GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

SOCIAL SECURITY 

DISABILITY 

Additional 

Performance 

Measures and Better 

Cost Estimates Could 

Help Improve SSA’s 

Efforts to Eliminate 

Its Hearings Backlog 

September 2009 

GAO-09-398 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2009

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY 

Additional Performance Measures and Better Cost 

Estimates Could Help Improve SSA’s Efforts to 

Highlights of GAO-09-398, a report to Eliminate Its Hearings Backlog

congressional committees 

The Social Security Administration 

(SSA) has experienced processing 

delays and significant backlogs of 

disability claims at the hearings 

level. In May 2007, SSA began 

implementing a plan for eliminating 

the hearings backlog entitled 

Summary of Initiatives to 

Eliminate the SSA Hearings 

Backlog (the Plan). In response to a 

congressional request, GAO (1) 

examined the Plan’s potential to 

eliminate the hearings-level 

backlog, (2) determined the extent 

to which the Plan included 

components of sound planning, and 

(3) identified potential unintended 

effects of the Plan on hearings-level 

operations and other aspects of the 

disability process. 

To address these objectives, GAO 

analyzed SSA data, conducted a 

risk analysis, assessed the Plan and 

its update—the May 2009 Draft 

Appomattox Plan—using planning 

criteria identified in previous GAO 

work, interviewed SSA officials, 

and conducted site visits in three 

SSA regions. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that SSA 

develop additional performance 

measures and cost estimates for its 

critical initiatives, as well as 

conduct an analysis of risks 

associated with Plan 

implementation and identify steps 

to address them. SSA said that it 

has taken or has planned actions to 

develop performance measures as 

appropriate. SSA disagreed that it 

should develop further cost 

estimates, but agreed it should 

conduct risk analyses and outlined 

steps it is taking to do so. 

SSA’s Plan should help the agency reduce its hearings-level backlog, but the 

likelihood that SSA will eliminate the backlog within its projected time-frame 

depends on the extent to which SSA’s assumptions for improved 

administrative law judge (ALJ) hiring, availability, and productivity are 

achieved in practice. Both SSA and GAO believe that the agency has about a 

78 percent chance of eliminating the backlog, that is, reducing the number of 

hearings-level pending claims below 466,000 claims, by the end of fiscal year 

2013—SSA’s target date—if those assumptions are fully realized. However, 

SSA’s assumptions project higher levels of performance achieved than recent 

experience—from fiscal year 2008 to April 2009. ALJ productivity 

improvements are especially important to SSA’s reaching its goal. The 

likelihood that SSA will eliminate the backlog by its target date changes under 

different scenarios for achieving its ALJ hiring, availability, and productivity 

goals. If SSA achieves its average ALJ productivity, but not its ALJ hiring and 

availability goals, GAO estimated that SSA’s chances are reduced from about 

78 percent to about 53 percent. Conversely, if SSA achieves its goals for ALJ 

hiring and availability, but not for average productivity, its chances are about 

34 percent. If SSA is unable to achieve any of its ALJ workforce and 

performance goals, the likelihood of the agency eliminating the hearings-level 

backlog by its target date drops to about 14 percent. 

SSA’s Plan includes important elements of the six components of sound 

planning GAO identified in previous work, but does not provide some key 

management information that could facilitate effective plan management. SSA 

did not fully address elements of two components. Specifically, the Plan does 

not include performance goals and measures for about half of the initiatives 

and cost estimates for many, which would allow SSA to evaluate the 

initiatives’ effect on the hearings-level backlog and determine resource 

allocations and return on investment. Although the Plan does not identify 

implementation risks or strategies to address them, SSA officials said they are 

developing a system that will aid in creating formal performance goals and 

measures and risk analysis, several of which SSA plans to release in the fall of 

2009. 

The Plan could have unintended effects on SSA offices involved in the 

disability process. For example, the Plan’s initiatives to increase the number 

of hearings-level decisions could affect decisional quality and accuracy, and 

increase workloads in offices that are responsible for reviewing appeals of 

hearing office decisions, processing payments for claims, and conducting 

continuing disability reviews to determine whether beneficiaries remain 

eligible for benefits. Although SSA has developed plans to address increased 

workloads related to appeals of hearing decisions and monitors other 

disability workloads, it does not have a systematic approach to identify and 

address unintended effects caused by Plan initiatives over the course of the 

Plan. View GAO-09-398 or key components.

For more information, contact Daniel Bertoni, 

(202) 512-7215, bertonid@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-398 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 4 

SSA’s Plan Should Help Reduce the Hearings-Level Backlog, but 

whether SSA Does So within Its Projected Timeframe Depends 

on SSA’s Ability to Achieve Its Key Goals 15 

SSA’s Plan Partially Addresses Five of Six Components of Sound 

Planning, but Does Not Provide Some Key Management 

Information 21 

The Plan Could Have Unintended Effects on SSA Operations, but 

SSA Lacks a Systematic Approach to Identify and Address Them 26 

Conclusions 31 

Recommendations for Executive Action 31 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 32 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35 

Appendix II Modeling Methodology and Results 42 

Appendix III Status of Plan Initiatives 47 

Appendix IV Comments from the Social Security Administration 51 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 57 

Related GAO Products 58 

Tables 

Table 1: Key SSA Offices Involved in the Disability Process 7 

Table 2: The Plan’s Approaches and Examples of Initiatives 15 

Table 3: Extent to Which SSA’s Plan Addresses Components of 

Sound Planning 21 

 Social Security Disability 
Table 4: Components of Sound Planning and Examples of Their 

Elements 38 

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2007 Regional Backlog Performance Factors 40 

Table 6: Fiscal Year 2007 Hearing Office Statistics 40 

Figures 

Figure 1: SSA’s Disability Process 6

Figure 2: DDS Initial Disability Claims Receipts, Fiscal Years 2003 

through 2008 8

Figure 3: Hearings-Level Receipts, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 9

Figure 4: Hearings-Level Dispositions, Fiscal Years 2003 through 

2008 10

Figure 5: Hearings-Level Pending Claims, Fiscal Years 2003 through 

2008 11

Figure 6: Hearings-Level Backlogged Claims, Fiscal Years 2003 

through 2008 12

Figure 7: Number of CDRs Completed at DDS Offices, Fiscal Years 

2003 through 2008 30

Page ii GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Abbreviations 

AALJ Association of Administrative Law Judges 

ALJ administrative law judge 

CDR continuing disability review 

CCS Case Control System 

CPMS Case Processing and Management System 

DARES Disability Adjudication Reporting and Evaluation System 

DCO Deputy Commissioner of Operations 

DDS Disability Determination Services 

DIODS Disability Operations Data Store 

DSI Disability Service Improvement 

FIT Findings Integrated Template 

HOTS Hearing Office Tracking System 

HPI Hearings Process Improvement 

NADE National Association of Disability Examiners 

NOSSCR National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ 

Representatives 

ODAR Office of Disability Adjudication and Review 

SSA Social Security Administration 

SSAB Social Security Advisory Board 

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

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Page 1 GAO-09-398 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

September 9, 2009

The Honorable Tom Harkin 

Chairman 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Labor, Health 

 and Human Services, Education, 

 and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable David R. Obey 

Chairman 

The Honorable Todd Tiahrt 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Labor, Health 

 and Human Services, Education, 

 and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States House of Representatives 

Each year, millions of Americans who believe that they can no longer work 

because of severe physical or mental impairments apply for cash benefits 

through the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) two disability programs—

Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income. From fiscal years 

1997 through 2006, the total number of backlogged claims in these programs 

more than doubled, with the greatest accumulation of claims occurring 

among those that were awaiting a decision at the hearings level, where 

claimants who are dissatisfied with the state determination of their claim can 

request a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Backlogged 

claims at the hearings level—those exceeding the level SSA considers optimal 

for work to continually move through the hearings-level process—rose from 

12,000 in 1999 to nearly 295,000 by the close of fiscal year 2008. In addition, 

claimants had to wait, on average, almost a year and a half after they 

requested a hearing to learn the outcome of their claims during fiscal year 

2008. In light of disability backlogs and other program challenges at SSA and 

 Social Security Disability 
 

other agencies, we first designated federal disability programs a high-risk area 

in 2003 and continue to consider them a high-risk area in 2009.1

The current recession is contributing to a significant increase in disability 

claims receipts. This occurrence has the potential to further exacerbate 

SSA’s challenges in eliminating its disability claims backlog. To help 

address increased claims receipts and its claims backlog, Congress 

provided SSA additional funding through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and its fiscal year 2009 

appropriation.2

In May 2007, SSA presented to Congress and began implementing a plan 

for eliminating the hearings-level backlog and preventing its recurrence 

entitled Summary of Initiatives to Eliminate the SSA Hearings Backlog 

(the Plan). In response to a request by the House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees, we (1) examined the Plan’s potential to 

eliminate the hearings-level backlog, (2) determined the extent to which 

the Plan included components of sound planning, and (3) identified 

potential unintended effects of the Plan on hearings-level operations and 

other aspects of the disability process. 

To address the Plan’s potential to eliminate the hearings-level backlog by 

fiscal year 2013, we documented assumptions that SSA used to project this 

target date. We examined the reasonableness of these assumptions using 

recent (fiscal year 2008 through April 2009) workload and performance 

data and interviews with SSA officials. We also used a commercially 

available forecasting and risk analysis software program to determine the 

likelihood of SSA eliminating the hearings-level backlog by 2013. See 

appendix II for additional information on our projection modeling 

methodology and assumptions used in this analysis. To determine the 

extent to which SSA’s Plan included components of sound planning, we 

assessed the Plan against criteria from previous GAO reports that 

 

1

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003), and 

High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-09-271 (Washington, D.C.: January 2009). 

2

Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 185 and Pub. L. No. 111-8, 123 Stat. 524, 800-01. The 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds were expected to allow SSA to 

process its claims in a timely manner and accelerate activities to reduce its backlog. H. R. 

Rep. No. 111-16, at 461 (Conf. Rep.). 

Page 2 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

identified desirable characteristics of an effective, results-oriented plan.3

We also evaluated additional planning documentation provided by SSA, 

including its Draft Appomattox Plan, and interviewed SSA officials to 

determine how the agency developed the Plan and is monitoring its 

implementation.4

 To identify potentially unintended effects of the Plan on 

hearings-level operations and other aspects of the disability process, we 

conducted site visits to three regions, including seven hearing offices, two 

state Disability Determination Services (DDS) offices, one program service 

center, one SSA field office, and one teleservice center.5

 We selected one 

region that performed above average and two that performed below 

average based on regional performance factors, such as the number of 

backlogged claims per ALJ. In our site selection, we also took into 

consideration regions that would potentially be most affected by the Plan 

because they had the largest backlogs. We selected the seven hearing 

offices within the three regions based on differences in terms of receipts, 

backlogged claims, and average number of dispositions per ALJ, as well as 

their reasonable proximity to each other within each selected region and 

their involvement in implementing select Plan initiatives.6

 In addition, we 

conducted phone interviews with staff from several additional offices in 

our three selected regions, including one DDS office, one program service 

center, three field offices, and one Regional Office of Quality Assurance. In 

addition, we interviewed SSA central office officials and representatives of 

relevant associations. We conducted our work between May 2008 and 

September 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

 

3

GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National 

Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004), and 

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results 

Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). 

4

The Appomattox Plan is SSA’s May 2009 draft update to the Plan. 

5

A teleservice center has SSA representatives who answer beneficiary questions about 

eligibility for benefits and SSA’s programs. 

6

Hearings-level dispositions include decisions made by ALJs as a result of a hearing, 

decisions based solely on a review of the claim file by ALJs or attorney advisors, or 

hearings-level dismissals, such as when a claimant does not show for a hearing or claims 

are returned to state DDS offices. 

Page 3 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for 

more information on our scope and methodology. 

Under the Social Security Act, SSA administers both the Disability 

Insurance and Supplemental Security Income programs.7

 Disability 

Insurance replaces a portion of income related to prior earnings levels for 

those with a Social Security work record, while the Supplemental Security 

Income program provides cash benefits to the elderly and individuals with 

disabilities who have limited or no work history as well as limited income 

and resources.8

 To be considered disabled for purposes of eligibility under 

either program, individuals must be unable to engage in any substantial 

gainful activity by reason of a medically determinable impairment that can 

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

continuous period of not less than 12 months.9

Background 

 

7

Throughout this report, when we refer to SSA disability claims, we are referring to claims 

filed under the Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income programs. 

8

Eligibility for SSI is restricted to individuals who have countable resources, determined 

monthly, that do not exceed $2,000 ($3,000) for a couple) as well as limited income based 

on certain criteria. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3).

9

42 U.S.C. § 416(d)(1)(A). Substantial gainful activity is work activity involving significant 

physical or mental activities and usually done for pay or profit, whether or not a profit is 

realized. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1572 and 416.972 (2009). 

Page 4 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

SSA Disability Process The process to obtain SSA disability benefits is complex and can involve 

several state and federal offices. The disability adjudication process, 

which is the same for Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security 

Income claimants, can involve an initial determination and an opportunity 

for reconsideration at the state level with two subsequent levels of appeals 

in SSA hearing offices and the Appeals Council, which is SSA’s final 

administrative appeals level. Claimants must file any further action in 

federal court. Claims at all levels for which the claimant is determined to 

be eligible for Supplemental Security Income payments or entitled to 

Disability Insurance benefits, also called favorable claims, are forwarded 

to other SSA offices for payment. (See fig. 1.) 

Page 5 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

Figure 1: SSA’s Disability Process 

Sources: GAO analysis of SSA data; images, Art Explosion.

$ $

Claimant contacts

SSA field office

➤ SSA field office staff determine 

if claimant meets non-medical 

eligibility requirements

➤ If requirements are met, 

application forwarded to state 

DDS initial claims level

Initial determination

➤ State DDS staff gather, develop,

and review medical and vocational 

evidence

➤ State DDS examiners and doctors

make a disability determination based 

on medical and vocational evidence

Appeals Council

➤ Administrative appeals judges

decide whether to review the claim 

and new evidence

➤ If claim is reviewed, administrative 

appeals judges decide whether to 

issue a decision or return claim to 

ALJ to issue a new decision

Eligible claim is processed 

and paid

➤ SSA field office staff process Supplemental 

Security Income eligible claims, as well as

claims eligible for both Supplemental 

Security Income and Disability Insurance, 

and forward them to program service 

centers for payment

➤ Program service center staff process

Disability Insurance eligible claims and 

make payments for all claims

Reconsiderationa

➤ Different group of state DDS staff 

reexamine prior and new evidence

➤ Different state DDS examiners and 

doctors perform the review

Hearings level

➤ Hearing office staff collect 

any additional evidence and 

prepare, or pull, the claim for 

ALJ review

➤ ALJs review the claim and 

may conduct a hearing by 

videoconference or in person

➤ ALJs render a new decision, 

which is written by ALJs or 

decision writers, such as

attorneys and paralegals

Non-medical 

eligibility met

Denied

Claimant has 60 days

to request a

reconsideration

Denied

Claimant has 60 days

to request a hearing 

before an ALJ

Denied

Claimant has

60 days to 

request an 

Appeals

Council review

Eligible

Eligible Eligible

Eligible

a

In 1999, SSA eliminated the reconsideration step in 10 states (Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, 

Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and in the Los Angeles 

area of California) as part of the Prototype Initiative. In these states, claimants who wished to appeal 

their initial DDS determination must appeal for review before an ALJ. 

Page 6 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

Key SSA offices involved in the disability process include the Office of 

Disability Determinations, which oversees state DDS offices that make 

medical determinations regarding claimants’ alleged disabilities, and the 

Offices of the Regional Commissioner, which oversees the offices that are 

involved with making payments to claimants who are eligible for benefits. 

In addition, the Office Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) 

oversees hearing offices and the Appeals Council. (See table 1.) 

Table 1: Key SSA Offices Involved in the Disability Process 

Office of Deputy Commissioner Office Function 

Operations Office of Disability Determinations Oversees state DDS offices, which determine 

claimants’ eligibility for disability benefits 

Offices of the Regional Commissioner Oversees SSA field offices, which provide a contact 

for claimants and are involved in processing 

favorable claims for payment, and oversees 

program service centers, which are involved in 

processing and making payments for favorable 

claims 

Disability Adjudication and Review Office of Appellate Operations (Appeals 

Council) 

Serves as the final level of administrative review 

under the Administrative Procedure Act for disability 

claims 

Office of the Chief Administrative Law 

Judge 

Serves as the principal consultant and advisor to the 

Deputy Commissioner on all matters concerning the 

ALJ hearing function 

Office of Management Provides administrative support for all management 

and office automation activities related to ODAR 

Retirement and Disability Policy Office of Disability Programs Plans, develops, evaluates, and issues substantive 

regulations, policies, standards, and instructions for 

the state and federal adjudicators who implement 

SSA-administered disability programs 

Quality Performance Office of Quality Review Reviews, evaluates, and assesses the integrity and 

quality of the administration of Social Security 

programs 

Budget, Finance, and Management Office of Budget Plans, develops, and executes the SSA budget, 

including for the disability process 

Source: GAO analysis of the organizational structure of the Social Security Administration. 

Individuals receiving disability benefits periodically undergo continuing 

disability reviews (CDR) to determine if they remain eligible for benefits. 

SSA generally determines when beneficiaries will undergo CDRs—called 

medical CDRs—based on their potential for medical improvement. 

However, in the case of any individual determined to be disabled, the law 

Page 7 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

generally requires that CDRs be performed for the purposes of continuing 

eligibility at least once every 3 years.10 In addition, SSA field offices and 

program service centers conduct other CDRs-—called work CDRs—which 

are reviews of beneficiaries’ earnings and work activities to determine 

whether they remain financially eligible to receive benefits. SSA is also 

generally required to conduct CDRs at least once every 3 years for 

children receiving Supplemental Security Income benefits and has 

established criteria for others receiving these benefits. 

SSA Disability Workloads Over the past several fiscal years, receipts of initial disability claims at 

state DDS offices fluctuated but also increased in each of the last 2 fiscal 

years. In fiscal year 2008, DDS offices received more than 2,600,000 claims, 

an increase of almost 4 percent over fiscal year 2006. (See fig. 2.) 

aims, 

Figure 2: DDS Initial Disability Claims Receipts, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Number of claims (thousands)

Source: SSA.

Fiscal year

 

1042 U.S.C. § 421(i)(1) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.990 (2009). 

Page 8 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

Similarly, receipts of claims at the subsequent hearings level also 

fluctuated over time but increased in each of the last 2 fiscal years.11

Hearing offices received nearly 590,000 claims in fiscal year 2008, an 

increase of almost 6 percent over fiscal year 2006. (See fig. 3.) 

008, an 

Figure 3: Hearings-Level Receipts, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 

 Number of claims (thousands)

Source: SSA.

Fiscal year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Note: While we were able to assess the reliability of these data for fiscal years 2005 through 2008, we 

were unable to assess their reliability for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 because they are archived in 

systems that SSA no longer uses to input and house hearings-level receipt data. SSA officials told us 

that there is no basic difference in the way they calculated these data in fiscal years 2003 through 

2004 and 2005 through 2008, but we were unable to validate them. See appendix I for more 

information about our data reliability efforts. 

The total number of dispositions made on claims at the hearings level, 

which includes both decisions and dismissals, generally increased in the 

last 6 fiscal years, resulting in an overall increase of more than 16 

percent—from more than 490,000 in fiscal year 2003 to more than 575,000 

in fiscal year 2008. (See fig. 4.) 

 

11Hearings-level receipts include, among other things, requests for hearings resulting from 

claims denied by DDS offices, as well as remands to the hearings level, or claims that are 

sent back for additional action from the Appeals Council and federal courts. 

Page 9 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

Figure 4: Hearings-Level Dispositions, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 

 Number of claims (thousands)

Source: SSA.

Fiscal year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Note: While we were able to assess the reliability of these data for fiscal years 2005 through 2008, we 

were unable to assess their reliability for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 because they are archived in 

systems that SSA no longer uses to input and house hearings-level disposition data. SSA officials 

told us that there is no basic difference in the way they calculated these data in fiscal years 2003 

through 2004 and 2005 through 2008, but we were unable to validate them. See appendix I for more 

information about our data reliability efforts. 

SSA measures its hearings-level performance in terms of the average time 

it takes to issue a decision (or average processing time) and the number of 

claims awaiting decisions (total hearings-level pending). Average 

processing time has increased in recent years from almost 350 days in 

fiscal year 2003 to over 510 days in fiscal year 2008.12 In addition, total 

hearings-level claims pending increased from over 550,000 in fiscal year 

2003 to over 760,000 in fiscal year 2008. (See fig. 5.) 

 

12While we were able to assess the reliability of these data for fiscal years 2005 through 

2008, we were unable to assess their reliability for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 because they 

are archived in systems that SSA no longer uses to input and house hearings-level average 

processing time data. SSA officials told us that there is no basic difference in the way they 

calculated these data in fiscal years 2003 through 2004 and 2005 through 2008, but we were 

not able to validate them. See appendix I for more information about our data reliability 

efforts. 

Page 10 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

Figure 5: Hearings-Level Pending Claims, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 

Number of claims (thousands)

Source: SSA.

End of fiscal year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Note: While we were able to assess the reliability of these data for fiscal years 2005 through 2008, we 

were unable to assess their reliability for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 because they are archived in 

systems that SSA no longer uses to input and house hearings-level pending data. SSA officials told 

us that there is no basic difference in the way they calculated these data in fiscal years 2003 through 

2004 and 2005 through 2008, but we were unable to validate them. See appendix I for more 

information about our data reliability efforts. 

Despite increases in total hearings-level claims pending, SSA data indicate 

that the hearings-level backlog for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008 

decreased. In order to calculate its hearings-level backlog, SSA defines an 

optimal pending number—the number of claims SSA considers optimal for 

work to continually move through the hearings-level process—and 

subtracts that number from total hearings-level pending. SSA has revised 

its optimal pending number twice since fiscal year 2006, in turn reducing 

the number of claims SSA considered backlogged each time. (See fig. 6.) 

Page 11 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

Figure 6: Hearings-Level Backlogged Claims, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sept. 2008

2008

May

2007

Number of claims (thousands)

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.

End of fiscal year

Note: While we were able to assess the reliability of these data for fiscal years 2005 through 2008, we 

were unable to assess their reliability for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 because they are archived in 

systems that SSA no longer uses to input and house hearings-level pending data. SSA officials told 

us that there is no basic difference in the way they calculated these data in fiscal years 2003 through 

2004 and 2005 through 2008, but we were unable to validate them. See appendix I for more 

information about our data reliability efforts. 

From fiscal years 1999 to 2006, SSA defined its optimal pending number as 

300,000 claims, and only those undecided claims that exceeded 300,000 

were considered to be backlogged. At the end of fiscal year 2006, SSA had 

more than 715,000 total pending claims at the hearings level. Thus, we 

reported in 2007 that SSA had a backlog of over 415,000 claims. However, 

in May 2007 SSA reported a new definition for its optimal pending 

number—400,000—which it identified as the ideal number of outstanding 

claims based on the number of ALJs on board. As a result, the backlog 

was, in essence, adjusted downward to just over 345,000 claims, while 

total pending claims increased to more than 745,000 claims. In fiscal year 

2008, SSA again redefined its optimal pending number to factor in the 

assumption of an optimal average processing time of 270 days.13 On the 

 

13Social Security Administration, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013 

(September 2008). 

Page 12 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

basis of the revised criteria, SSA defined its new optimal pending number 

as 466,000 claims. Thus, fewer than 300,000 hearing claims were reported 

as backlogged at the end of fiscal year 2008, while total pending claims 

increased to more than 760,000 claims.14 See appendix I for our 

assessment of SSA’s definition of optimal pending. 

 

SSA’s Efforts to Reduce 

Disability Backlogs 

In the last decade, SSA undertook a number of initiatives to improve the 

disability process and reduce or eliminate its backlogs. One significant 

initiative enabled SSA to convert its paper-based disability claims process 

to one that is electronic. SSA also introduced two other significant efforts 

designed to address the backlogs, including the Hearings Process 

Improvement (HPI) initiative in 2000 and the Disability Service 

Improvement (DSI) initiative in 2006. HPI was aimed at reducing the 

number of Appeals Council receipts by improving claims review at the 

hearings level, and DSI was a comprehensive plan to improve all phases of 

the disability claims process. There were some positive outcomes from 

these efforts, such as a DSI initiative that utilized a computer model to 

identify claims on which SSA could render a decision within 20 days. 

However, both of these efforts faltered for a variety of reasons, including 

poor execution, which slowed claims processing and resulted in several 

aspects being suspended within a few years. 

We have issued several reports on SSA’s disability program challenges. For 

example, in July 1996 we noted that increases in hearings-level backlogs 

and processing times were the result of both a surge in hearings-level 

receipts and SSA’s inattention to several long-standing problems, including 

multiple levels of claims development and decision making, fragmented 

program accountability, and decisional disparities between state agencies 

and hearings-level adjudicators.15 Similarly, in December 2007 we 

identified several factors that contributed to disability backlogs, including 

a more than 20 percent increase in disability applications in the past 

decade, substantial turnover and losses in personnel throughout the 

disability process, and SSA management weaknesses, as evidenced by 

poor planning and implementation of prior initiatives intended to remedy 

14SSA provided detailed rationales for changing its definition of the optimal number of 

pending claims in May 2007 and fiscal year 2008. However, we did not test the validity of 

SSA’s new definitions of the optimal number of pending claims. 

15GAO, Social Security Disability: Backlog Reduction Efforts Underway; Significant 

Challenges Remain, GAO/HEHS-96-87 (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 1996). 

Page 13 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

disability backlogs. We recommended that SSA fully monitor backlogs and 

better execute and evaluate initiatives to address them. SSA partially 

agreed with our recommendations and believed that it was taking steps to 

better manage disability backlogs.16 We also reported on the need to 

modernize the disability system, citing concerns that SSA’s disability 

programs use outmoded criteria for determining program eligibility that do 

not fully reflect advances in medicine and technology or changes in the 

labor market.17 We suggested that Congress may wish to consider 

authorizing an entity consisting of appropriate federal leaders to integrate 

services and support to persons with disabilities. We also recommended 

that SSA use its annual performance reports to help ensure that it places 

greater priority on updating its disability criteria and that the agency study 

how advances in medicine and technology and changes in the labor 

market could affect program eligibly criteria and benefit packages. SSA 

agreed with our recommendations and stated it is taking steps or already 

has taken steps to address these issues. 

In May 2007, SSA began to implement its current Plan, which includes 38 

initiatives organized under four approaches aimed at eliminating the 

hearings-level backlog by 2013 and preventing its recurrence. (See table 2.) 

A full list of Plan initiatives and a more detailed description of their status 

can be found in appendix III. In response to the changing economic 

environment, the agency also developed a draft plan update in May 2009 to 

document revisions to various initiatives and how it plans to implement 

them going forward, including utilizing additional Recovery Act and 

budgetary resources. 

 

16GAO, Social Security Disability: Better Planning, Management, and Evaluation Could 

Help Address Backlogs, GAO-08-40 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 7, 2007). 

17See GAO, Federal Disability Programs: More Strategic Coordination Could Help 

Overcome Challenges to Needed Transformation, GAO-08-635 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 

2008), and SSA and VA Disability Programs: Re-Examination of Disability Criteria 

Needed to Help Ensure Program Integrity, GAO-02-597 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 9, 2002). 

Page 14 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

Table 2: The Plan’s Approaches and Examples of Initiatives 

Plan approach Examples of initiatives 

1. Compassionate allowances • Use processes, such as Quick Disability Determinations, to screen claims for 

approval at the initial claims level 

• Update medical listings and definition of disability categories for the initial claims 

level 

2. Improve hearing office procedures • Reduce aged claims at the hearings level by working on claims that have been 

in the hearings process the longest 

• Allow attorney advisors to issue fully favorable decisions at the hearings level 

without requiring direct ALJ involvement (Attorney Advisor Program) 

• Hire additional ALJs and support staff for the hearings level 

3. Increase adjudicatory capacity • Improve ALJ productivity to 500 to 700 dispositions per year 

• Screen potentially favorable claims at the hearings level and return them to the 

DDS for another review and possible favorable determination 

• Open a centralized National Hearings Center to handle electronic files at the 

hearings level and conduct only video hearings 

4. Increase efficiency with automation and 

improved business processes 

• Provide additional videoconferencing equipment to conduct hearings 

• Implement electronic file assembly (ePulling) for the hearings level to help 

identify duplicates, classify documents by type of evidence, and sequentially 

number pages 

• Use electronic tools to expand reviews of reconsideration denials 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA’s Plan. 

Some Plan initiatives have produced positive results that should help SSA 

reduce its hearings-level backlog, but SSA’s ability to eliminate the backlog 

by 2013 depends heavily on achieving the greater average ALJ productivity 

it assumes. Other factors, such as ALJ hiring and availability, will also be 

important, as well as other aspects, such as the number of new requests 

for hearings. 

SSA’s Plan Should 

Help Reduce the 

Hearings-Level 

Backlog, but whether 

SSA Does So within 

Its Projected Time 

Frame Depends on 

SSA’s Ability to 

Achieve Its Key Goals 

Page 15 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

SSA has implemented some Plan initiatives that have reduced hearingslevel receipts and increased hearings-level dispositions and, therefore, 

should help eliminate the backlog. For example, the Appeals Council 

initiative, which was implemented in July 2007, has reduced the number of 

hearing office receipts. Under this initiative, Appeals Council staff correct 

technical deficiencies in written hearings-level decisions, where possible, 

instead of returning claims to hearing offices for corrections. Partly as a 

result of this initiative, the Appeals Council returned about 4,500 fewer 

claims to ALJs in fiscal year 2008 than in fiscal year 2007. 

Some Plan Initiatives Have 

Produced Results That 

Should Help Reduce the 

Hearings-Level Backlog 

The Informal Remand initiative, which was implemented in fiscal year 

2007, has also increased hearings-level dispositions. Under this initiative, 

claims that were previously denied by DDS offices are screened for 

characteristics that make them good candidates for a favorable 

determination. Typically, these are claims in which the claimants’ 

symptoms have worsened, or the claimants have provided additional 

medical evidence since the claims were originally denied. These claims are 

returned to state DDS offices where staff take a second look at them and 

decide if a fully favorable determination can be made. Since 

implementation of this initiative, DDS staff have reversed over 25,000 

previous DDS denials, allowing hearing office staff to dismiss the related 

requests for hearings and remove them from hearings-level pending. 

Because of this success, SSA officials told us that they plan to continue 

this initiative through fiscal year 2013. However, the officials mentioned 

that if DDS workloads prevent their continued participation in this 

initiative, they plan to increase the scale of another similar initiative that 

they expect will produce similar results. 

SSA also implemented two other initiatives in fiscal year 2007 that 

increased or may help increase hearings-level dispositions. In November 

2007, SSA reestablished the Attorney Advisor Program, which helped 

increase hearings-level dispositions in fiscal year 2008.18 This initiative, 

which produced 24,575 decisions in fiscal year 2008, provides authority for 

certain attorney advisors in hearing offices to issue fully favorable 

 

1873 Fed. Reg 11,349 (Mar. 3, 2008). SSA had previously discontinued this program in April 

2001. 

Page 16 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

decisions on certain claims without a hearing before an ALJ.19 Because of 

its success, SSA plans to continue this initiative through fiscal year 2013. 

SSA also implemented the Deputy Commissioner of Operations (DCO) 

Overtime initiative in June 2007, which likely helped increase hearingslevel dispositions in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. For this initiative, some 

DCO employees worked overtime to provide critical support to hearing 

office staff in preparing claims for ALJ hearings, such as by photocopying, 

preparing CDs for claimant representatives, processing paper mail, and 

filing. 

In addition to the initiatives that have already increased or will likely 

increase hearings-level dispositions, SSA’s initiative to hire additional ALJs 

should increase hearing office capacity to make future claim dispositions. 

In fiscal year 2008, SSA hired 190 new ALJs for its ALJ corps, which had 

declined to about 1,060 on-duty ALJs at the end of fiscal year 2007.20 The 

additional 190 ALJs, hired during the last 6 months of fiscal year 2008, did 

not significantly contribute to increased dispositions in that year, primarily 

because they required training and experience. However, once trained, 

they will contribute to increased hearings-level productivity in future 

years. For example, if the ALJs hired in fiscal year 2008 ultimately produce 

dispositions at the same average rate as experienced ALJs, they will likely 

produce more than 50,000 additional dispositions each fiscal year going 

forward. In addition, SSA officials plan to hire enough ALJs to maintain a 

cadre of about 1,450 ALJs by fiscal year 2011 using SSA’s fiscal year 2009 

and 2010 appropriations and some of the funding it recently received 

under the Recovery Act. 

 

19Attorney advisors include Senior Attorneys, Hearing Office Directors, Group Supervisors, 

and attorneys in Regional Offices at the GS-13 level or above. In general, the Attorney 

Advisor Program decisions helped to increase total hearings-level dispositions. However, it 

did not provide a one-for-one increase in hearings-level dispositions in fiscal year 2008 

because some of the decisions would have been made by ALJs in that fiscal year if the 

program had not been reestablished, although we could not determine how many. 

20Even though SSA hired 190 ALJs during fiscal year 2008, the number of on-duty ALJs 

increased by only 107 during fiscal year 2008 because of ALJ attrition. 

Page 17 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

The likelihood that SSA will eliminate the hearings-level backlog by its 

target date depends on the extent to which SSA’s actual workforce and 

performance levels reflect the assumptions it made for ALJ hiring, 

availability, and productivity. Using a model, SSA officials estimate that it 

has about a 78 percent chance of eliminating the backlog, that is, reducing 

the number of hearings-level pending claims below its established optimal 

pending number of 466,000 claims by fiscal year 2013.21 Using a similar 

model and SSA’s workforce and performance assumptions, we also 

estimated a similar likelihood, that is, a 77 percent chance that SSA will 

eliminate its backlog by its target date. (See app. II for more information 

on our modeling methodology and assumptions.) For these estimations, 

both we and SSA included activities funded by additional Recovery Act 

and fiscal year 2009 appropriations, and SSA’s increased projections for 

hearing receipts. SSA plans to use the additional funding, along with the 

additional $997 million it requested in its fiscal year 2010 administrative 

budget request, to hire more than 360 ALJs and 1,500 additional 

management and support staff in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

SSA’s Success in 

Eliminating the HearingsLevel Backlog by 2013 

Depends on Its Ability to 

Achieve Its Key Workforce 

and Performance Goals 

SSA’s estimate for the likelihood of eliminating its backlog by the end of 

fiscal year 2013 assumes it will meet its workforce and performance goals. 

However, if ALJs issue, on average, fewer decisions than SSA projected 

and SSA is unable to hire and train the number of ALJs planned and have 

them available in the expected amount of time, SSA will have a lower 

chance of eliminating the backlog by its target date. Because SSA’s 

projection was based on its assumptions, we ran a number of simulations 

to determine the likelihood that SSA would meet its target date if some or 

all of SSA’s assumptions, which reflected what SSA believed it could 

achieve given its new initiatives and resources, were not realized. In some 

cases where SSA’s recent experience was different than its assumptions, 

we varied the assumptions in our simulations. Elsewhere, we used SSA’s 

assumptions.22 We varied the following assumptions in our simulations: 

Average ALJ productivity. SSA assumes that average ALJ productivity will 

be at about 570 dispositions per average available ALJ in fiscal years 2009 

 

21To estimate its likelihood of eliminating the backlog by its target date, SSA developed a 

model that is used in concert with a forecasting and risk analysis software program called 

Crystal Ball. The Crystal Ball program produced results by running thousands of simulation 

trials in which the program randomly selected values for workload, performance, and 

staffing inputs from ranges that SSA prespecified. 

22Recent experience is based on fiscal year 2008 through April 2009. 

Page 18 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

through 2013.23 Our analysis of recent performance data shows that ALJs 

have not produced at 570 dispositions per average available ALJ in the 

past 5 years. Most recent experience shows that each average available 

ALJ produced at an annualized rate of about 546 dispositions in fiscal year 

2009 through April. However, since SSA plans to hire additional staff with 

funding provided through the Recovery Act, its fiscal year 2009 

appropriation, and its fiscal year 2010 budget request, we estimated that 

this number could be adjusted upward to 560 dispositions per average 

available ALJ to reflect the potential effect of the increased support staff 

on ALJ performance. 

Average number of on-duty ALJs. SSA’s goal is to hire enough ALJs to 

reach a cadre of about 1,450 in fiscal year 2011, but SSA officials told us 

that the average number of on-duty ALJs could be slightly less because of 

annual ALJ attrition and timing constraints in the hiring process. Thus, 

SSA assumes that it will be able to hire ALJs to reach an average of 1,442 

on-duty ALJs in fiscal year 2011 and maintain that level through 2013. Our 

assessment of SSA’s staffing data shows that in fiscal year 2008 the 

average number of on-duty ALJs was 1 percent lower than SSA expected, 

and in fiscal year 2009 through April, SSA’s average number of on-duty 

ALJs has been 2 percent below SSA’s expectation for the year. Thus, we 

used values for this assumption that ranged from 98 percent of SSA’s 

annual expectation to 100 percent of SSA’s expectation. 

Average ALJ availability. Generally, SSA assumes that experienced ALJs 

are available about 93 percent of the time, but for years when SSA hires 

many new ALJs, it assumes that average ALJ availability will be lower 

because the new ALJs need to be trained and gain experience before they 

start to produce at the level of an experienced ALJ. In fact, because SSA 

plans to hire ALJs in fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to reach and maintain 

a cadre of about 1,450 ALJs, SSA assumes lower average ALJ availability 

percentages in each year through fiscal year 2013—about 90 percent of the 

time in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and between 91 and 92 percent in each 

fiscal year from 2011 to 2013. Our analysis of SSA staffing data shows that 

average ALJ availability, as reported by hearing offices, was 88 percent in 

fiscal year 2008, when SSA hired 190 additional ALJs, and 91 percent in 

fiscal year 2009 through April. Because SSA plans to hire over 360 

 

23SSA agreed that 570 with a plus or minus 3 percent variation is a fair representation of the 

productivity it assumed in its model. See appendix II for more explanation about 

productivity as used in SSA’s model. 

Page 19 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

additional ALJs in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, we used values for this 

assumption that ranged from 88 percent to 91 percent (actual reported 

values). However, consistent with SSA’s expectations, we used average 

ALJ availability values for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 ranging from 91 

to 92 percent. 

For the following assumptions we used values similar to those SSA used in 

its model: 

Hearing receipts. We based our assumptions for hearings-level receipts 

entirely on SSA’s assumptions, including SSA’s subcategories and related 

ranges to vary this assumption to obtain our results. 

Informal remands reversed. We used SSA’s assumptions, since this 

initiative was new in fiscal year 2007 and little recent data existed. SSA 

used point estimates of 8,500 informal remands reversed for each year and 

did not attribute any ranges to this assumption. 

Attorney Advisor Program dispositions. Since this initiative was 

reestablished in fiscal year 2008 and thus few recent data were available, 

we used SSA’s assumptions of a most likely value of 32,300, and a range of 

plus or minus 1 percent—as SSA does—for this disposition type. 

To make our estimates, we developed a model we used in concert with a 

commercially available risk analysis software, called Crystal Ball, and used 

the assumptions we described above. Based on this model, we estimated 

that the likelihood of SSA eliminating its hearing-level backlog by its target 

date ranges from about 77 percent to about 14 percent, depending on the 

extent to which it achieves its workforce and performance goals. 

We found that 

• If SSA achieves the ALJ hiring, availability, and productivity levels it 

assumes, we estimate there is about a 77 percent likelihood of eliminating 

the hearings-level backlog by 2013. 

• If SSA achieves the ALJ productivity levels it assumes but its average ALJ 

hiring and availability remain more consistent with SSA’s recent 

experience, we estimate there is about a 53 percent chance of eliminating 

the hearings-level backlog by 2013. 

• If SSA achieves the ALJ hiring and availability levels it assumes, but its 

rate of average ALJ productivity remains more consistent with recent 

Page 20 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

experience—though increased because of additional support staff—we 

estimate that SSA has about a 34 percent chance of eliminating the 

hearings-level backlog by 2013. 

• If SSA does not achieve any of the levels of ALJ hiring, availability, or 

productivity that it assumes, and if its performance is more consistent with 

SSA’s recent experience but with productivity increased because of 

additional support staff—we estimate that SSA has about a 14 percent 

chance of eliminating the hearings-level backlog by 2013. 

SSA’s Plan includes important elements of the components of sound 

planning we identified in our previous work, but it does not fully address 

them, and may not provide some key information to facilitate effective 

plan management. Although there is no established set of requirements for 

all plans, components of sound planning are important because they 

define what organizations seek to accomplish, identify specific activities to 

obtain desired results, and provide tools to help ensure accountability and 

mitigate risks. According to SSA officials, they developed the Plan to 

promptly address the increasing hearings-level backlog and, as a result, 

implemented it before fully addressing many of the planning components. 

Although SSA’s Plan addresses some important elements of sound 

planning, such as clearly stating the Plan’s purpose of eliminating the 

hearings backlog and outlining initiatives to help SSA achieve this, it only 

partially addresses five of six components and does not address one. (See 

table 3.) 

SSA’s Plan Partially 

Addresses Five of Six 

Components of Sound 

Planning, but Does 

Not Provide Some 

Key Management 

Information 

Table 3: Extent to Which SSA’s Plan Addresses Components of Sound Planning 

Component Brief description SSA’s Plan Summary of analysis 

Purpose, scope, and 

methodology 

Addresses why the Plan was produced, the scope 

of its coverage, and the process by which it was 

developed 



The Plan does not detail the 

process by which it was 

produced. 

Problem definition, causes, 

and operating environment 

Addresses or defines the problem the Plan is 

directed toward, the causes of those problems, 

and the current operating environment 



The Plan does not discuss the 

problems affecting the hearingslevel backlog in detail. 

Goals, objectives, activities, 

and performance measures 

Addresses what the Plan is trying to achieve and 

how it will achieve those results, as well as the 

priorities, milestones, and performance measures 

to monitor and gauge results 



The Plan does not identify 

performance measures and goals 

for about half of the initiatives. 

Resources, investments, 

and risks 

Addresses what the Plan will cost, the sources and 

types of resources and investments needed, and 

where resources and investments should be 

targeted while assessing and managing risks 



The Plan does not include cost 

estimates or identify 

implementation risks. 

Page 21 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

Component Brief description SSA’s Plan Summary of analysis 

Roles, responsibilities, and 

coordination 

Addresses who will be implementing the Plan, 

what their roles will be compared with those of 

others, and mechanisms for them to coordinate 

their efforts 



The Plan mentions some offices 

involved in Plan implementation, 

but does not discuss roles and 

responsibilities or mechanisms 

for coordination. 

Integration among and with 

other entities 

Addresses how the Plan relates to other agency 

goals, objectives, and activities—and to 

subordinate levels of government 

{

The Plan does not discuss how it 

relates to other agency efforts or 

priorities. 

z Addresses 

 Partially addresses 

{ Does not address 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: The six components can be subdivided into 27 separate elements for more detailed 

assessment. If the Plan addressed all of the elements related to a component, we determined that it 

fully addressed this component. If the Plan addressed at least 1 but not all of the elements related to 

a component, we determined that it partially addressed this component. If the Plan addressed none of 

the elements related to a component, we determined that it did not address this component. 

During our review, SSA largely clarified to us how its Plan addresses four 

of the components of sound planning, even though they are not 

specifically articulated in the Plan. For example, for the purpose, scope,

and methodology component, the Plan does not detail the process by 

which it was produced, such as what analyses were used to develop the 

initiatives and who was involved. SSA officials later told us that they 

developed the Plan based on initiatives that had worked in the past and in 

consultation with management from various SSA offices. For the problem 

definition, causes, and operating environment component, the Plan 

identifies several problems driving the hearings-level backlog, including 

large numbers of hearings-level receipts, insufficient resources and staff, 

and some hearings-level inefficiencies, but does not discuss the problems 

in detail or clarify how the initiatives will address these problems. 

However, SSA officials subsequently discussed the problems affecting the 

hearings-level backlog with us and explained how the Plan initiatives 

intend to address them. We found that the problems discussed were 

consistent with those cited in prior GAO work, by SSA stakeholders 

involved in the disability process, and by staff in the seven hearing offices 

we visited. These staff stated that one problem causing the hearing office 

backlog was the lack of staff needed to prepare claims for ALJ review. To 

address this issue, SSA officials explained that the Plan includes initiatives 

to increase overtime to prepare claims and automate some claim 

preparation functions. As noted earlier, SSA recently stated it plans to 

significantly increase staff over fiscal year 2008 levels. For the roles,

responsibilities, and coordination component, the Plan does not 

Page 22 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

discuss roles and responsibilities for implementing the Plan and 

mechanisms for coordination. However, SSA officials later clarified that 

ODAR is the designated lead for overseeing overall Plan implementation; 

and responsibilities for implementing the initiatives are divided among it 

and several other SSA offices. Finally, regarding the integration among 

and with other entities component, the Plan does not include 

information on how it relates to other SSA offices and agency priorities. 

However, SSA’s strategic plan for 2008 through 2013 specifically notes that 

Plan implementation is one of the agency’s top priorities. In addition, SSA 

offices involved with the Plan also participated in a multi-office effort, 

beginning in August 2007, to examine ways to improve consistency in 

claims processing across the disability process, such as at the initial and 

hearings levels. 

SSA did not fully clarify how it addresses the two remaining components 

of sound planning: (1) goals, objectives, activities, and performance 

measures and (2) resources, investments, and risks. Within those 

components, SSA’s Plan specifically did not address three key elements: 

performance goals and measures, resources and costs, and potential 

implementation risks. 

• Performance measures. Although SSA’s Plan establishes its overall goal 

of eliminating the hearings-level backlog by 2013, SSA did not develop 

performance measures and goals for about half of the 38 initiatives. In 

addition to defining goals or desired outcomes, performance measures are 

important because they tell organizations how well they are achieving 

their goals and enable them to assess accomplishments, make decisions, 

realign processes, and assign accountability.24 While SSA tracks its 

progress in implementing initiatives, it has not established the specific 

expected outcomes that each initiative is expected to achieve with respect 

to eliminating the hearings-level backlog. For example, the Plan includes 

an initiative to provide additional videoconferencing equipment to conduct 

hearings, but it does not specify how many additional hearings are 

expected to be conducted as a result. While SSA’s fiscal year 2008 Plan 

update report notes that the number of hearings conducted through 

videoconferencing has increased and that SSA installed 145 new 

videoconferencing units, the report does not describe the impact, if any, 

the additional videoconferencing units have on the hearings-level backlog. 

In addition, the Plan includes an initiative to establish a standardized 

electronic business process to improve claim-processing time, but does 

 

24GAO/GGD-96-118. 

Page 23 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

not specify performance goals, such as how much time this effort is 

intended to save. SSA’s fiscal year 2008 Plan update report states that the 

agency is piloting this new process, but does not indicate how SSA will 

measure the initiative’s impact on processing time. In discussing our 

concerns, SSA officials stated that they are developing a system that will 

provide for developing formal performance measures and goals for the 

initiatives. Moreover, SSA officials provided examples of formal 

performance goals for four Plan initiatives that it developed as part of this 

system and stated that they plan to release performance information on a 

total of seven initiatives in the fall of 2009. 

• Resources and costs. SSA did not develop resource and cost estimates 

for many of the 38 initiatives. Such estimates are necessary for 

organizations to support decisions about whether to fund one program 

over another, develop annual budget requests, and evaluate resource 

requirements at key decision points.25 Moreover, a realistic estimate of 

program costs makes for effective resource allocation, which can 

ultimately increase a program’s probability of success. SSA developed cost 

estimates for its electronic and automation initiatives through its annual 

process for approving specific systems projects. However, SSA officials 

stated that they did not estimate costs for the entire Plan or their other 

initiatives because they determine resource needs at an office level—

rather than specifically for the Plan—and allocate resources to these 

offices according to appropriated funds and agency priorities. In addition, 

SSA officials stated that cost estimates for specific initiatives would not be 

accurate, because they overlap with the normal costs of processing a 

claim, such as staffing and operational costs. They also stated that cost 

estimates would not include potential savings the initiatives would bring 

and that these could not be determined by initiative because multiple 

initiatives may have contributed to the savings. While we acknowledge 

these challenges, we believe it is possible to estimate the costs of 

implementing the initiatives. For example, the Plan did not include cost 

estimates for an initiative to open and operate a National Hearing Center 

to hear claims from backlogged hearing offices through videoconferencing 

or its potential cost-effectiveness compared with that of a traditional 

hearing office. At our request, SSA subsequently developed staffing and 

operational cost estimates for this initiative, but SSA officials stated that 

they do not have plans to develop cost estimates for other initiatives, 

including those it considers critical to eliminating the hearings-level 

backlog, which are potentially more costly. For example, SSA did not 

 

25GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

Page 24 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

estimate the costs of hiring additional ALJs. Although SSA recently stated 

how much of its Recovery Act funds would be spent on hiring some ALJs 

and support staff and video equipment, SSA has not estimated other costs 

associated with this initiative, such as hearing office space. 

SSA stated that it had developed cost estimates associated with 

implementing all major aspects of the Plan, but we found that it only 

provided time savings estimates for a few initiatives and did not provide 

cost estimate information for many initiatives. For example, SSA stated 

that remanding cases to DDS offices to be decided by DDS staff provides a 

savings of 15 minutes per case to ODAR, but SSA did not provide the cost 

of DDS overtime needed to perform this task. 

• Risks. SSA’s Plan did not identify potential implementation risks, such as 

factors that could hinder its success, or methods to assess and manage 

these risks. Although risk management cannot eliminate all risks, it 

provides tools for making informed choices about how to use available 

resources effectively and for monitoring the effect of those choices.26 It 

involves assessing vulnerabilities and consequences and establishing a 

feedback loop that continually incorporates new information as 

organizations move forward with implementation. SSA officials stated that 

they discussed risk management prior to Plan implementation, but neither 

the Plan nor SSA has a formal method to proactively identify risks, 

monitor their effects, and develop plans to mitigate them. For example, 

SSA officials originally estimated that a Plan initiative to automate file 

assembly to prepare claims for ALJ review—called ePulling—would save 

90 minutes of support staff time per claim and reduce the need for some 

support staff. However, SSA did not consider risks or alternate 

implementation strategies, such as what SSA would do if ePulling did not 

work as expected. SSA officials stated that the ePulling initiative has had a 

negligible effect on time savings, and the Draft Appomattox Plan noted 

that not achieving the anticipated results from electronic initiatives like 

ePulling is one of several factors that has significantly compromised 

agency efforts to provide disability-related services. SSA officials stated 

they completed risk analyses for three initiatives in early fiscal year 2008 

and, as part of their effort to develop a formal risk analysis process, they 

plan to use the system they are creating to develop risk analysis 

information for a total of eight initiatives for release in the fall of 2009. 

They stated that the agency has generally performed risk analyses 

 

26GAO, Homeland Security: Applying Risk Management Principles to Guide Federal 

Investments, GAO-07-386T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 7, 2007). 

Page 25 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

informally as it rolled out initiatives and they had developed plans for 

mitigation strategies if the risks identified materialized. However, SSA did 

not provide documentation of this effort, except for the senior attorney 

initiative, and therefore we were unable to assess the extent to which 

these analyses were performed. 

SSA’s implementation of the Plan could have unintended effects on 

various aspects of hearings-level performance, but SSA does not have a 

systematic approach to identify and address them. For example, staff in all 

seven hearing offices we visited stated that SSA’s push to increase 

productivity by encouraging each ALJ to issue between 500 and 700 

dispositions annually could reduce the quality of ALJ decisions, and ALJs 

in two of these offices also stated that it could increase the potential for 

ALJs and decision writers to make technical errors when preparing 

decisions.27 Such an increase in errors could ultimately cause the Appeals 

Council and federal courts to return more claims to the hearings level for 

correction, although SSA has been taking steps that could help address 

this concern. For example, SSA developed a tool to help draft decisions 

that has reduced such errors. In addition, SSA’s Plan includes an initiative 

to develop a quality assurance program to review selected prepared claims 

and decision drafts to identify problems, such as technical errors. 

According to SSA, it will begin this quality assurance program in early 

fiscal year 2010. SSA’s Draft Appomattox Plan identifies another initiative 

intended to identify errors in cases, whereby SSA’s Appeals Council will 

review cases favorable to the claimant. SSA plans to begin this initiative in 

fiscal year 2010. Beyond technical errors, many ALJs and staff members in 

hearing offices we visited told us that the current push for greater 

productivity could increase the potential for decisional errors. Also, 

officials representing the Association of Administrative Law Judges we 

spoke with stated that asking judges to do up to 700 cases per year is 

unrealistic and cannot be done in a high-quality manner. In addition, we 

have reported concerns regarding ALJ decisional accuracy for years. In 

1996, we reported that pressure to meet the goals set out in SSA’s shortterm plan to reduce the hearings-level backlog could put the agency at risk 

The Plan Could Have 

Unintended Effects 

on SSA Operations, 

but SSA Lacks a 

Systematic Approach 

to Identify and 

Address Them 

 

27In February 2008, SSA’s OIG concluded that federal law does not prevent SSA from 

establishing a performance accountability process wherein ALJs are held to reasonable 

production goals, as long as those goals do not infringe on ALJs’ qualified decisional 

independence. SSA’ Office of the Inspector General, Administrative Law Judges’ Caseload 

Performance, A-07-07-17072 (February 6, 2008). SSA officials told us that they considered 

average ALJ production in developing the current 500-700 case per ALJ goal. 

Page 26 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

of incorrectly allowing claims, which could increase overall program costs 

for SSA and taxpayers.28 Further, in 2003, we recommended that SSA take 

action to improve ALJ quality assurance reviews.29 However, SSA’s Plan 

does not include a method for systematically reviewing the accuracy of 

decisions. SSA officials stated that the agency currently takes two actions 

to monitor ALJ decisions; however, neither of these efforts is intended to 

systematically assess the accuracy and quality of ALJ decisions. First, SSA 

reviews data on the number of hearing dispositions that ALJs issue in 

order to identify ALJs making unusually low or high numbers of 

dispositions and takes actions as necessary. However, these reviews are 

not documented. Second, SSA monitors the percentages of favorable and 

unfavorable decisions ALJs make in order to determine if these 

percentages change as ALJs increase productivity. SSA officials stated that 

in 2008 they reviewed the quality of the work of several of the highest 

producing ALJs and found no problems with the quality. They stated that 

they do not believe that asking for a minimum of 500 dispositions per year 

per ALJ would lead to concerns about the quality of dispositions. 

Some of the Plan’s initiatives could also significantly affect key hearing 

office workloads. For example, SSA’s efforts to increase ALJ productivity 

and hire additional ALJs have increased the pressure on hearing office 

staff to prepare more claims for ALJ review. Hearing office staff in all 

seven hearing offices we visited stated that more support staff are needed, 

particularly in light of normal attrition and the increased number of ALJs 

on board as a result of the Plan. Staff in four hearing offices we visited also 

told us that the increased pressure to prepare more claims has reduced 

morale. While the Plan notes that hiring more staff is essential to reducing 

the hearings-level backlog, it did not specify how many more staff are 

actually needed. Although SSA has not yet determined how many more 

staff are needed, in March 2009, SSA’s Commissioner said that the agency 

plans to hire the staff necessary to increase the national average support 

staff-to-ALJ ratio to 4.5. 

SSA’s focus on eliminating the hearings-level backlog has also affected the 

workloads of other SSA offices. For example, SSA officials stated that the 

increase in ALJ productivity resulted in some increased workloads at the 

 

28 GAO/HEHS-96-87. 

29GAO, 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). 

Page 27 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

Appeals Council, which is SSA’s final administrative appeals level. In fact, 

SSA recognized in its fiscal year 2008 through 2013 strategic plan that a 

backlog could occur in the Appeals Council as SSA increases hearingslevel dispositions. In addition, the Appeals Council initiative also increased 

the Appeals Council’s workload. As mentioned earlier, in fiscal year 2008 

the Appeals Council returned about 4,500 fewer claims to ALJs, partly 

because of this initiative. However, Appeals Council staff stated that this 

causes an increase in their workload because correcting claims takes 

longer than returning them to ALJs. SSA has included in its Draft 

Appomattox Plan specific information on plans for hiring Appeals Council 

staff and making electronic improvements, such as system enhancements 

to improve consistency, reduce errors, and speed case processing. The 

draft specifies that SSA plans to hire 14 additional Administrative Appeals 

Judges and 135 attorneys and professional staff in late fiscal year 2009, and 

a timeline for acquiring space for these staff. 

A substantial increase in the number of hearing dispositions could also 

affect the workloads of field offices and program service centers, both of 

which are involved in processing payments for approved claims. In April 

2008, the Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board testified that the 

board was particularly concerned that SSA’s focus on eliminating the 

hearings-level backlog could result in backlogs in the program service 

center operations. SSA officials responsible for allocating resources and 

analyzing workloads stated that they do not expect increases in hearings 

dispositions to contribute significantly to backlogs in field offices and 

program service centers because hearings dispositions make up only part 

of field office and program service center workloads. However, SSA 

officials had not estimated the potential impact on these workloads 

beyond the next fiscal year if ALJs sustained the planned 20 percent 

increase in productivity starting in 2010. Staff in some of the field offices 

and program service centers we contacted told us that a 20 percent 

increase would likely significantly affect workloads and their ability to 

manage them. However, these staff had no specific plans regarding how to 

manage such increases beyond reallocating resources when needed, and 

the Plan does not outline ways to address this potential workload surge. 

SSA central office officials who have responsibility for the field offices 

said that they would deal with a sustained increase in their workload by 

requesting that more staff be assigned to their offices, and noted that they 

have made some efforts to help address overall field office workloads, 

such as increasing the number of Web-based disability applications instead 

of in-person applications. However, these plans may not provide the 

immediate help that could be needed if hearings-level dispositions 

increase suddenly and dramatically. SSA officials told us that a group of 

Page 28 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

senior management officials from various SSA offices, called the Disability 

Determination Services Management Forum, recently expanded their 

work reviewing disability policies to look at broader issues across the 

entire disability process, including how the Plan affects this process. 

In addition, SSA staff we spoke with stated that the agency’s focus on 

implementing its Plan could divert resources from other critical 

workloads, such as CDRs. CDRs are key program integrity activities 

designed to ensure that only those eligible continue to receive benefits. 

CDRs have the potential to yield hundreds of millions of dollars in savings 

by removing program participants who no longer meet eligibility 

requirements. We recently reported that certain actions taken after claims 

are awarded—including CDRs, among other things—are typically delayed 

or deferred when an office is under stress.30 SSA reported that although it 

performed nearly 40,000 more CDRs in fiscal year 2008 than the 

approximately 210,000 performed in fiscal year 2007, the overall number of 

CDRs conducted annually has generally decreased over time. (See fig. 7.) 

 

30GAO, Social Security Administration Field Offices: Reduced Workforce Faces 

Challenges as Baby Boomers Retire, GAO-08-737T (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008). 

Page 29 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

Figure 7: Number of CDRs Completed at DDS Offices, Fiscal Years 2003 through 

2008 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Number of CDRs (thousands)

Source: SSA.

Fiscal year

Note: We compared CDR data given to us by SSA with data in a complementary SSA database and 

generally found similar trends in annual totals of CDRs completed at DDS offices between fiscal 

years 2003 and 2008. However, the annual totals varied slightly in each of the years, and the trend 

between fiscal years 2007 and 2008 was off by over 8 percent. 

SSA reported that it had scaled back the number of CDRs it conducts 

because of increases in other competing workloads, among other things. 

SSA officials also reported that in fiscal year 2007, the CDR workload was 

over 200,000 and was projected to increase by almost 300 percent by fiscal 

year 2013. SSA officials stated that the agency’s focus on the Plan could 

not affect the number of CDRs that could be done because funding for 

CDRs is earmarked for this purpose. In addition, they pointed out that staff 

in DDS offices—not hearing office staff—conduct CDRs. Finally, they 

stated that DDS offices did not have the capacity to absorb more staff to 

do more CDRs than these offices have been assigned, even if more 

resources were shifted to DDS offices for this purpose. However, officials 

agreed that this assessment was based on plans for the next budget cycle 

and that it did not take into account longer-range impacts over the course 

of the Plan. 

Page 30 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

SSA has faced long-standing challenges with disability backlogs, especially 

at the hearings level. SSA’s estimate that it likely will eliminate the backlog 

by 2013 is dependent on achieving higher levels of performance in key 

areas than recent experience has shown. If performance is less than 

expected, and more comparable to recent experience, SSA may be less 

likely to achieve its goal. As a result, it will be important for SSA to 

monitor its progress toward meeting initiatives that are designed to 

achieve higher levels of performance. At the same time, SSA will need to 

monitor risks to ensure that other operations are not adversely affected. 

SSA has recently taken a number of positive actions such as developing its 

own modeling capability, which will allow it to routinely check 

assumptions against actual performance. SSA has developed some 

performance goals for initiatives, estimated time savings, and plans to 

develop formal risk analyses. It will be important for SSA to continue 

these efforts to ensure that it is well positioned to make progress toward 

its goals, understand the full costs, and mitigate any possible adverse 

effects on operations. 

To help SSA monitor progress and evaluate individual Plan initiatives’ 

effect on the hearings-level backlog, inform its decisions about resource 

allocations for eliminating this backlog, and minimize adverse effects of 

the Plan’s implementation, we recommend that the Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration take the following three actions: 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• develop performance goals and measures for initiatives that currently do 

not have them; 

• develop cost estimates for the initiatives SSA considers critical to 

eliminating the hearings-level backlog in addition to the time savings 

estimates already developed; and 

• move forward with formalizing agency risk assessments associated with 

the Plan’s implementation, including assessing both risks that would 

hinder the Plan’s success and risks that could cause adverse effects or 

trade-offs related to hearings-level performance and other SSA operations, 

along with mitigating strategies. 

Page 31 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

We provided a draft of this report to the Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration for review and comment. SSA partially disagreed 

with our first recommendation on developing performance goals and 

measures. SSA stated that it has established performance goals and 

measures for 19 of its 35 initiatives and that it is in the process of 

developing goals and measures for 2 additional initiatives—the 

standardized electronic business process and the in-line quality assurance 

program, but noted that the 14 remaining initiatives are not conducive to a 

performance goal or measure.31 Instead, SSA tracks milestones to ensure 

these initiatives remain on schedule for implementation. We commend 

SSA for its efforts to develop performance goals and measures for 21 of its 

35 initiatives. However, we believe that it is possible to develop 

performance measures and goals for some of the remaining 14 initiatives. 

While tracking milestones for these initiatives provides important 

information on their status, we believe that performance goals and 

measures are needed to gauge the success of certain initiatives by 

comparing outcomes with expected results. For example, while SSA stated 

that it has milestones for the initiative related to the delivery of additional 

video hearing equipment, performance goals and measures that specify 

how many units will be added, and how many additional hearings will be 

conducted as a result, can help SSA determine the impact additional video 

hearing equipment has on the hearings-level backlog. In addition, SSA did 

not develop performance goals and measures for its initiative to improve 

hearing office management information, although identifying the ultimate 

improvements desired and how these improvements would affect the 

hearings-level backlog would allow SSA to better understand whether its 

efforts met expected results. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

SSA disagreed with our second recommendation, on developing costs for 

initiatives it considers critical to eliminating the backlog, and noted that it 

conducted a full evaluation of the costs and savings associated with 

implementing all major aspects of the Plan, which it incorporated into its 

fiscal year 2009 and 2010 budget estimates. SSA also stated that it has 

refined cost and savings estimates over time, when possible. However, we 

believe that it is also important to develop cost estimates for individual 

Plan initiatives over the entire course of the Plan—through fiscal year 

2013—because it would allow SSA to determine which initiatives provide 

 

31In our draft report, we listed 38 Plan initiatives; SSA combined 4 initiatives related to 

compassionate allowances and now refers to the result as fast-tracked initial decisions. 

SSA has added another initiative, called automated noticing, which will be in planning and 

analysis in fiscal year 2010. Thus, SSA now has 35 initiatives. 

Page 32 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

the best return on investment as it moves forward with Plan 

implementation. Such information is critical to making informed decisions 

regarding the most effective use of funds to eliminate the backlog. 

SSA agreed with our third recommendation to move forward with 

formalizing risk assessments associated with the Plan’s implementation, 

and said that it is currently developing a management tool, called the 

Disability Adjudication Reporting and Evaluation System (DARES), that 

will contain information about the overall “health” of initiatives based 

upon metrics, scheduling timelines, and risk assessments. SSA further 

stated that the first release of DARES is scheduled for August 2009, and 

future DARES releases will continue to address risks and formulate 

further mitigation strategies. SSA noted that while it is important to 

proactively identify risks, this activity must be balanced with the urgency 

to take action to help those who have long waited for a hearing decision. 

In its comments SSA agreed that ALJ productivity is critical to the success 

of its backlog reduction efforts. SSA reiterated that, even with the 

variability it estimated for ALJ productivity, it believes it has a 78 percent 

chance of eliminating the backlog by the end of fiscal year 2013 and is on 

track to meet its ALJ productivity goals. However, SSA agreed that in 

order to stay on course to reach its 2013 goal, it would have to fully realize 

its assumptions—particularly its goals for ALJ hiring and estimates about 

workload receipts—and receive timely, adequate, and sustained funding. 

In conclusion, SSA agreed that it needs to take a closer look at the effect 

that a 20 percent increase in ALJ productivity could have on its operations 

and stated that it is in the process of doing so. SSA believes that the 

following steps have improved the processing of the hearings-level 

disposition workload: 

• Electronically identifying and tracking all hearings-level disposition cases. 

This process, developed in January 2008 in one program service center, is 

aimed at providing improved customer service by allowing these cases to 

be worked based on the hearing request date. 

• Better managing and tracking hearings-level disposition cases and 

improving the proficiency and efficiency of staff through the establishment 

of a centralized group of staff assigned to process these cases. SSA 

established this group in one program service center in August 2008. 

Page 33 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
 

• Monitoring hearings-level disposition receipts daily to increase the focus 

on processing hearings-level disposition cases, including dedicating 

overtime resources to this effort as needed. 

• Hiring additional staff in the Program Service Centers in anticipation of 

increasing hearings-level disposition cases. 

SSA’s written comments are reproduced in appendix IV. SSA also provided 

technical comments, which were incorporated into the report as 

appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Commissioner of SSA and 

others who are interested. The report is also available at no charge on 

GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. Staff members making key contributions to this 

Daniel Bertoni 

report are listed in appendix V. 

Director 

kforce, 

ome Security Issues 

Education, Wor

 and Inc

Page 34 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix I: 

Methodology 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Page 35 GAO-09-398 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

We were asked to evaluate the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) plan 

for reducing the hearings-level backlog and preventing its recurrence, 

entitled Summary of Initiatives to Eliminate the SSA Hearings Backlog

(the Plan). Specifically, we (1) examined the Plan’s potential to eliminate 

the hearings-level backlog, (2) determined the extent to which the Plan 

included components of sound planning, and (3) identified potential 

unintended effects of the Plan on hearings-level operations and other 

aspects of the disability process. To address these objectives, we analyzed 

SSA workload and performance data at multiple disability process levels 

for fiscal year 2003 through April 2009, assessed the Plan and the Draft 

Appomattox Plan using sound planning criteria from prior GAO reports, 

conducted interviews and site visits with SSA central and field officials 

and disability-related associations, and reviewed relevant documents from 

SSA and other organizations. In addition, to address the Plan’s potential to 

eliminate the hearings-level backlog by fiscal year 2013, we documented 

assumptions that SSA used to make this projection. We examined the 

reasonableness of these assumptions based on our analysis of SSA’s 

workload and performance data and on interviews with SSA officials. We 

also used a commercially available forecasting and risk analysis software 

program to determine SSA’s likelihood of eliminating the hearings-level 

backlog by 2013. For additional information on our projection modeling 

methodology and assumptions used in this analysis, see appendix II. We 

conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to September 2009 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

We obtained and analyzed historical SSA workload and performance data 

related to processing Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security 

Income disability claims and continuing disability review (CDR) decisions, 

primarily for the Disability Determination Services (DDS) initial and 

hearings levels of the disability process, including the following:1

Analysis of SSA 

Workload and 

Performance Data 

 

1

Throughout this appendix, when we refer to SSA disability claims, we are referring to 

claims filed under the Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income programs. 

 Social Security Disability 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

DDS initial level. We analyzed nationwide annual totals of DDS initial 

claims receipts and CDR decisions for the time period from fiscal years 

2003 to 2008. In addition, we analyzed nationwide annual totals of informal 

remands processed and reversed by DDS offices during fiscal years 2007, 

2008, and 2009 through April.2

Hearings level. We analyzed hearings-level staffing data in September of 

each fiscal year, 2003 through 2008 and fiscal year 2009 through April, for 

the nation. For fiscal years 2003 through 2008, we analyzed annual totals of 

hearings-level receipts, dispositions, and pending claims for the nation, 

and we also analyzed dispositions for fiscal year 2009 through April. For 

fiscal years 2005 through 2008, we analyzed nationwide annual totals of 

Appeals Council remands to hearing offices and nationwide average 

hearings-level processing time. In addition, we analyzed the fiscal year 

2008 and fiscal year 2009 through April totals of fully favorable decisions 

made by attorney advisors.3

To calculate the hearings-level backlog at the end of each of fiscal years 

2003 through 2008 and fiscal year 2009 through April, we compared SSA’s 

optimal number of pending claims with the actual number of pending 

claims. If the actual number of pending claims exceeded the optimal 

number of pending claims, the difference was the backlog. SSA redefined 

its optimal number of pending claims two times during the period covered 

by our review: in May 2007 and again in fiscal year 2008. We did not test 

the validity of SSA’s new definitions of its optimal number of pending 

claims, but SSA provided detailed rationales for the changes. 

The workload and performance data we analyzed came from several 

sources within SSA. SSA said that data for the DDS initial level came from 

SSA’s Disability Operations Data Store (DIODS), which contains data 

submitted by state DDS agencies. Data for the hearings level came from 

SSA’s Case Control System (CCS), Case Processing and Management 

System (CPMS), and Biweekly Staffing Reports. To assess the reliability of 

the hearings-level workload and performance data that SSA provided, we 

conducted limited tests for which we obtained comparable data sources 

 

2

SSA implemented the Informal Remand initiative in June 2007; thus data for this initiative 

do not exist prior to fiscal year 2007. 

3

SSA implemented the reestablished Attorney Advisor Program in November 2007, thus 

data for this initiative do not exist between fiscal years 2003 and 2007. 73 Fed. Reg 11,349 

(Mar. 3, 2008). 

Page 36 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

identified by SSA. For example, we obtained SSA-831 and SSA-833 data as 

substitutes for DIODS and CPMS Management Information data as 

substitutes for CPMS data. We applied the methodology that SSA officials 

told us they use to calculate workload and performance data to the 

comparable data sources provided to us for our reliability testing, and 

compared the results from our analyses with the results reported by SSA. 

We also interviewed SSA officials and reviewed documents regarding the 

reliability of these data. In general, we determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review, although we did find 

one limitation with DIODS data on CDR decisions at the DDS initial level 

in fiscal year 2008 that we acknowledge in the report when discussing 

those data. 

While we were able to assess the reliability of hearings-level receipts, 

dispositions, and pending claims; Appeals Council and court remands to 

hearing offices; and average hearings-level processing time data for fiscal 

years 2005 through 2008, we were unable to assess the reliability of these 

data for fiscal years 2003 and 2004. SSA provided two sources for these 

data: Hearing Office Tracking System (HOTS), which was replaced by 

CPMS in fiscal year 2005, and CCS. However, we found that we could not 

assess the reliability of the data using either source. First, HOTS did not 

contain raw data that we could manipulate. Second, SSA no longer uses 

CCS to generate hearings-level workload and performance data, had 

concerns about the reliability of these data, and no longer had staff with 

technical expertise and knowledge of these data to help us in our 

validation efforts. 

To determine the extent to which SSA’s Plan included components of 

sound planning, we assessed the Plan based on criteria from previous 

GAO reports.4

 In these reports we defined a number of desirable 

characteristics of an effective, results-oriented plan, or components of 

sound planning. Although there is no established set of requirements for 

all plans, we determined that these components of sound planning help 

implementing parties and decision makers effectively shape policies, 

programs, priorities, and resource allocations so that they can achieve 

desired results while ensuring accountability. While the components may 

be organized in a variety of ways and/or use different terms, we present 

them in six categories, from plan conception to implementation. Table 4 

Components of Sound 

Planning 

 

4

GAO-04-408T and GAO/GGD-96-118. 

Page 37 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

describes the components of sound planning and examples of their 

elements. 

Table 4: Components of Sound Planning and Examples of Their Elements 

Component Examples of elements 

1. Purpose, scope, and methodology • Discusses the plan’s purpose 

• Defines or discusses key terms, major functions, mission areas, or activities the plan 

covers 

• Discusses the process that produced the plan 

2. Problem definition, causes, and 

operating environment 

• Includes a detailed discussion or definition of the problems the plan intends to address

• Includes a detailed discussion of the causes of the problems 

• Includes a detailed discussion of the operating environment 

3. Goals, objectives, activities, and 

performance measures 

• Addresses plan goals and subordinate objectives 

• Identifies specific activities to achieve results 

• Addresses priorities, milestones, and outcome-related performance measures 

• Identifies process to monitor and report on progress 

4. Resources, investments, and risks • Identifies what the plan will cost 

• Identifies the sources and types of resources or investments needed 

• Addresses where resources or investments should be targeted to balance risks and 

costs 

• Identifies risk management principles and how they will aid implementing parties in 

prioritizing and allocating resources 

5. Roles, responsibilities, and 

coordination 

• Addresses who will be implementing the plan 

• Addresses lead, support, and partner roles and responsibilities of specific federal 

agencies, departments, or offices 

• Addresses mechanisms and processes for parties to coordinate efforts both within the 

agency and with other agencies 

6. Integration among and with other 

entities 

• Addresses how the plan relates to other federal/state offices or agencies (horizontal) 

• Addresses integration with relevant documents from federal, state, and subordinate 

levels (vertical) 

Source: GAO. 

We conducted site visits to the National Hearing Center and to 3 of 10 SSA 

regions—Atlanta (region 4), Chicago (region 5), and Seattle (region 10)—

to obtain information about the challenges of implementing Plan initiatives 

and the Plan’s potential effects on hearing offices and other SSA 

operations. During these site visits, we interviewed a variety of staff from 

seven hearing offices, including Hearing Office Directors, administrative 

law judges (ALJ), decision writers, and support staff. We also interviewed 

Site Visits and Phone 

Interviews with SSA 

Central Office and 

Field Staff 

Page 38 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

officials at three regional Office of Disability Adjudication and Review 

(ODAR) offices, two state DDS offices, one program service center, and 

one teleservice center located in our three selected regions.5

 In addition 

we conducted phone interviews with staff from several additional offices 

in our three selected regions, including one DDS office, one program 

service center, three field offices, and one Regional Office of Quality 

Assurance. 

We used several criteria to select the regions for our site visits. We 

selected one region that performed above average (region 10) and two that 

performed below average (regions 4 and 5) based on fiscal year 2007 

regional backlog performance factors that we calculated, including the 

size of the backlog at the end of fiscal year 2007, the number of 

backlogged claims per ALJ at the end of fiscal year 2007, and the number 

of backlogged claims in relation to both the number of receipts and the 

number of dispositions in fiscal year 2007. We also took into consideration 

that regions 4 and 5 would potentially be most affected by the Plan 

because together they represented over 60 percent of total backlogged 

hearings-level claims at the end of fiscal year 2007, each comprising over 

30 percent of the backlog on that date.6

 In addition, Chicago and Seattle 

were the two regions that GAO previously identified as having a large 

percentage of aged claims within them.7

 (See table 5.) 

 

5

A teleservice center has SSA representatives who answer beneficiary questions about 

eligibility for benefits and SSA’s programs. 

6

Region 10 (Seattle) represented about 3 percent of total backlogged hearings claims at the 

end of fiscal year 2007. 

7

Although Region 10 (Seattle) performed above average according to regional backlog 

performance factors, we reported in GAO-08-40 that about half of the dispositions rendered 

in fiscal year 2006 in regions 5 (Chicago) and 10 (Seattle) took on average between 600 and 

999 days. Processing times in region 4 (Atlanta) appeared consistent with national 

averages. 

Page 39 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2007 Regional Backlog Performance Factors 

Backlog at the end of 

the fiscal year 

Number of backlogged 

claims per full-time, 

on-duty ALJ

Backlog as a 

percentage of total 

receipts 

Backlog as a 

percentage of total 

dispositions

Nation 362,253 339 63 66

Region 1 (Boston) 0 0 0 0

Region 2 (New York) 33,873 346 65 64

Region 3 (Philadelphia) 20,211 166 29 31

Region 4 (Atlanta) 118,241 448 77 83

Region 5 (Chicago) 111,009 681 109 136

Region 6 (Dallas) 29,977 217 42 41

Region 7 (Kansas City) 29,129 594 92 113

Region 8 (Denver) 7,649 255 50 49

Region 9 (San Francisco) 4,560 37 9 9

Region 10 (Seattle) 11,324 315 66 66

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

Within these 3 regions, we selected seven hearing offices showing 

differences in terms of receipts, backlogged claims, and average number of 

dispositions per ALJ in fiscal year 2007. We selected these hearing offices, 

in part because they were within reasonable proximity to each other 

within each selected region and were involved with implementing selected 

Plan initiatives in fiscal year 2008. All of the offices had implemented the 

Attorney Advisor Program, and one office was piloting the ePulling 

initiative, both of which SSA believes are key to reducing the backlog. (See 

table 6.) 

Table 6: Fiscal Year 2007 Hearing Office Statistics 

Hearing office Receipts

Backlog 

(end of fiscal 

year) 

Average number 

of dispositions 

per ALJ

Region 4 Atlanta 4,969 6,662 394 

Region 4 Atlanta North 5,902 9,042 559

Region 4 Tupelo 3,774 1,281 446

Region 5 Chicago 4,207 2,193 396 

Region 5 Evanston 3,770 0 431

Region 5 Oak Brook 4,543 1,675 442

Region 10 Seattle 6,080 4,052 467 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

Page 40 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

In addition, we interviewed SSA central office officials, including officials 

from ODAR, the offices of the Deputy Commissioners for Operations and 

Quality Performance, and the offices of the Chief Administrative Law 

Judge, Disability Determinations, Budget, Systems, and the Chief Actuary. 

We also interviewed officials from various associations, including the 

National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), the Association of 

Administrative Law Judges (AALJ), the National Council of Disability 

Determination Directors, the National Council of Social Security 

Management Associations, the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB), 

and the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ 

Representatives (NOSSCR). 

To analyze information from the interviews and site visits, we conducted a 

content analysis using NVivo software and identified factors that 

contributed to the hearings backlog and the Plan’s potential effects on 

hearing offices and other SSA operations. Of 20 potential effects identified, 

we selected 8 to highlight in this report based on a number of factors, 

including how often the effect was cited, the potential severity of the 

effect, and whether SSA had addressed the effect. 

We reviewed SSA’s Plan and Draft Appomattox Plan, end-of-year annual 

and semiannual Plan status reports from September 2007 through 

September 2008, and other documents SSA provided to supplement 

information in the Plan. We also reviewed prior reports and testimonies 

from GAO, SSA, and SSA’s Office of the Inspector General on the hearings 

backlog. We also reviewed position papers and testimonies from a number 

of national disability-related organizations, including NADE, AALJ, 

NOSSCR, and SSAB. We reviewed these documents to gather information 

on how SSA developed the Plan and monitored its progress and to gather 

evaluations of and concerns about the Plan. 

Document Review 

Page 41 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix II: M

Results 

odeling Methodology and 

Page 42 GAO-09-398 

Appendix II: Modeling Methodology and 

Results 

This appendix describes the methodology and results of the analysis we 

used to estimate the likelihood that the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) will eliminate the hearings-level backlog by the end of fiscal year 

2013. Specifically, this appendix contains a discussion of the following: 

• the simulation technique and modeling framework we used to estimate the 

likelihood that SSA will reach its backlog elimination target, 

• SSA’s modeling framework and results, 

• SSA’s assumptions and recent experience, and 

• a comparison of results from various alternate scenarios. 

To conduct our analysis, we developed a modeling framework based on a 

spreadsheet that SSA used to support its fiscal year 2010 budget request in 

which it made assumptions about workload, performance, and staffing 

levels through fiscal year 2013. SSA’s Office of Budget originally developed 

this spreadsheet to evaluate the reasonableness of the SSA 

Commissioner’s goal of eliminating the backlog by the end of fiscal year 

2013. SSA’s spreadsheet begins with total hearings-level pending at the end 

of fiscal year 2008 and extends through fiscal year 2013, and includes 

SSA’s updated actuarial projections of disability receipts, expectations 

about the effect of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and plans for increased fiscal year 2010 budget 

funding.1

 We used SSA’s spreadsheet as the basis for our modeling 

framework that we input into a commercially available forecasting and 

risk analysis software program called Crystal Ball to project the likelihood 

that SSA would eliminate the backlog by its target date, given various 

scenarios. Specifically, the Crystal Ball program produced results for each 

of the scenarios by running thousands of simulation trials in which the 

program randomly selected values for workload, performance, and 

staffing inputs from ranges that we prespecified. 

Modeling 

Methodology 

 

1

Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 185-86. 

 Social Security Disability 
Appendix II: Modeling Methodology and 

Results 

SSA developed a similar modeling framework that it used in concert with a 

Crystal Ball software program to estimate that it has a 78 percent chance 

of eliminating the hearings-level backlog by the end of fiscal year 2013. 

SSA officials told us that their framework should not produce results 

substantially different than those from our framework, given the same 

assumptions, because it uses the same basic calculation—starting with 

total hearings-level cases pending at the end of fiscal year 2008 and 

extending through fiscal year 2013. SSA officials stated that their 

framework uses slightly different assumptions for productivity and more 

detailed assumptions for hearings-level receipts. For example, in our 

framework, there is one high-level summary total for hearings-level 

receipts, but in SSA’s framework, the hearings-level receipts total is 

broken out into four subcategories, each of which has its own minimum, 

maximum, and most likely values. We reviewed SSA’s framework to better 

understand SSA’s estimate of its likelihood for eliminating the hearings 

backlog by its projected date, but given our time constraints, we were 

unable to validate the appropriateness of SSA’s new framework. 

In both its fiscal year 2010 budget request spreadsheet and modeling 

framework, SSA includes assumptions about future levels of hearings-level 

receipts and dispositions—both of which affect the likelihood that SSA 

will eliminate its backlog. While hearings-level receipts are driven in part 

by factors outside of SSA’s control, including the health of the economy, 

size of the population, and appeals file rates, given adequate funding, 

hearings-level dispositions are primarily driven by factors within SSA’s 

control, including its ability to achieve workforce and performance goals. 

Because hearings-level dispositions can be controlled by SSA, we 

evaluated SSA’s recent actual workforce and performance experience to 

determine the impact on its likelihood for eliminating the backlog by fiscal 

year 2013, if SSA does not meet its goals. To estimate these results, we 

used performance and staffing data from SSA’s Office of the Deputy 

Commissioner for Disability Adjudication and Review and Office of 

Disability Determinations for fiscal year 2008 through April 2009. For the 

workforce and performance assumptions that we varied differently than 

SSA, we primarily used these recent experience data to formulate our 

minimum, maximum, and most likely values, but also included SSA’s 

expected values, to allow that SSA could at least achieve its goals. See 

below. 

SSA’s Modeling 

Framework and 

Results 

SSA’s Assumptions 

and Recent Workforce 

and Performance 

Experience 

Hearings-level receipts. We used SSA’s hearings-level receipts 

assumptions to vary this assumption for our results in all of our scenarios, 

Page 43 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix II: Modeling Methodology and 

Results 

including SSA’s subcategories and related maximum, minimum, and most 

likely values. 

Average number of on-duty ALJs. SSA’s goal is to hire enough ALJs to 

reach a cadre of about 1,450 in fiscal year 2011, but SSA officials told us 

that the average number of on-duty ALJs could be slightly less because of 

annual ALJ attrition and timing constraints in the hiring process. Thus, 

SSA assumes that it will be able to hire ALJs to reach an average of 1,442 

ALJs on duty in fiscal year 2011 and maintain that level through 2013. Our 

assessment of SSA’s staffing data shows that in fiscal year 2008, SSA’s 

average number of on-duty ALJs was 1 percent lower than SSA expected, 

and in fiscal year 2009 through April, SSA’s average number of on-duty 

ALJs was 2 percent below SSA’s expectation for the year. Thus, to 

estimate the impact of SSA’s not meeting this goal, we used values for this 

assumption that ranged from 98 percent of SSA’s annual expectation to 

100 percent of SSA’s expectation, with a most likely value of 99 percent of 

SSA’s expectation—the difference actually experienced by SSA in fiscal 

year 2008. 

Average ALJ availability. Generally, SSA assumes that experienced ALJs 

are available about 93 percent of the time, but in years when SSA hires 

many new ALJs, it assumes that average ALJ availability will be lower 

because the new ALJs need to be trained and gain experience before they 

start to produce at the level of an experienced ALJ. In fact, because SSA 

plans to hire ALJs in fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to reach and maintain 

a cadre of about 1,450 ALJs, SSA assumes lower average ALJ availability 

percentages in each year through fiscal year 2013—about 90 percent of the 

time in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and between 91 and 92 percent in each 

fiscal year from 2011 to 2013. Our analysis of SSA staffing data shows that 

average ALJ availability, as reported by hearing offices, was 88 percent in 

fiscal year 2008, when SSA hired 190 additional ALJs, and 91 percent in 

fiscal year 2009 through April. Because SSA plans to hire over 360 

additional ALJs in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, we used values for this 

assumption that ranged from 88 percent to 91 percent, actual reported 

values, with a most likely value of SSA’s expected average of 90 percent. 

However, consistent with SSA’s expectations, we used average ALJ 

availability values for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, ranging from 91 to 92 

percent, with a most likely average availability of 92 percent. 

Average ALJ productivity. SSA assumes that average ALJ productivity will 

be about 570 dispositions per average available ALJ in fiscal years 2009 

through 2013. Though SSA’s way for measuring productivity in its 

modeling framework differs slightly from the measure we used in our 

Page 44 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix II: Modeling Methodology and 

Results 

modeling framework, SSA officials agreed that an average ALJ 

productivity of 570 plus or minus 3 percent was a fair representation of its 

productivity assumption. Our analysis of recent performance data shows 

that ALJs have not produced 570 dispositions per average available ALJ in 

the past 5 years. Most recent experience shows that each average available 

ALJ produced at an annualized rate of about 546 dispositions in fiscal year 

2009 through April. However, since SSA plans to hire additional support 

staff with funding provided through the Recovery Act, its fiscal year 2009 

appropriation, and its fiscal year 2010 budget request, we estimated that 

this number could be adjusted upward to 560 dispositions per average 

available ALJ to reflect the potential effect of the increased support staff 

on ALJ performance. Consistent with SSA’s treatment of a similar 

assumption about productivity, we assumed a variation of plus or minus 3 

percent around this value to develop our minimum and maximum average 

ALJ productivity range. 

Informal remands reversed. Since this initiative was new in fiscal year 

2007, and thus few recent data existed, we used SSA’s assumptions in our 

modeling framework. SSA used point estimates of 8,500 informal remands 

reversed for each year and did not attribute maximum, minimum, and 

most likely values to this disposition type. 

Attorney Advisor Program dispositions. Since this initiative was 

reestablished in fiscal year 2008, and thus few recent data existed, we used 

SSA’s assumptions in our modeling framework. SSA used a most likely 

value of 32,300, and a range of plus or minus 1 percent of 32,300 for this 

disposition type. 

To test the consistency between SSA’s and our modeling frameworks, we 

used an approximation of SSA’s more detailed assumptions in our 

framework, since SSA officials told us the assumptions were generally still 

appropriate, and estimated that SSA has a 77 percent likelihood of 

eliminating the backlog by fiscal year 2013. 

Results from Various 

Alternate Scenarios 

In addition to replicating SSA’s results, we ran several alternate scenarios 

with varying assumptions to show how the likelihood of SSA’s eliminating 

the backlog by the end of fiscal year 2013 may change if SSA is able to 

make progress toward its goals on workforce or performance, but not 

achieve them completely. For all of our alternate scenarios, we used 

varying combinations of SSA’s assumptions and assumptions from our 

assessment of recent SSA experience about average numbers, availability, 

and productivity of ALJs. In these scenarios, we found that 

Page 45 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix II: Modeling Methodology and 

Results 

• If SSA achieves the ALJ productivity levels it assumes, but its average ALJ 

hiring and availability are consistent with SSA’s recent experience, we 

estimate it has about a 53 percent chance of eliminating the hearings-level 

backlog by 2013.2

• If SSA achieves the ALJ hiring and availability levels it assumes, but its 

average ALJ productivity is consistent with SSA’s recent experience, but 

increased because of additional support staff, we estimate that it has about 

a 34 percent chance eliminating the hearing-level backlog by 2013.3

• If SSA does not achieve any of the levels of ALJ hiring, availability, or 

productivity that it assumes, and if its performance is consistent with 

SSA’s recent experience—but productivity is increased because of 

additional support staff—we estimate that SSA has about a 14 percent 

chance of eliminating the hearings-level backlog by 2013.4

 

2

The number of claims backlogged could range from -199,355 to 171,318. 

3

The number of claims backlogged could range from -155,151 to 195,925. 

4

The number of claims backlogged could range from -125,897 to 228,092. 

Page 46 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix III: Status of Plan Initiatives 

Plan initiativesa

SSA’s intended effects on the 

hearings backlogb

Status as of fiscal year 2008 year endc

Approach: compassionate allowances 

1 Use processes, such as Quick Disability 

Determinations, to screen claims for 

approval at the initial claims level 

Indirect effect—allow claims to be 

decided quicker and improve accuracy at 

the initial claims level, possibly reducing 

the number of claims entering the 

hearings level 

Was not included in SSA’s fiscal year 

2008 Year End Annual Report on the 

Plan. 

2 Update medical listings and definition of 

disability categories for the initial claims 

level 

Indirect effect—allow claims to be 

decided quicker and improve accuracy at 

the initial claims level, possibly reducing 

the number of claims entering the 

hearings level 

Was not included in SSA’s fiscal year 

2008 Year End Annual Report on the 

Plan. 

3 Reorganize the Office of Disability and 

Income Support Programs 

Does not relate—SSA noted that 

initiative should be deleted from the Plan 

Was not included in SSA’s fiscal year 

2008 Year End Annual Report on the 

Plan. 

4 Refine two primary Disability 

Determination Services (DDS) electronic 

systems for the initial claims level 

Indirect effect—improve electronic 

capabilities by supporting systems at the 

initial claims level for other Plan 

initiatives, including Quick Disability 

Determinations and processing informal 

remands from the hearings level 

Was not included in SSA’s fiscal year 

2008 Year End Annual Report on the 

Plan. 

Approach: improve hearing office procedures 

5 Reduce aged claims at the hearings 

level by working on those that have been 

in the hearings process the longest 

Improve processing time as claims 

become more current by reducing the 

number of older claims, which may take 

longer to process than newer ones 

Eliminated all claims that would be 1,000 

days old in fiscal year 2007 and 900 

days old in fiscal year 2008, and work on 

850-day old claims in fiscal year 2009. 

6 Allow attorney advisors to issue fully 

favorable decisions at the hearings level 

without direct ALJ involvement (Attorney 

Advisor Program) 

Increase dispositions and improve 

processing time by expediting claims that 

are screened to be fully favorable 

Attorney advisors issued 24,575 fully 

favorable decisions in fiscal year 2008. 

7 Hire additional ALJs and support staff for 

the hearings level, appoint senior judges, 

and hire ALJs from other agencies 

Increase dispositions A total of190 new ALJs were hired in 

fiscal year 2008. The number of support 

staff hired was not included in SSA’s 

fiscal year 2008 Year End Annual Report 

on the Plan. 

Approach: increase adjudicatory capacity 

8 Increase overtime allocations for hearing 

office and other SSA staff to prepare, or 

pull, claims for review in order to fill 

hearing dockets to capacity 

Increase the number of claims ready for 

ALJ review 

Deputy Commissioner of Operations 

employees used 62,800 hours of 

overtime in hearing offices to complete 

866,000 tasks, including preparing over 

13,000 claims through streamlined folder 

assembly in fiscal year 2008. 

9 Provide options for ALJs to voluntarily 

review streamlined folders, or folders 

that are either unprepared or partially 

prepared by support staff, in order to fill 

hearing dockets to capacity 

Increase the number of claims ready for 

ALJ review 

Over 51,000 claims were prepared for 

hearings using streamlined folder 

assembly in fiscal year 2008. 

Appendix III: Status of Plan Initiatives 

Page 47 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability 
Appendix III: Status of Plan Initiatives 

Plan initiativesa

SSA’s intended effects on the 

hearings backlogb

Status as of fiscal year 2008 year endc

10 Improve ALJ productivity to 500 to 700 

dispositions per year 

Increase dispositions Issued a letter communicating 

expectations to ALJs in October 2007. 

Also convened the first National Judicial 

Education Conference for ALJs and 

administrative appeals judges. ALJs 

conducted over 14,700 more hearings in 

fiscal year 2008 than in fiscal year 2007. 

11 Screen potentially favorable claims at the 

hearings level and return, or remand, 

them to the DDS initial claims level 

(Informal Remand initiative) 

Reduce hearing office workload—

remanded claims that are found 

favorable are dismissed at the hearings 

level, while those not decided as 

favorable are returned to the hearings 

level 

Of 50,000 claims remanded, nearly 

17,000 decisions were made by the DDS 

initial claims level in fiscal year 2008. 

12 Implement a screening process where 

medical experts provide input to ALJs for 

likely on-the-record decisions, or 

decisions that can be made without a 

hearing 

Improve processing time by increasing 

the number of claims decided on the 

record 

Implemented a medical expert screening 

process in March 2008. 

13 Open a centralized National Hearings 

Center to handle electronic claims files at 

the hearings level and conduct only 

video hearings 

Balance hearing office workloads by 

transferring claims from hearing offices 

with higher backlogs to the National 

Hearings Center 

A National Hearings Center opened in 

Virginia in October 2007 and issued over 

2,000 dispositions on over 4,500 claims 

transferred in fiscal year 2008. National 

Hearing Centers in New Mexico and 

Illinois are planned for fiscal year 2009. 

Approach: increase efficiency with automation and improved business processes 

14 Develop a new electronic claimprocessing and management system for 

the Appeals Council 

Save time for hearings-level support staff 

by eliminating some support staff 

functions in converting Appeals Council 

remands from paper to electronic files 

Trained staff and implemented system in 

June 2008. 

15 Increase the amount of electronic data 

propagated to the Hearing Office claimprocessing system 

Save time for hearings-level support staff 

by generating more data electronically 

Enhancements made to July 2008 

systems release. 

16 Provide ALJs the ability to sign hearingslevel dispositions electronically 

(eSignature) 

Save time for hearings-level support staff 

by eliminating some support staff 

functions necessary for obtaining an ALJ 

signature via paper 

Implemented in July 2008. 

17 Centralize hearing office printing and 

mailing through a private contractor 

Save time for hearings-level support staff 

by eliminating some support staff printing 

and mailing functions, such as notices to 

claimants 

Implemented in August 2008 with 11 

notices. Additional notices to be added. 

18 Enhance electronic hearing office 

management information 

Improve management and accountability 

for hearing offices 

Additional reports released and more to 

be added. 

19 Provide support to send additional 

documents to the hearings-level 

electronic folder 

Save time for hearings-level support staff 

by eliminating some support staff printing 

and scanning functions 

In development. 

Page 48 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix III: Status of Plan Initiatives 

Plan initiativesa

SSA’s intended effects on the 

hearings backlogb

Status as of fiscal year 2008 year endc

20 Provide shared access to the hearingslevel electronic folder for other 

components involved in the disability 

process, such as the DDS initial claims 

level and Appeals Council 

Improve coordination among SSA offices 

involved in the disability process 

Enhancements made in February 2008. 

21 Enhance the Electronic Records 

Express, an Internet support system for 

authorized claimant representatives at 

the hearings level 

Save time for hearings-level support staff 

by eliminating some support staff 

functions in compiling and sending 

information to claimants’ representatives 

by allowing authorized representatives to 

access their claimants’ files electronically

Pilot began in July 2008. 

22 Provide additional video hearing 

equipment to conduct hearings, including 

video units in hearing rooms, on ALJ 

desktop computers, and on desktops of 

authorized claimant representatives 

Save time and costs for ALJs by 

eliminating the need for ALJs to travel for 

hearings; improve processing times 

because travel dockets do not have to 

wait to be filled before ALJs hear the 

claims, and the number of available 

hearing facilities is increased; balance 

hearing office workloads by providing the 

ability to transfer claims between hearing 

offices in different geographic locations 

Added 145 new video units. Pilot for 

desktop video units for hearing offices 

began March 2008. Process of 

developing desktop video units for 

claimant representatives is ongoing. 

23 Update hearing office electronic systems 

infrastructure 

Improve electronic capabilities Installed new servers, workstations, 

printers, videoconferencing equipment, 

and telecommunications equipment in 

hearing offices, including at the National 

Hearings Center. 

24 Implement electronic file assembly for 

the hearings level to automate claim 

preparation, or pulling (ePulling) 

Save time for hearings-level support staff 

by eliminating some support staff claim 

preparation activities prior to ALJ review, 

such as numbering pages and removing 

duplicate documents 

Pilot began in August 2008. 

25 Implement electronic scheduling of 

hearings (eScheduling) 

Save time for hearings-level support staff 

by eliminating some support staff 

functions in scheduling hearings 

In development. 

26 Transition hearings-level paper claims to 

the electronic folder system 

Improve electronic capabilities Eighty-six percent of pending workload in 

fiscal year 2008 is electronic. 

27 Mandate the Findings Integrated 

Template (FIT), an electronic template 

for decision writing 

Reduce hearings-level workloads by 

preventing Appeals Council remands 

due to improved hearings-level decision 

writing 

Template was used to draft 94 percent of 

written decisions in fiscal year 2008. 

28 Provide the ability for the Appeals 

Council to issue final decisions on claims 

that would have been remanded to the 

hearings level (Appeals Council initiative) 

Reduce hearings-level workloads by 

decreasing the number of remands from 

the Appeals Council 

Appeals Council remands consistently 

decreased in fiscal year 2008. 

29 Provide improved training to the hearing 

office management teams 

Improve management and accountability 

for hearing offices 

Training Web site launched in January 

2008 and hearing office management 

summit was held in June 2008. 

Page 49 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix III: Status of Plan Initiatives 

Plan initiativesa

SSA’s intended effects on the 

hearings backlogb

Status as of fiscal year 2008 year endc

30 Expand cooperation among hearing 

offices, SSA field offices, and SSA area 

director offices 

Indirect effect—improve customer 

service and coordination among SSA 

offices involved in the disability process 

National work group developed 

recommendations. 

31 Establish a standardized electronic 

business process to provide procedural 

guidance on how claims should be 

processed at the hearings level; conduct 

task time analyses to determine 

processing times for each stage of the 

electronic business process at the 

hearings level 

Improve management and accountability 

for hearing offices. Save time for ALJs—

ensures that claims are appropriately 

prepared for ALJ review; balance 

hearing office workloads by allowing 

claims to be more easily transferred 

between hearing offices because they 

are prepared similarly 

Process was developed based on best 

practices and established policies to 

ensure consistent case processing 

methods throughout the Office of 

Disability Adjudication and Review. 

32 Implement an in-line quality assurance 

program for claim preparation and 

decision writing 

Improve management and accountability 

for hearing offices, save time for ALJs by 

ensuring that claims are appropriately 

prepared for ALJ review, balance 

hearing office workloads by allowing 

claims to be more easily transferred 

between hearing offices because they 

are prepared similarly, reduce hearing 

office workloads by preventing Appeals 

Council remands due to technical errors 

in hearings-level decision writing 

In development. 

33 Use electronic tools to expand reviews of 

claims denied at the reconsideration level, 

which are made after the initial claims 

level and before the hearings level 

Reduce hearings-level workloads by 

improving the accuracy of 

reconsideration level decisions that may 

enter the hearings level 

Reviews began in September 2007. 

34 Continue decision writer productivity 

improvements 

Improve processing time by increasing 

decision writer productivity 

Management tools introduced in fiscal 

year 2007 to assess the timeliness of 

decision writer workloads. 

35 Effectuate service area realignments and 

claim transfers between hearing offices 

Balance hearing office workloads by 

transferring claims from hearing offices 

with higher backlogs to hearing offices 

with lower backlogs 

Realignment and claim transfer plan 

implemented and analysis of workload 

data continues. 

36 Use weekly workload reporting and 

monitoring at the hearings level 

Improve management and accountability 

for hearing offices 

Hearing office managers encouraged to 

monitor hearing office workloads weekly 

and additional workload reports are 

being developed. 

37 Colocate remote hearing sites with SSA 

field offices 

Indirect effect—improve customer 

service and conserve SSA resources 

Colocation plan developed and will be 

implemented as leases expire. 

38 Improve the public ALJ alleged 

misconduct complaint process 

Indirect effect—improve management, 

and accountability of ALJs 

Electronic fact sheets, posters, and 

letters to claimants updated. System to 

track complaints is in development. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

a

Based on SSA data. 

b

Based on SSA data. 

c

Based on SSA’s Plan to Eliminate the Hearing Backlog and Prevent Its Recurrence Annual Report, 

Fiscal Year 2008. 

Page 50 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix IV: Comments from the Social Appendix IV: Comments from the Social Security Administration 

Security Administration 

Page 51 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Social 

Security Administration 

Page 52 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix IV: Comments from the Social 

Security Administration 

Page 53 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix IV: Comments from the Social 

Security Administration 

Page 54 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix IV: Comments from the Social 

Security Administration 

Page 55 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix IV: Comments from the Social 

Security Administration 

Page 56 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 57 GAO-09-398 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Daniel Bertoni, Director, (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov

Shelia Drake, Assistant Director; Julianne Hartman Cutts; Jessica Gray; 

and Nhi Nguyen made significant contributions to this report. In addition, 

Craig Winslow provided legal assistance, Walter Vance and Mehrzad Nadji 

provided methodological assistance, Vanessa Taylor assessed the 

reliability of data used in the report, and Jessica Orr assisted in report 

development. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

 Social Security Disability 
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

High Risk Series: An Update. GAO-09-271. Washington, D.C.: January 

2009. Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan Needed to 

Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges. GAO-09-24. Washington, 

D.C.: January 9, 2008. 

Social Security Disability: Management Controls Needed to Strengthen 

Demonstration Projects. GAO-08-1053. Washington, D.C.: 

September 26, 2008. 

Federal Disability Programs: More Strategic Coordination Could Help 

Overcome Challenges to Needed Transformation. GAO-08-635. 

Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2008. 

Social Security Administration Field Offices: Reduced Workforce Faces 

Challenges as Baby Boomers Retire. GAO-08-737T. Washington, D.C.: 

May 8, 2008. 

T

Social Security Disability: Better Planning, Management, and 

Evaluation Could Help Address Backlogs. GAO-08-40. Washington, D.C.: 

December 7, 2007. 

SSA Disability Representatives: Fee Payment Changes Show Promise, 

but Eligibility Criteria and Representative Overpayments Require 

Further Monitoring. GAO-08-5. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2007. 

Disability Programs: SSA Has Taken Steps to Address Conflicting Court 

Decisions, but Needs to Manage Data Better on the Increasing Number of 

Court Remands. GAO-07-331. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2007. 

Social Security Disability Programs: Clearer Guidance Could Help SSA 

Apply the Medical Improvement Standard More Consistently. GAO-07-8. 

Washington, D.C.: October 3, 2006. 

Electronic Disability Claims Processing: SSA Is Proceeding with Its 

Accelerated Systems Initiative but Needs to Address Operational Issues. 

GAO-05-97. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2005. 

Social Security Administration: More Effort Needed to Assess 

Consistency of Disability Decisions. GAO-04-656. Washington, D.C.: 

July 2, 2004. 

Page 58 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
Related GAO Products 

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. 

Social Security Disability: Reviews of Beneficiaries’ Disability Status 

Require Continued Attention to Achieve Timeliness and CostEffectiveness. GAO-03-662. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2003. 

SSA and VA Disability Programs: Re-Examination of Disability 

Criteria Needed to Help Ensure Program Integrity. GAO-02-597. 

Washington, D.C.: August 9, 2002. 

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 27, 2002. 

Social Security Administration: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and 

Addressing Major Management Challenges. GAO-01-778. Washington, 

D.C.: June 15, 2001. 

Social Security Disability: Backlog Reduction Efforts Under Way; 

Significant Challenges Remain. GAO/HEHS-96-87. Washington, D.C.: 

July 11, 1996. 

(130841) Page 59 GAO-09-398 Social Security Disability
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability 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 GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper