallas, Ft. Lauderdale, Chicago, Kansas City, New York City, and Atlanta.

In addition, the Board has met with officials and employees from State and local governments,

including State Disability Determination agencies in Lansing and Detroit, Michigan; Austin, Texas;

Richmond, Virginia; Washington, D.C.; Boston, Massachusetts; Los Angeles and Oakland,

California; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and New York and Brooklyn, New York. In Oakland,

California we met with a number of the Alameda County Supervisors, and talked with

representatives of the Oakland Center for Independent Living.

The Chairman has met with and addressed the National Council of Disability Determination

Directors and the National Council of Social Security Management Associations. He has addressed

representatives of the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Association of

Disability Examiners, the national forum for State Disability Determination Directors, and the

hearing office chief administrative law judges.

Public Hearings. The Board has held public hearings in San Francisco, Dallas, and Chicago. The

Board heard from Social Security officials, advocates for the elderly and disabled, State

government officials, academics, legal services attorneys, representatives from private and nonprofit organizations concerned with Social Security issues, and members of the public.

Board Forums. The Board has held three public forums to discuss issues facing the Social

Security Administration. The first was held in June 1997 on developing a long-range research and

program evaluation plan for SSA. Twelve academicians and researchers participated as presenters

or moderators. The Board’s second forum was held in October 1998 to discuss the implications of

raising the Social Security retirement age. Participants included academicians, researchers, and

government officials. In January 2000, the Board held a third forum to discuss the report of the

39
40

1999 Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods. At this forum recommendations on the economic

and demographic assumptions and methods used to project the status of the Old-Age, Survivors, and

Disability Insurance Trust Funds were discussed. Attendees of these forums included Congressional

staff, SSA officials, individuals from other government organizations, members of the press, and other

individuals with an interest in Social Security issues.

The Board also co-sponsored a forum with the Social Security Administration on the measurement of

customer service expectations and needs, and how SSA can better use customer information to drive

decision-making. The forum brought together a panel of experts from the private sector and academia

to discuss with the leadership of the agency and the Board how successful private sector companies

measure customer service and use this information to improve service delivery.

Board Testimony. In October 1997, the Chairman testified before the Senate Committee on Finance

on the role of the Advisory Board. On March 12, 1998, he provided testimony for the House

Committee on Ways and Means hearing on the “Challenges Facing the New Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration.” On November 19, 1998 he provided testimony for the House

Committee on Ways and Means hearing on “Saving Social Security.” On February 10, 2000

Chairman Ross and Sylvester Schieber testified at a hearing held by the Human Resources and Social

Security Subcommittees of the House Ways and Means Committee on the issue of SSA’s readiness for

the impending wave of baby boomers. On April 5, 2000 the Chairman presented testimony for the

record to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the House

Appropriations Committee.

Appointment of Technical Panel. In 1999, the Board appointed a panel of experts to review the

assumptions and methods used by the Board of Trustees of the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability

Trust Funds to project the future financial status of the funds. The panel issued its report in

November 1999.

Board Reports and Statements. The Board has issued the following reports and statements:

1. Agenda for Social Security: Challenges for the New Congress and the New Administration,

February, 2001.

2. Charting the Future of Social Security’s Disability Programs: The Need for Fundamental

Change, January, 2001.

3. Disability Decision Making: Data and Materials, January 2001.

4. Annual Report Fiscal Year 2000, October, 2000.

5. Selected Aspects of Disability Decision Making, September 2000.

6. “Statement on the Supplemental Security Income Program,” Additional Statement by the

Social Security Advisory Board in the Annual Report of the Supplemental Security Income

Program, Social Security Administration, May 2000.

7. The Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods, Report to the Social Security Advisory

Board, November 1999.

8. Annual Report Fiscal Year 1999, October 1999.

9. How the Social Security Administration Can Improve Its Service to the Public, September,

1999.

10. Forum on the Implications of Raising the Social Security Retirement Age, May 1999 (Staff

document).
11. “Statement on the Supplemental Security Income Program,” Additional Statement by the

Social Security Advisory Board in the Annual Report of the Supplemental Security

Income Program, Social Security Administration, May 1999.

12. Annual Report Fiscal Year 1998, October 1998.

13. How SSA’s Disability Programs Can Be Improved, August 1998.

14. Social Security: Why Action Should Be Taken Soon, July 1998.

15. “Statement on the Supplemental Security Income Program,” Additional Statement by the

Social Security Advisory Board in the Annual Report of the Supplemental Security

Income Program, Social Security Administration, May 1998.

16. Strengthening Social Security Research: The Responsibilities of the Social Security

Administration, January 1998.

17. Increasing Public Understanding of Social Security, September 1997.

18. Forum on a Long-Range Research and Program Evaluation Plan for the Social Security

Administration: Proceedings and Additional Comments, June 24, 1997 (Staff document).

19. Developing Social Security Policy: How the Social Security Administration Can Provide

Greater Policy Leadership, March 1997.

41
42
Establishment of the Board

In 1994, when the Congress passed legislation establishing the Social Security Administration

as an independent agency, it also created a 7-member bipartisan Advisory Board to advise the

President, the Congress, and the Commissioner of Social Security on matters relating to the Social

Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. The conference report on this

legislation passed both Houses of Congress without opposition. President Clinton signed the

Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 into law on August 15,

1994 (P.L. 103-296).

Advisory Board members are appointed to 6-year terms, made up as follows: 3 appointed by

the President (no more than 2 from the same political party); and 2 each (no more than one from

the same political party) by the Speaker of the House (in consultation with the Chairman and

Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Ways and Means) and by the President pro

tempore of the Senate (in consultation with the Chairman and Ranking Minority member of the

Committee on Finance). Presidential appointees are subject to Senate confirmation. Board

members serve staggered terms.

The Chairman of the Board is appointed by the President for a 4-year term, coincident with the

term of the President, or until the designation of a successor.

Members of the Board

Stanford G . Ross, Chairman

Stanford Ross is a partner in the law firm of Arnold & Porter, Washington, D.C. He has dealt

extensively with public policy issues while serving in the Treasury Department, on the White

House domestic policy staff, as Commissioner of Social Security, and as Public Trustee of the

Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. He is a Founding Member and a former Director and

President of the National Academy of Social Insurance. He has provided technical assistance on

Social Security and tax issues under the auspices of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank,

and U.S. Treasury Department to various foreign countries. He has taught at the law schools of

Georgetown University, Harvard University, New York University, and the University of Virginia,

and has been a Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is the author of

many papers on Social Security and Federal taxation subjects. Term of office: October 1997 to

September 2002.

Jo Anne Barnhart

Jo Anne Barnhart is a political consultant and public policy consultant to State and local

governments on welfare and social services program design, policy, implementation, evaluation,

and legislation. From 1990 to 1993 she served as Assistant Secretary for Children and Families,

Department of Health and Human Services, overseeing more than 65 programs, including Aid to

Families with Dependent Children, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program,

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY BOARD

43
Child Support Enforcement, and various child care programs. Previously, she was Minority Staff

Director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and legislative assistant for

domestic policy issues for Senator William V. Roth. Ms. Barnhart served as Political Director for

the National Republican Senatorial Committee. First term of office: March 1997 to September

1998; current term of office: October 1998 to September 2004.

Martha Keys

Martha Keys served as a U.S. Representative in the 94th and 95th Congresses. She was a

member of the House Ways and Means Committee and its Subcommittees on Health and Public

Assistance and Unemployment Compensation. Ms. Keys also served on the Select Committee on

Welfare Reform. She served in the executive branch as Special Advisor to the Secretary of Health,

Education, and Welfare and as Assistant Secretary of Education. She was a member of the 1983

National Commission (Greenspan) on Social Security Reform. Martha Keys is currently

consulting on public policy issues. She has held executive positions in the non-profit sector,

lectured widely on public policy in universities, and served on the National Council on Aging and

other Boards. Ms. Keys is the author of Planning for Retirement: Everywoman’s Legal Guide.

First term of office: November 1994 to September 1999; current term of office: October 1999 to

September 2005.

David Podoff

David Podoff is visiting Associate Professor at the Department of Economics and Finance at

the Baruch College of the City University of New York. Recently, he was Minority Staff Director

and Chief Economist for the Senate Committee on Finance. Previously, he also served as the

Committee’s Minority Chief Health and Social Security Counselor and Chief Economist. In these

positions on the Committee he was involved in major legislative debates with respect to the longterm solvency of Social Security, health care reform, the constitutional amendment to balance the

budget, the debt ceiling, plans to balance the budget, and the accuracy of inflation measures and

other government statistics. Prior to serving with the Finance Committee he was a Senior

Economist with the Joint Economic Committee and directed various research units in the Social

Security Administration’s Office of Research and Statistics. He has taught economics at the

University of Massachusetts and the University of California at Santa Barbara. He received his

Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a B.B.A. from the City

University of New York. Term of office: October 2000 to September 2006.

Sylvester J. Schieber

Sylvester Schieber is Director of the Research and Information Center at Watson Wyatt

Worldwide, where he specializes in analysis of public and private retirement policy issues and the

development of special surveys and data files. From 1981 to 1983, Mr. Schieber was the Director

of Research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Earlier, he worked for the Social Security

Administration as an economic analyst and as Deputy Director at the Office of Policy Analysis.

Mr. Schieber is the author of numerous journal articles, policy analysis papers, and several books

including: Retirement Income Opportunities in An Aging America: Coverage and Benefit

Entitlement; Social Security: Perspectives on Preserving the System; and The Real Deal: The

History and Future of Social Security. He served on the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social

Security. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame. Term of office: January

1998 to September 2003.

44
Gerald M. Shea

Gerald M. Shea is currently assistant to the president for Government Affairs at the AFL-CIO.

He previously held several positions within the AFL-CIO, serving as the director of the policy

office with responsibility for health care and pensions, and also in various executive staff positions.

Before joining the AFL-CIO, Mr. Shea spent 21 years with the Service Employees International

Union as an organizer and local union official in Massachusetts and later on the national union’s

staff. He was a member of the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security. Mr. Shea serves

as a public representative on the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care

Organizations, is a founding Board member of the Foundation for Accountability, Chair of the

RxHealth Value Project, and is on the Board of the Forum for Health Care Quality and

Measurement. He is a graduate of Boston College. First term of office: January 1996 to

September 1997; current term of office: October 2000 to September 2004.

Mark A. Weinberger

Mark A. Weinberger is currently the Director of the U.S. National Tax Practice for Ernst &

Young LLP. Mr. Weinberger has previously served as Chief of Staff and Counsel to the President’s

1994 Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform (the Kerrey-Danforth Commission).

He also is a former Commissioner of the National Commission on Retirement Policy.

Mr. Weinberger served as Chief Tax and Budget Counsel to Senator John Danforth, and also as a

tax advisor to the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform (the Kemp

Commission), which studied fundamental tax reform. Mr. Weinberger has written and lectured

extensively on tax, budget, political and retirement security issues. He graduated from Emory

University; holds a Masters degree in Business Administration and a law degree from Case

Western Reserve University; and has an LL.M. from Georgetown University Law Center. Term of

office: October 2000 to September 2006.

Members of the Staff

Margaret S. Malone, Staff Director

Michael Brennan

Beverly Rollins

George Schuette

Wayne Sulfridge

Jean Von Ancken

David Warner

45

Social Security Advisory Board

400 Virginia Avenue, SW

Suite 625

Washington, D.C. 20024

Tel: (202) 475-7700

Fax: (202) 475-7715

E-mail: info@ssab.gov

www.ssab.gov