Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on the Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal Workforce 

and the District of Columbia, Committee on 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:00 a.m. EST 

Monday, March 29, 2004 SOCIAL SECURITY 

DISABILITY 

Commissioner Proposes 

Strategy to Improve the 

Claims Process, but Faces 

Implementation Challenges 

Statement of Robert E. Robertson, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

GAO-04-552T 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-552T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robert E. 

Robertson as (202) 512-7215 or 

Robertsonr@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-552T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on the 

Oversight of Government Management, 

the Federal Workforce and the District of 

Columbia, Committee on Governmental 

Affairs, U.S. Senate 

March 29, 2004

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY 

Commissioner Proposes Strategy to 

Improve the Claims Process, But Faces 

Implementation Challenges 

SSA is at a crossroads in its efforts to improve and reorient its disability 

determination process. Although SSA has made some gains in the short term 

in improving the timeliness of its decisions, we found that: 

• SSA’s disability decisions continue to take a long time to process. 

Despite some recent progress in improving the timeliness of disability 

decision-making, individuals who initially are denied disability benefits 

and who appeal still have to wait almost an additional year before a final 

hearing decision is made. In addition, evidence suggests that 

inconsistencies continue to exist between decisions made at the initial 

level and those made at the hearings level. 

• SSA’s disability programs are grounded in an outdated concept of 

disability that has not kept up with medical advances and economic and 

social changes that have redefined the relationship between impairment 

and the ability to work. Furthermore, employment assistance that could 

allow claimants to stay in the workforce or return to work—and thus to 

potentially remain off the disability rolls—is not offered through DI or 

SSI until after a claimant has gone through a lengthy determination 

process and has proven his or her inability to work. 

• The Commissioner has developed a strategy to improve the disability 

determination process, including the timeliness and consistency of 

decisions. While this strategy appears promising, we believe that several 

key challenges have the potential to hinder its progress, including risks 

to successfully implementing a new electronic disability folder and 

automated case processing systems; human capital problems, such as 

high turnover, recruiting difficulties, and gaps in key knowledge and 

skills among disability examiners; and an expected dramatic growth in 

workload. 

Delivering high-quality service to 

the public in the form of fair, 

timely, and consistent eligibility 

decisions for disability benefits is 

one of SSA’s most pressing 

challenges. This testimony 

discusses (1) the difficulties SSA 

faces managing disability claims 

processing; (2) the outmoded 

concepts of SSA’s disability 

program; and (3) the 

Commissioner’s strategy for 

improving the disability process 

and the challenges it faces. 

This testimony, which is based on 

prior GAO reports and testimonies, 

does not contain recommendations. However, these previouslyissued products contained a 

number of recommendations to 

SSA aimed at addressing concerns 

about (1) implementation of the 

electronic disability folder and the 

automated case processing systems 

and (2) human capital challenges 

such as high turnover, recruiting 

difficulties, and gaps in key 

knowledge and skills among 

disability examiners. 
Page 1 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss one of the Social Security 

Administration’s (SSA) most pressing challenges—delivering high-quality 

service to the public in the form of fair, timely, and consistent eligibility 

decisions for disability benefits. SSA administers two of the largest federal 

disability programs, Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI). In calendar year 2003, SSA paid over $85 billion in cash 

benefits to about 8.6 million beneficiaries (ages 18 to 64) with disabilities.1

In addition, SSA has spent more than $100 million since the first half of the 

1990s to address long-standing challenges concerning the timeliness, 

accuracy, and consistency of its disability decisions. However, continuing 

difficulties with claims processing—together with a program design that is 

out of synch with technological and medical advances that have increased 

the potential for some people with disabilities to work—led us in 2003 to 

designate modernizing federal disability programs, including DI and SSI, as 

a high-risk area urgently needing attention and transformation.2

Today, I will discuss some of the difficulties SSA is experiencing in its 

disability determination process and challenges the agency is facing as it 

attempts to address these issues. The information I am providing today is 

based primarily on work we have conducted over the last several years. 

In summary, we believe that SSA is at a crossroads in its efforts to improve 

and reorient its disability determination process. SSA continues to 

experience lengthy processing times for disability decisions and 

inconsistencies in these decisions. In addition, SSA’s disability programs 

are grounded in an outdated concept of disability that has not kept up with 

medical advances and economic and social changes that have redefined 

the relationship between impairment and the ability to work. To address 

these concerns, the Commissioner has developed a strategy to improve the 

disability determination process. While this strategy appears promising, 

we believe that several key challenges have the potential to hinder its 

progress, including risks to successfully implementing a new electronic 

 1

Excludes dependents and survivors who receive DI benefits. Also excludes persons 65 and 

over and children under 18 who receive SSI payments. SSI beneficiaries include recipients 

of federal SSI, federally-administered state supplementation, or both. In calendar year 2003, 

833,269 DI workers also received SSI benefits because of low income and assets. The 

number of beneficiaries is based on draft SSA data. 

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 2003). 
Page 2 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

disability folder and automated case processing systems; human capital 

problems, such as high turnover, recruiting difficulties, and gaps in key 

knowledge and skills among disability examiners; and an expected 

dramatic growth in workload. 

To be considered eligible for benefits for either SSI or DI as an adult, a 

person must be unable to perform any substantial gainful activity by 

reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is 

expected to result in death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for 

a continuous period of at least 12 months. Work activity is generally 

considered to be substantial and gainful if the person’s earnings exceed a 

particular level established by statute and regulations.3

The process of determining eligibility for SSA disability benefits is 

complex, fragmented, and expensive. The current decision-making 

process involves an initial decision and up to three levels of administrative 

appeals if the claimant is dissatisfied with the decision. The claimant starts 

the process by filing an application either online, by phone or mail, or in 

person at any of SSA’s 1,300 field offices.4

 If the claimant meets the nonmedical eligibility criteria, the field office staff forwards the claim to one 

of the 54 federally-funded, but primarily state-run Disability Determination 

Service (DDS) offices. DDS staff—generally a team composed of disability 

examiners and medical consultants—obtains and reviews medical and 

other evidence as needed to assess whether the claimant satisfies program 

requirements, and makes the initial disability determination. If the 

claimant is not satisfied with the decision, the claimant may ask the DDS 

to reconsider its finding.5

 If the claimant is dissatisfied with the 

reconsideration, the claimant may request a hearing before one of SSA’s 

 3

The Commissioner of Social Security has the authority to set the substantial and gainful 

activities level for individuals who have disabilities other than blindness. In December 

2000, SSA finalized a rule calling for the annual indexing of the nonblind level to the 

average wage index of all employees in the United States. The 2004 nonblind level is set at 

$810 a month. The level for individuals who are blind is set by statue and is also indexed to 

the average wage index. In 2004, the level for blind individuals is $1,350 of countable 

earnings. 

4

SSA permits DI, but not SSI, applicants to file for benefits online. 

5

In her September 2003 testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means, the 

Commissioner said that she intended to revise the disability determination process. For 

example, she proposed eliminating the reconsideration and the Appeals Council stages of 

the current process. 

Background 
Page 3 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

federal administrative law judges in an SSA hearing office. If the claimant 

is still dissatisfied with the decision, the claimant may request a review by 

SSA’s Appeals Council.6

 The complex and demanding nature of this 

process is reflected in the relatively high cost of administering the DI and 

SSI programs. Although SSI and DI program benefits account for less than 

20 percent of the total benefit payments made by SSA, they consume 

nearly 55 percent of the annual administrative resources. 

SSA has experienced difficulty managing its complex disability 

determination process, and consequently faces problems in ensuring the 

timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of its disability decisions. Although 

SSA has made some gains in the short term in improving the timeliness of 

its decisions, the Commissioner has noted that it still has “a long way to 

go.”7

 Over the past 5 years, SSA has slightly reduced the average time it 

takes to obtain a decision on an initial claim from 105 days in fiscal year 

1999 to 97 days in fiscal year 2003, and significantly reduced the average 

time it takes the Appeals Council to consider an appeal of a hearing 

decision from 458 to 294 days over the same period. However, the average 

time it takes to receive a decision at the hearings level has increased by 

almost a month over the same period, from 316 days to 344 days.8

According to SSA’s strategic plan, these delays place a significant burden 

on applicants and their families and an enormous drain on agency 

resources.9

Lengthy processing times have contributed to a large number of pending 

claims at both the initial and hearings levels. While the number of initial 

disability claims pending has risen more than 25 percent over the last 5 

years, from about 458,000 in fiscal year 1999 to about 582,000 in fiscal year 

2003, the number of pending hearings has increased almost 90 percent 

 6

If the claimant is not satisfied with the Appeals Council action, the claimant may appeal to 

a federal district court. The claimant can continue legal appeals to the U.S. Circuit Court of 

Appeals and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

7

Statement of the Honorable Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration: Testimony before the Subcommittee on Social Security of the House 

Committee on Ways and Means, September 25, 2003. 

8

Beginning with fiscal year 2000, the basis for calculating the average elapsed time of 

hearings level cases was changed from those cases processed only in September of the 

fiscal year to those processed throughout the fiscal year. 

9

Social Security Administration, Strategic Plan 2003-2008. 

SSA Faces Difficulties 

Managing Disability 

Claims Processing 
Page 4 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

over the same time period, from about 312,000 to over 591,000.10 Some 

cases that are in the queue for a decision have been pending for a long 

time. For example, of the 499,000 cases pending in June 2002 at the 

hearings level, about 346,000 (69 percent) were over 120 days old, 167,000 

(33 percent) were over 270 days old, and 88,500 (18 percent) were over 365 

days old. 

In addition to the timely processing of claims, SSA has also had difficulty 

ensuring that decisions regarding a claimant’s eligibility for disability 

benefits are accurate and consistent across all levels of the decisionmaking process. For example, the Social Security Advisory Board has 

reported wide variances in rates of allowances and denials among DDSs, 

which may indicate that DDSs may be applying SSA standards and 

guidelines differently.11 In fiscal year 2000, the percentage of DI applicants 

whose claims were allowed by a DDS ranged from a high of 65 percent in 

New Hampshire to a low of 31 percent in Texas, with a national average of 

45 percent.12 In addition, the high percentage of claimants awarded 

benefits upon appeal may indicate that adjudicators at the hearings level 

may be arriving at different decisions on similar cases compared to the 

DDSs. In fiscal year 2000, about 40 percent of the applicants whose cases 

were denied at the initial level appealed, and about two-thirds of those 

who appealed were awarded benefits.13 Awards granted on appeal happen 

in part because decision-makers at the initial level use a different 

approach to evaluate claims and make decisions than those at the 

appellate level. In addition, the decision-makers at the appeals level may 

reach a different decision because the evidence in the case differs from 

that reviewed by the DDS. We are currently reviewing SSA’s efforts to 

assess consistency of decision-making between the initial and the hearings 

levels. 

 10The number of pending hearings includes Medicare hearings. 

11Social Security Advisory Board, Charting the Future of Social Security’s Disability 

Programs: The Need for Fundamental Change (Washington, D.C.: January 2001). 

12A 2002 study found that adjusting for economic, demographic, and health factors cuts the 

variation in allowance rates among states in half. See Strand, Alexander, “Social Security 

Disability Programs: Assessing the Variation in Allowance Rates,” ORES Working Paper 

No. 98, Social Security Administration, Office of Policy. 

13U.S. General Accounting Office, Social Security Disability: Efforts to Improve Claims 

Process have Fallen Short and Further Action is Needed, GAO-02-826T (Washington, D.C.: 

June 11, 2002). 
Page 5 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

Moreover, in 2003, we reported on possible racial disparities in SSA’s 

disability decision-making at the hearings level from 1997 to 2000 between 

white and African-American claimants not represented by attorneys.14

Specifically, among claimants without attorneys, African-American 

claimants were significantly less likely to be awarded benefits than white 

claimants. We also found that other factors—including the claimant’s sex 

and income and the presence of a translator at a hearing—had a 

statistically significant influence on the likelihood of benefits being 

allowed.15

In addition to difficulties with the timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of 

its decision-making process, SSA’s disability programs face the more 

fundamental challenge of being mired in concepts from the past. SSA’s 

disability programs remain grounded in an approach that equates 

impairment with an inability to work despite medical advances and 

economic and social changes that have redefined the relationship between 

impairment and the ability to work. Unlike some private sector disability 

insurers and social insurance systems in other countries, SSA does not 

incorporate into its initial or continuing eligibility assessment process an 

evaluation of what is needed for an individual to return to work.16 In 

addition, employment assistance that could allow claimants to stay in the 

workforce or return to work—and thus potentially to remain off the 

disability rolls—is not offered through DI or SSI until after a claimant has 

gone through a lengthy determination process and has proven his or her 

inability to work. Because applicants are either unemployed or only 

marginally connected to the labor force when they apply for benefits, and 

remain so during the eligibility determination process, their skills, work 

habits, and motivation to work are likely to deteriorate during this long 

wait. 

 14U.S. General Accounting Office, SSA Disability Decision Making: Additional Steps 

Needed to Ensure Accuracy and Fairness of Decisions at the Hearings Level, GAO-04-14

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 2003). 

15Due to the inherent limitations of statistical analysis, one cannot determine whether these 

differences by race, sex, and other factors are a result of discrimination, other forms of 

bias, or variations in currently unobservable claimant characteristics. 

16U.S. General Accounting Office, SSA Disability: Other Programs May Provide Lessons 

for Improving Return-to-Work Efforts, GAO-01-153 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2001). 

SSA’s Disability 

Programs Currently 

Grounded in 

Outmoded Concepts 
Page 6 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

In SSA’s most recent attempt to improve its determination process, the 

Commissioner, in September 2003, set forth a strategy to improve the 

timeliness and accuracy of disability decisions and foster return to work at 

all stages of the decision-making process. SSA’s Commissioner has 

acknowledged that the time it now takes to process disability claims is 

unacceptable. The Commissioner has also recognized that going through 

such a lengthy process to receive benefits would discourage individuals 

from attempting to work.17 To speed decisions for some claimants, the 

Commissioner plans to initiate an expedited decision for claimants with 

more easily identifiable disabilities, such as aggressive cancers. Under this 

new approach, expedited claims would be handled by special units located 

primarily in SSA’s regional offices. Disability examiners employed by the 

DDSs to help decide eligibility for disability benefits would be responsible 

for evaluating the more complex claims. To increase decisional accuracy, 

among other approaches, the strategy will require DDS examiners to 

develop more complete documentation of their disability determinations, 

including explaining the basis for their decisions. The strategy also 

envisions replacing the current SSA quality control system with a quality 

review that is intended to provide greater opportunity for identifying 

problem areas and implementing corrective actions and related training. 

The Commissioner has predicated the success of her claims process 

improvement strategy on enhanced automation. In 2000, SSA issued a plan 

to develop an electronic disability folder and automated case processing 

systems. According to SSA, the technological investments will result in 

more complete case files and the associated reduction of many hours in 

processing claims. SSA also projects that the new electronic process will 

result in significantly reduced costs related to locating, mailing, and 

storing paper files. SSA is accelerating the transition to its automated 

claims process, known as AeDib, which will link together the DDSs, SSA’s 

field offices, and its Office of Hearings and Appeals. According to the 

Commissioner, the successful implementation of the automated system is 

essential for improving the disability process. 

Beyond steps to improve the accuracy and timeliness of disability 

determinations, the Commissioner’s strategy is also consistent with our 

1996 recommendations to develop a comprehensive plan that fosters 

 17Statement of the Honorable Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration: Testimony before the Subcommittee on Social Security of the House 

Committee on Ways and Means, September 25, 2003. 

Commissioner’s New 

Strategy for 

Improving the 

Disability 

Determination 

Process Appears 

Promising, but Faces 

Several Challenges 
Page 7 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

return to work at all stages of the disability process and integrates as 

appropriate: 1) earlier intervention in returning workers with disabilities 

to the workplace, 2) identifying and providing return-to-work services 

tailored to individual circumstances, and 3) structuring cash and medical 

benefits to encourage return to work.18 The Commissioner has proposed a 

series of demonstrations that would provide assistance to applicants to 

enhance their productive capacities, thus potentially reducing the need for 

long-term benefits for some. The demonstrations include early 

interventions to provide benefits and employment supports to some DI 

applicants, and temporary allowances to provide immediate, but shortterm, cash and medical benefits to applicants who are highly likely to 

benefit from aggressive medical care. In addition, demonstrations will 

provide health insurance coverage to certain applicants throughout the 

disability determination process. 

While the Commissioner’s proposed approaches for improving the 

disability determination process appear promising, challenges, including 

automation, human capital, and workload growth, have the potential to 

hinder its success.19

Automation. We have expressed concerns about AeDib, which could 

affect successful implementation of the Commissioner’s strategy. Our 

recent work noted that SSA had begun its national rollout of this system 

based on limited pilot testing and without ensuring that all critical 

problems identified in its pilot testing had been resolved.20 Further, SSA 

did not plan to conduct end-to-end testing to evaluate the performance of 

the system’s interrelated components. SSA has maintained that its pilot 

tests will be sufficient for evaluating the system; however, without 

ensuring that critical problems have been resolved and conducting end-toend testing, SSA lacks assurance that the interrelated electronic disability 

system components will work together successfully. 

 18U.S. General Accounting Office, SSA Disability: Return-to-Work Strategies from Other 

Systems May Improve Federal Programs, GAO/HEHS-96-133 (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 

1996). 

19These are problems that have been well established in our previous reports. We currently 

have a study underway that, among other issues, is reviewing challenges to implementing 

the new strategy. 

20U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Disability Claims Processing: SSA Needs to 

Address Risks Associated With Its Accelerated Systems Development Strategy, 

GAO-04-466 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2004). 
Page 8 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

Additionally, while SSA has established processes and procedures to guide 

its software development, the agency could not provide evidence that it 

was consistently applying these procedures to the AeDib initiative. 

Further, while SSA had identified AeDib system and security risks, it had 

not finalized mitigation strategies. As a result, the agency may not be 

positioned to effectively prevent circumstances that could impede AeDib’s 

success. To help improve the potential for AeDib’s success, we have made 

a number of recommendations to SSA, including that the agency resolve 

all critical problems identified, conduct end-to-end testing, ensure user 

concurrence on software validation and systems certifications, and finalize 

AeDib risk mitigation strategies. 

Key human capital challenges. We have also expressed concerns about 

a number of issues surrounding human capital at the DDSs that could 

adversely affect the Commissioner’s strategy. The more than 6,500 

disability examiners in the DDSs who help make initial decisions about 

eligibility for disability benefits are key to the accuracy and timeliness of 

its disability determinations. The critical role played by the DDS 

examiners will likely be even more challenging in the future if the DDSs 

are responsible for adjudicating only the more complex claims, as 

envisioned by the Commissioner. Yet, we recently found that the DDSs 

face challenges in retaining examiners and enhancing their expertise.21

• High examiner turnover. According to the results of our survey of 52 

DDSs, over half of all DDS directors said that examiner turnover was 

too high. We also found that examiner turnover was about twice that of 

federal employees performing similar work. Nearly two-thirds of all 

directors reported that turnover had decreased overall staff skill levels 

and increased examiner caseloads, and over one-half of all directors 

said that turnover had increased DDS claims-processing times and 

backlogs. Two-thirds of all DDS directors cited stressful workloads and 

noncompetitive salaries as major factors that contributed to turnover. 

• Difficulties recruiting staff. More than three-quarters of all DDS 

directors reported difficulties in recruiting and hiring enough people 

who could become successful examiners. Of these directors, more than 

three-quarters reported that such difficulties contributed to decreased 

accuracy in disability decisions or to increases in job stress, claims-

 21U.S. General Accounting Office, Social Security Administration: Strategic Workforce 

Planning Needed to Address Human Capital Challenges Facing the Disability 

Determination Services, GAO-04-121 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 27, 2004). 
Page 9 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

processing times, examiner caseload levels, backlogs, and turnover. 

More than half of all directors reported that state-imposed 

compensation limits contributed to these hiring difficulties, and more 

than a third of all directors attributed hiring difficulties to other state 

restrictions, such as hiring freezes. 

• Gaps in key knowledge and skill areas. Nearly one-half of all DDS 

directors said that at least a quarter of their examiners need additional 

training in areas critical to disability decision-making, such as assessing 

symptoms and credibility of medical information, weighing medical 

opinions, and analyzing a person’s ability to function. Over half of all 

directors cited factors related to high workload levels as obstacles to 

examiners receiving additional training. 

• Lack of uniform staff standards. SSA has not used its authority to 

establish uniform human capital standards, such as minimum 

qualifications for examiners. Currently, requirements for new examiner 

hires vary substantially among the states. Over one-third of all DDSs 

can hire new examiners with either a high school diploma or less.22

Despite the workforce challenges facing them, a majority of DDSs do not 

conduct long-term, comprehensive workforce planning. Moreover, SSA’s 

workforce efforts have not sufficiently addressed current and future DDS 

human capital challenges. SSA does not link its strategic objectives to a 

workforce plan that covers the very people who are essential to 

accomplishing those objectives. While acknowledging the difficulties SSA 

faces as a federal agency in addressing human capital issues in DDSs that 

report to 50 state governments, we have recommended that SSA take 

several steps to address DDS workforce challenges to help ensure that 

SSA has the workforce with the skills necessary for the Commissioner’s 

strategy to be successful. These include developing a nationwide strategic 

workforce plan addressing issues such as turnover in the DDS workforce, 

gaps between current and required examiner skills, and qualifications for 

examiners. 

Future workload growth. According to SSA’s strategic plan, the most 

significant external factor affecting SSA’s ability to improve service to 

 22Some DDSs may have higher educational requirements for some applicants or may use 

standards other than or in addition to education. The minimum educational requirements 

described do not necessarily reflect the actual credentials of DDS examiners hired by the 

DDSs. 
Page 10 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

disability applicants is the expected dramatic growth in the number of 

applications needing to be processed. Between 2002 and 2012, SSA 

expects the DI rolls to grow by 35 percent, with applications rising as baby 

boomers enter their disability-prone years.23 Over the same period, more 

modest growth is expected in the SSI rolls. SSA estimates that, between 

2002 and 2012, the number of SSI recipients with disabilities will rise by 

about 16 percent.24

The challenges SSA faces in keeping up with its workload have already 

forced agency officials to reduce efforts in some areas. For example, the 

Commissioner explained that in order to avoid increasing the time 

disability applicants have to wait for a decision, she chose to focus on 

processing new claims rather than keeping current with reviewing 

beneficiaries’ cases to ensure they are still eligible for disability benefits, 

called Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs). In fiscal year 2003, SSA did 

not keep current with the projected CDR caseload. The Commissioner 

says that this situation will continue in fiscal year 2004, despite the 

potential savings of $10 for every $1 invested in conducting CDRs.25

However, in reducing the focus on CDRs, not only is SSA forgoing cost 

savings, but the agency is also compromising the integrity of its disability 

programs by potentially paying benefits to disability beneficiaries who are 

no longer eligible to receive them. 

In closing, as stated earlier, SSA is at a crossroads and faces a number of 

challenges in its efforts to improve and reorient its disability determination 

process. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee 

may have at this time. 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Robert E. 

Robertson, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security at (202) 

512-7215, or Shelia Drake, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7172. Michael 

 23Social Security Administration, Strategic Plan 2003-2008. 

24Social Security Administration, Annual Report of the Supplemental Security Income 

Program, May 2002. 

25Statement of the Honorable Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration: Testimony before the Subcommittee on Social Security of the House 

Committee on Ways and Means, February 26, 2004. 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 
Page 11 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

Alexander, Barbara Bordelon, Kay Brown, Beverly Crawford, Marissa 

Jones, Valerie Melvin, Angela Miles, and Carol Dawn Petersen made key 

contributions to prior work covered by this testimony. 
Page 12 GAO-04-552T Social Security 

Electronic Disability Claims Processing: SSA Needs to Address Risks 

Associated With Its Accelerated Systems Development Strategy. GAO-04-

466. Washington, D.C.: March 2004. 

Social Security Administration: Strategic Workforce Planning Needed to 

Address Human Capital Challenges Facing the Disability Determination 

Services. GAO-04-121. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2004. 

SSA Disability Decision Making: Additional Steps Needed to Ensure 

Accuracy and Fairness of Decisions at the Hearings Level. GAO-04-14. 

Washington, D.C.: November 12, 2003. 

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-03-119. Washington, D.C.: January 1, 

2003. 

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Social Security 

Administration. GAO-03-117. Washington, D.C.: January 2003. 

Social Security Disability: Disappointing Results From SSA’s Efforts to 

Improve the Disability Claims Process Warrant Immediate Attention.

GAO-02-322. Washington, D.C.: February 2002. 

Social Security Disability: Efforts to Improve Claims Process Have 

Fallen Short and Further Action is Needed. GAO-02-826T. Washington, 

D.C.: June 11, 2002. 

SSA Disability: Other Programs May Provide Lessons for Improving 

Return-to-Work Efforts. GAO-01-153. Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2001. 

SSA Disability Redesign: Actions Needed to Enhance Future Progress.

GAO/HEHS-99-25. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 1999. 

Social Security Disability: SSA Must Hold Itself Accountable for 

Continued Improvement in Decision-making. GAO/HEHS-97-102, 

Washington, D.C.: August 12, 1997. 

SSA Disability: Return-to-Work Strategies from Other Systems May 

Improve Federal Programs. GAO/HEHS-96-133. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 

1996. 

Related GAO Products 

(130366) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs