United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Ways and Means, House

of Representatives

July 1996 SOCIAL SECURITY

DISABILITY

Backlog Reduction

Efforts Under Way;

Significant Challenges

Remain

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/HEHS-96-87

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-261609 

July 11, 1996

The Honorable Sam M. Gibbons

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Gibbons:

This report, prepared at your request, examines the growth in the backlog of pending cases at

SSA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals, agency initiatives to reduce it, and concerns associated

with SSA’s efforts.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier,

we plan no further distribution until 30 days from its issue date. At that time we will send copies

to other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request.

Please contact Roland Miller, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7246 if you have any questions.

Other GAO contacts and major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Sincerely yours,

Jane L. Ross

Director, Income Security Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose The Social Security Administration (SSA) operates the nation’s largest

programs providing cash benefits to people with severe long-term

disabilities. In 1995, about 5.7 million disabled workers and their

dependents received Disability Insurance (DI) benefits, up from 3.9 million

at the end of 1985. During this same period, the number of disabled

recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) increased from

2.5 million to 4.9 million. Over the past decade, SSA has struggled to deal

with unprecedented growth in appeals of its disability decisions and the

resulting backlog of cases awaiting a hearing decision. Processing delays

related to a backlog of more than half a million appealed cases have

created hardships for disability claimants, who often wait more than a year

for a final disability decision.

As a result of the impact of these long delays on applicants, the former

chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means asked GAO to

determine (1) those factors contributing to the growth in the backlog of

appealed cases, (2) what steps SSA has taken in the past to address this

backlog problem, (3) what SSA is currently doing to reduce the appellate

backlog, and (4) what needs to be done in the long term to make the

disability appeals process more timely and efficient.

Background SSA, together with state agencies called disability determination services

(DDS), makes the initial eligibility determination. Claimants whose initial

benefit claim is denied may request a reconsideration of their claim by

different staff at DDS. If the reconsideration review results in a second

denial, claimants may appeal to an administrative law judge (ALJ) located

in SSA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA).

Despite numerous studies of SSA’s disability programs and continued

agency attempts to improve the disability appeals process, between 1985

and 1995, OHA’s pending case backlog—the number of appealed cases

waiting for a decision—grew from 107,000 to 548,000, and case-processing

time increased from 167 to 350 days. At the rate claims are currently being

processed, it would take more than a year to dispose of the claims now

awaiting an OHA decision.

Results in Brief The growth in OHA’s backlog of pending cases and increasing caseprocessing time are the result not only of a surge in initial applications and

appeals to OHA but also of SSA’s inattention to several long-standing

problems. These problems include (1) multiple levels of claims

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Executive Summary

development and decision-making, (2) fragmented program accountability,

(3) decisional disparities between DDS and OHA adjudicators, and (4) SSA’s

failure to consistently define and communicate its management authority

over the ALJs.

Despite agency initiatives taken over the last decade to handle increasingly

larger workloads, the backlog of appealed cases has outpaced OHA’s

case-processing capacity. In 1994, SSA initiated both short- and long-term

efforts in response to criticism of its ability to effectively manage the

disability determination and appeals process. SSA’s Short-Term Disability

Plan (STDP) represents its near-term effort to reduce OHA’s backlog of

pending cases to a manageable level by December 1996. The plan relies

primarily on the temporary reallocation of agency resources and process

changes to stem the flow of cases requiring an ALJ hearing and reduce

OHA’s backlog of cases. Although STDP is under way, start-up delays and the

limited impact of key initiatives have affected SSA’s ability to achieve its

backlog reduction goals. Some SSA and OHA officials are also concerned

that pressure to meet the plan’s goals within increasingly limited time

frames may put the agency at risk of incorrectly allowing claims. However,

SSA is closely monitoring and tracking STDP allowances to ensure decisional

accuracy. In contrast to STDP, SSA’s Plan for a New Disability Claim

Process—commonly referred to as the “redesign plan”—represents the

agency’s long-term strategy for addressing the systemic problems

contributing to inefficiencies in its disability programs and significantly

reducing the time it takes for claimants to receive a disability decision.

SSA’s redesign plan includes initiatives still in the early implementation and

planning stages that SSA believes will improve program efficiency in the

first three problem areas mentioned above. The plan does not, however,

address the need for SSA to consistently define and communicate to

regional and hearing office management the types of management actions

that are legally permissible for managing ALJ activities without hindering

judicial independence. Because this issue has not been adequately

addressed, SSA has found that many ALJs believe they are legally exempt

from nearly all management control, and the agency has been continually

frustrated in its efforts to manage the appeals process and reduce its

backlog of pending cases.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Executive Summary

Principal Findings

Increasing Workloads and

Long-Standing Problems

Have Contributed to OHA’s

Case Backlog

Between 1985 and 1995, initial applications for DI and SSI increased by 57

percent, from 1.6 million to 2.5 million. During the same period, appeals to

OHA increased more than 140 percent, and the number of cases awaiting an

OHA decision grew from 107,000 to about 548,000. Many factors have

contributed to the growth in disability applications and the accompanying

growth in OHA’s case backlog, including an expansion of the disability

eligibility criteria, program outreach efforts, and poor economic

conditions. GAO also found that long-standing problems associated with

SSA’s disability programs have contributed further to the backlog. These

problems fall into four basic categories: multiple levels of claims

development and decision-making, fragmented program accountability,

decisional disparities between DDS and OHA adjudicators, and SSA’s failure

to consistently define and communicate its management authority over the

ALJs.

Despite Previous Efforts,

OHA’s Backlog Has

Continued

Over the last decade, SSA has relied primarily on hiring more ALJs and

support staff and the use of overtime to handle increasingly larger

workloads. Between 1985 and 1995, SSA increased ALJ staffing levels by

49 percent and field office support staff by about 45 percent. The use of

overtime has also increased more than 850 percent since 1990. In addition

to allocating more resources to OHA, SSA conducted at least three reviews

between 1990 and 1992 to examine the issues affecting SSA’s disability

programs and recommend improvements to the disability process. Despite

SSA’s efforts, the backlog of appealed cases has outpaced OHA’s caseprocessing capacity. Key SSA and OHA officials told GAO that previous

initiatives attempted to make the hearings process more efficient, but that

their impacts were limited by SSA’s focus on minor process changes and

applying more resources to the appeals process rather than addressing the

long-standing problems central to the backlog of claims awaiting

processing.

In the Near Term, Backlog

Reduction Efforts Focus

on STDP

STDP represents SSA’s current effort to achieve some near-term reductions

in OHA’s pending case backlog. STDP addresses the backlog crisis from an

agencywide perspective, rather than viewing it as an SSA or OHA problem,

and establishes specific case-processing goals and timeframes for

accomplishing them. STDP also relies heavily on temporary reallocations of

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Executive Summary

program resources and process changes to reduce OHA’s backlog to

375,000 cases by December 1996. The plan’s goals are being addressed

primarily by two key initiatives that expand OHA prehearing conferencing

proceedings and SSA regional screening unit activities. These initiatives

target certain appealed cases for review, and possible allowance, by either

OHA attorneys or SSA regional staff before beginning more costly and

time-consuming ALJ hearings.

Implementation delays associated with the expanded prehearing

conferencing initiative and the limited impact of regional screening units

have impeded SSA’s ability to achieve STDP’s goals. To fully implement

prehearing conferencing, SSA was required to pursue regulatory changes

giving OHA attorneys the authority to issue allowance decisions for certain

appealed cases. However, the process of defining the specific authority

and responsibilities these attorneys would have under STDP was lengthy,

and the initiative was delayed for almost 6 months. Also, SSA originally

projected that including OHA staff attorneys in regional screening units

would result in 38,000 screening unit allowances by December 1995.

However, this goal was not met, and the screening units allowed a total of

only 28,376 cases through February 1996.

From the time STDP was announced in November 1994 to the end of fiscal

year 1995, OHA’s case backlog increased from 488,000 to 548,000 cases. In

order to reach its goal of reducing OHA’s backlog to 375,000 cases by

December 1996, SSA will have to increase its efforts considerably. Many SSA

and OHA officials have voiced concern that agency pressure to reach STDP’s

goals within increasingly limited timeframes could result in

inappropriately awarded cases. SSA intends to closely monitor

management and quality assurance information to identify any effect STDP

may have on overall program allowance rates.

SSA’s Redesign Plan Is

Aimed at Addressing

Several Long-Standing

Problems, but a Key Issue

Remains Unresolved

SSA’s redesign plan represents SSA’s long-term strategy for improving the

quality, accuracy, and efficiency of disability claims service to the public.

The plan includes initiatives that SSA believes will address several

long-standing problems contributing to program inefficiencies. These

initiatives aim to streamline complex claims processes, improve

organizational and process accountability, and provide more consistent

decisional policies to DDS and OHA adjudicators. With full implementation

of the plan, SSA expects average case-processing time through the hearings

stage to decrease from more than a year in 1995 to 225 days by 2000. At the

time of GAO’s review, however, SSA was engaged in the early planning and

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Executive Summary

testing stages of the redesign effort, and none of the initiatives had been

fully implemented.

A significant problem the redesign plan does not address, however, is the

need for SSA to consistently define and communicate its management

authority over the ALJs. Since the 1970s, many ALJs have successfully

opposed certain agency initiatives to increase their productivity on the

grounds that SSA’s actions violated portions of the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA) that protect ALJ decisional independence. As a result

of the long-standing controversy regarding the management constraints

imposed by APA, SSA has been continually frustrated in its efforts to manage

nondecisional ALJ activities, such as directing hearing office work flow,

establishing clear lines of authority within hearing offices, and

implementing uniform policies and procedures.

Addressing the APA issue continues to be important today, because the

success of the redesign plan may be affected by the degree of ALJ

cooperation received and the extent to which SSA can mandate ALJ

compliance with the plan’s initiatives. If SSA does not address this matter, it

may jeopardize its efforts to reduce OHA’s backlog of pending cases and

achieve its long-term service delivery goals.

Agency Comments In its written comments on a draft of this report, SSA agreed with GAO’s

conclusion that the scope of SSA’s management authority over its ALJs

should be clarified. SSA also provided comments and observations about

those areas in which it believed adjustments should be made to the report.

Where appropriate, the report has been revised. A number of SSA’s specific

comments and GAO’s evaluation of these comments are included in chapter

IV; the full text of SSA’s comments and GAO’s response are included as

appendix III.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

10

The Disability Determination Process 10

ALJ Decisional Independence Is Protected by the Administrative

Procedure Act

12

OHA Administration 13

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 14

Chapter 2 

Increasing Workloads

and Long-Standing

Problems Have

Contributed to OHA’s

Case Backlog

16

Hearings Backlog and Case-Processing Times Have Increased

With Workload Growth

16

Long-Standing Program Problems Have Contributed to OHA’s

Case Backlog

17

Chapter 3 

Backlog Reduction

and Process Redesign

Initiatives Under Way

24

Previous SSA Efforts Did Not Reduce Backlog 24

Backlog Reduction Efforts Focus on STDP 26

SSA’s Redesign Plan Is Aimed at Addressing Several

Long-Standing Problems

29

Redesign Does Not Address SSA’s Management Authority Over

ALJs

31

Chapter 4 

Conclusions, Agency

Comments, and Our

Evaluation

32

SSA’s Comments and Our Evaluation 33

Appendixes Appendix I: SSA Organizational Chart 36

Appendix II: OHA Organizational Chart 37

Appendix III: Comments From the Social Security Administration

and Our Evaluation

38

Appendix IV: Studies on SSA’s Disability Decision-Making

Process

46

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments 51

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Contents

Tables Table 2:1: Growth in OHA’s Workload, Backlog, and

Case-Processing Times, 1985-95

17

Table 3.1: OHA Field Office Staffing Levels, 1985-95 25

Figure Figure 1.1: Disability Determination and Appeals Process 12

Abbreviations

AO adjudication officer

ALJ administrative law judge

APA Administrative Procedure Act

DDS disability determination services

DI Disability Insurance

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HOCALJ hearing office chief administrative law judge

OHA Office of Hearings and Appeals

POMS Program Operations Manual System

RCALJ regional chief administrative law judge

SSA Social Security Administration

SSI Supplemental Security Income

STDP Short-Term Disability Plan

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security

Income (SSI) programs are the nation’s two largest federal programs

providing cash payments to people with severe long-term disabilities.

Between 1985 and 1995, the number of DI recipients increased almost 50

percent to about 5.7 million, and the number of disabled SSI recipients

increased from 2.5 million to 4.9 million. In fiscal year 1995, the Social

Security Administration (SSA) distributed over $61 billion in disability

benefits for its DI and SSI programs.

Over the past decade, SSA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) has

experienced unprecedented growth in both its backlog of DI and SSI

hearings requests and the time it takes to process a disability appeal. While

the agency has undertaken several efforts over the years to address the

backlog issue, workload increases and long-standing problems associated

with the program have impeded their success. The rapid growth in OHA’s

pending case backlog and longer case-processing times have caused

hardship for those disability claimants who are unable to work or to afford

needed medical treatment while awaiting a final decision. On average, it

takes more than a year to receive a final OHA decision from the time a

claimant first files an application of disability. This extended waiting

period has raised congressional concerns about SSA’s disability

decision-making process.

The Disability

Determination

Process

The DI program, enacted in 1956 under title II of the Social Security Act,

provides monthly cash insurance benefits to insured severely disabled

workers. The SSI program, enacted in 1972 under title XVI, provides

monthly cash payments to aged, blind, or disabled people whose income

and resources fall below a certain threshold. The Social Security Act

defines disability under both programs as an inability to engage in

substantial gainful activity by reason of a severe physical or mental

impairment. The impairment must be medically determinable and

expected to last at least a year or result in death.

Claimants file an application for disability benefits—both DI and SSI—with

one of SSA’s over 1,300 field offices. Applications, along with supporting

medical evidence, are then forwarded to the appropriate state disability

determination service (DDS). SSA arranges with state DDSs to make the

initial medical determination of eligibility in accordance with SSA’s policies

and procedures. Claimants who are dissatisfied with the initial DDS

determination may request a “reconsideration” of the claim within 60 days

of their notice of decision. During the reconsideration review, all evidence

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 1 

Introduction

is reevaluated by DDS personnel who were not involved in the original

decision, and a new, independent decision is made on the merits of the

case.

Claimants who disagree with the reconsideration decision have the right

to a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) in SSA’s OHA. A request

for hearing may be filed by mail or telephone, or in person at either an SSA

field office or an OHA hearing office. Upon receipt of a hearing request,

hearing office support staff review and prepare the case file for hearing. If

necessary, staff may recommend to the ALJ that additional medical

evidence be developed before holding a hearing. The hearing is generally

the first time in the disability determination process that a claimant has

the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting with a decisionmaker. At the

hearing, the claimant and witnesses—who may include medical or

vocational experts—provide testimony. The ALJ inquires into the issues,

receives relevant documents into evidence, and allows the claimant or the

claimant’s representative to present arguments and examine witnesses. If

necessary, the ALJ may further update the evidence after the hearing. When

this process is completed, the ALJ issues a decision based on his or her

assessment of the evidence in the case.

Claimants who disagree with an ALJ denial are given another 60 days to

request that the case be reviewed by SSA’s Appeals Council. A request for

review must be filed through either a field office or a hearing office or

directly with the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council may dismiss the

request, affirm an ALJ’s decision, remand the case to an ALJ for further

action, or issue a new decision. To determine the appropriate action,

Council members, assisted by a large staff of analysts, decide whether the

decision was supported by the evidence. The Appeals Council’s

decision—or the decision of the ALJ, if the Appeals Council dismisses the

request—becomes SSA’s final decision. After all SSA administrative

remedies are exhausted, a claimant has further appeal rights within the

federal court system, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court. (See fig.

1.1.)

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.1: Disability Determination

and Appeals Process

Claimant

Contacts SSA

to File Claim

Claimant

Requests

Reconsideration

Claimant

Requests

Hearing by OHA

Claimant

Requests Appeals

Council Review

Claimant

Appeals Through

Federal Courts

Initial Determination Sent to Claimant

Reconsideration Decision Sent to Claimant

ALJ Decision Sent to Claimant

Appeals Council Decision Sent to Claimant

Initial Claim

Taken by DDS

Reconsideration

Request

Taken by DDS

Claim Developed and

Hearing Conducted by an ALJ

Appeals Council

Reviews ALJ

Decision

Claim Developed

and Adjudicated

Reconsideration

Developed

and Adjudicated

ALJ Decisional

Independence Is

Protected by the

Administrative

Procedure Act

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), enacted by the Congress in 1946,

protects the decisional independence of ALJs. To ensure ALJ independence,

APA grants ALJs certain specific exemptions from normal management

controls. For example, federal agencies may not apply performance

appraisal requirements to ALJs and may remove ALJs only for “good cause,”

as determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 1 

Introduction

These safeguards were put in place to ensure that ALJ judgments were

independent and that ALJs would not be paid, promoted, or discharged

arbitrarily or for political reasons by the agency. However, ALJ

independence is not unlimited. Because they are SSA employees, ALJs are

subject to agency rules and regulations, and they must apply even those

with which they disagree. Further, ALJ independence does not negate SSA’s

authority to implement procedures for supervising and reviewing the ALJ

decision-making process to ensure that agency policies and procedures

are followed.

The role of ALJs at SSA differs from that of other ALJs in the federal

government in that SSA ALJs are responsible for both developing the

hearings evidence and deciding the case. In other executive branch

agencies, the responsibility for developing evidence is left to the claimants

and their representatives. SSA hearings also differ from those of other

executive branch agencies in that they are informal, nonadversarial

proceedings; that is, SSA does not present a case challenging a claimant’s

disability claim.1

 Most other executive branch ALJs hold hearings that are

formal, adversarial, and similar to a trial. During such hearings, attorneys

on both sides present witnesses and documentary evidence and

cross-examine witnesses in order to present the facts in a light favorable

to their case.

OHA Administration OHA headquarters is located in Falls Church, Virginia, apart from SSA

headquarters in Baltimore. OHA operates 10 regional offices, 132 hearing

offices, 3 class action management centers, and 5 word processing

centers. Of OHA’s 7,100 employees, about 1,000 are located in Falls Church.

OHA is headed by the Associate Commissioner for Hearings and Appeals,

who is responsible for administering the hearings and appeals process and

reports directly to SSA’s Deputy Commissioner for Programs and Policy.

(See app. I for an SSA organization chart and app. II for an OHA organization

chart).

OHA’s Chief ALJ reports directly to the Associate Commissioner for

Hearings and Appeals and is responsible for managing about 5,000 hearing

office employees located in 10 regions. Each OHA region is headed by a

regional chief ALJ (RCALJ), who is responsible for the operations of hearing

offices in his or her respective region. In every hearing office, a hearing

1

Although the government does not present a case during an SSA hearing, an ALJ retains the authority

to call impartial medical and vocational experts to present evidence about a claimant’s medical

condition or vocational capabilities.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 1 

Introduction

office chief ALJ (HOCALJ) oversees day-to-day office operations and provides

guidance to ALJs, professional staff, and support personnel.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

Due to the rapid growth in OHA backlogs and case-processing times and

their impact on public service, in July 1994 the former Chairman, and now

Ranking Minority Member, of the House Committee on Ways and Means

asked us to examine SSA’s efforts to address the problem. More

specifically, the objectives of our assignment were to determine (1) those

factors contributing to the growth in the backlog of appealed cases,

(2) what steps SSA has taken in the past to address this backlog problem,

(3) what SSA is currently doing to reduce the appellate backlog, and

(4) what needs to be done in the long term to make the disability appeals

process more timely and efficient.

In conducting our review, we

• analyzed data on OHA workloads, backlogs, and processing times;

• reviewed over 50 government and nongovernment studies conducted over

the past 20 years on the disability determination and appeals process (see

app. IV);

• examined SSA’s previous initiatives to address OHA backlogs and improve

the hearings and appeals process; and

• reviewed SSA’s Short-Term Disability Plan (STDP) and the agency’s

longer-term Plan for a New Disability Claim Process (redesign plan).

To supplement information obtained from the various reports and

initiatives outlined above, we

• interviewed key SSA and OHA headquarters and regional management

officials, as well as managers responsible for the development and

implementation of SSA’s STDP and redesign plan;

• obtained the views of hearing office officials—chief ALJs, supervisory

staff-attorneys, and hearing office managers—regarding SSA’s previous and

current efforts to improve program efficiency and address OHA’s pending

case backlog; and

• interviewed officials at state disability determination services in Florida,

Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas to obtain their views on the

status and expected impacts of the STDP initiatives.

Our review was performed at SSA and OHA headquarters; four SSA

regions—Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, and New York; and five OHA

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 1 

Introduction

regions—Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, New York, and Philadelphia. By

examining workload and performance indicators, we judgmentally

selected regions and OHA hearing offices that would provide us with varied

workload levels as well as varied experiences in managing their

workloads. The selected offices also provided us with some geographical

dispersion. We conducted our review between July 1994 and

February 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 2 

Increasing Workloads and Long-Standing

Problems Have Contributed to OHA’s Case

Backlog

Over the last decade, OHA’s backlog of pending cases and case-processing

times have grown rapidly, and claimants are waiting longer for disability

decisions. SSA has acknowledged that current workload levels have placed

the disability program under increasing public and congressional pressure,

and that aggressive measures are necessary to address this “crisis”

situation.

The growth in OHA’s backlog of cases has been caused, in part, by the rapid

surge in disability program applications and ever-increasing appeals to

OHA. But backlog growth has also resulted because SSA has not adequately

addressed several long-standing problems associated with its disability

programs. These problems have been identified in numerous internal and

external studies conducted over the last 2 decades. We reviewed these

studies and found that SSA’s key long-standing problems can be classified

into four basic categories: multiple levels of claims development and

decision-making, fragmented program accountability, decisional

disparities between DDS and OHA adjudicators, and SSA’s failure to

consistently define and communicate its management authority over the

ALJs.

Hearings Backlog and

Case-Processing

Times Have Increased

With Workload

Growth

The number of disabled beneficiaries has steadily increased over the last

decade. In 1985, there were 3.9 million DI recipients. In 1995, almost

5.7 million disabled workers and their dependents received more than $40

billion in DI benefits. Most of this growth occurred in the last 3 years, when

1.1 million beneficiaries were added to the rolls. The SSI program grew

even more over the last decade, when the number of SSI recipients

increased from 2.5 million to 4.9 million.

Many factors have contributed to the number of people seeking disability

benefits and the subsequent growth in the OHA workload, including the

expansion of DI eligibility criteria, program outreach efforts, and poor

economic conditions.2

 Between 1985 and 1995, initial DI and SSI

applications increased by 57 percent, from 1.6 million to 2.5 million. DDS

denial rates for initial applications also increased during the same period,

further enlarging the pool of applicants who could request an appeal. The

number of requests for OHA hearings increased by 140 percent, from

245,000 in 1985 to 589,000 in 1995.

2

GAO reported in February 1994 that increasing unemployment and expanding eligibility requirements,

along with several other factors, contributed to growth in the disability rolls. See Social Security:

Disability Rolls Keep Growing While Explanations Remain Elusive (GAO/HEHS-94-34, Feb. 8, 1994).

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 2 

Increasing Workloads and Long-Standing

Problems Have Contributed to OHA’s Case

Backlog

As we have reported previously, the rising rates at which applications for

disability benefits and accompanying appeals are being filed have caused

tremendous workload pressures and processing delays for OHA.

3

 Between

1985 and 1995, OHA’s pending case backlog grew from 107,000 to about

548,000 cases. In addition, the average processing time for cases appealed

to OHA—measured from the time a request for hearing is filed by the

claimant—increased 110 percent, from 167 days to 350 days. Moreover,

aged cases (those pending 270 days or more) increased from 5 percent of

pending cases to 39 percent during the same period. Some applicants who

have been awarded benefits on appeal to OHA after twice being denied by

DDSs have waited more than a year after first applying. Table 2.1 shows the

rapid growth in OHA’s workload, pending case backlog, and the time it

takes to process an appealed case.

Table 2:1: Growth in OHA’s Workload,

Backlog, and Case-Processing Times,

1985-95

Fiscal year

Workload

(case

receipts)

Backlog

(pending

cases)

Average

caseprocessing

time (days)

Percentage

of aged

casesa

1985 245,090 107,042 167 5

1986 230,655 117,384 172 4

1987 278,440 148,398 198 9

1988 290,393 158,892 216 9

1989 302,452 159,268 217 11

1990 310,529 172,756 212 9

1991 329,346 183,471 229 10

1992 391,294 218,423 223 7

1993 509,443 357,564 238 16

1994 539,871 485,837 305 32

1995 588,596 547,690 350 39

aCases that have been pending 270 days or more.

Long-Standing

Program Problems

Have Contributed to

OHA’s Case Backlog

In addition to the dramatic increases in workload discussed above,

long-standing problems associated with the disability determination and

appeals process have contributed to the backlog growth and increased

case-processing time at OHA. In 1992, as part of its efforts to develop a

number of strategic priority goals, SSA reviewed numerous internal and

external studies of the disability determination and appeals process,

3

Disability Insurance: Broader Management Focus Needed to Better Control Caseload

(GAO/T-HEHS-95-164, May 23, 1995) and Social Security Disability: Management Action and Program

Redesign Needed to Address Long-Standing Problems (GAO/T-HEHS-95-233, Aug. 3, 1995).

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 2 

Increasing Workloads and Long-Standing

Problems Have Contributed to OHA’s Case

Backlog

several of which were completed more than 20 years ago. The agency

acknowledged that, despite rapid workload increases and enormous

changes in available technology, demographics, and the types of

disabilities qualifying for benefits, disability processes had remained

basically the same since the DI program was established in the 1950s.

We also reviewed the above studies, and several other government and

nongovernment reviews conducted over the last several decades, and

categorized the key long-standing problems affecting SSA’s disability

programs as (1) multiple levels of claims development and

decision-making, (2) fragmented accountability for claims processing,

(3) decisional disparities between DDS and OHA adjudicators, and (4) SSA’s

failure to consistently define and communicate its management authority

over the ALJs. The relationship of these problems to OHA’s pending case

backlog and increased case-processing time is discussed below.

Multiple Levels of Claims

Development and

Decision-Making

SSA’s internal planning documents show that multiple levels of claims

development and decision-making throughout the disability program have

negatively affected OHA’s ability to provide timely and efficient service to

all claimants who appeal. Within SSA, a denied disability claim may pass

through as many as four decision-making levels (initial, reconsideration,

ALJ hearing, and Appeals Council) before a final decision is rendered. As a

claim moves from one level to the next it is readjudicated, and multistep

procedures for review, evidence collection, and decision-making are

employed.

In addition to delays associated with multiple layers of review and

decision-making, delays also occur as a claim moves from one employee

or facility to another and waits at each employee’s desk to be processed.

As workloads have grown, the amount of time a claim waits at each

processing point has increased. Since 1985, average case-processing time

at OHA has grown from 167 days to about 350 days. Following a 1992

review of OHA operations, SSA found that claimants can wait as long as 550

days to receive a hearing decision notice.4

 The same report noted that, in

the case of one claim, only 4 days of the 550 involved actual work on the

claim. Some of the delay is necessary, however, because of scheduling and

due process notice requirements. Other delays are often claimant initiated

and may lead to hearing postponements or the need to further develop the

evidentiary record.

4

Department of Health and Human Services, SSA, Office of Workforce Analysis, Process Review

Report: The Office of Hearings and Appeals (Washington, D.C.: HHS, June 1992).

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 2 

Increasing Workloads and Long-Standing

Problems Have Contributed to OHA’s Case

Backlog

Fragmented Program

Accountability

SSA has acknowledged that no single organizational component is

accountable for the overall efficiency of disability claims processing, and

that fragmentation issues have negatively affected the efficiency of the

process. Currently, several organizational components are involved in

disability claims processing—field offices, DDSs, hearing offices, and the

Appeals Council—and each is accountable and responsible for reaching its

own goals without responsibility for the overall disability claims process.

SSA’s own internal reviews have found that poor coordination among

components has reinforced a lack of understanding among OHA staff of the

roles and responsibilities of other components and created the perception

that no one is in charge of the disability programs.

Fragmentation in the disability process is further evidenced by OHA’s

organizational and operational separation from the rest of SSA. OHA’s

headquarters is located in Falls Church, Virginia, while SSA’s headquarters

is located in Baltimore. OHA regional staff are also separated from SSA

regional staff. SSA’s own reviews have found that organizational

fragmentation has led to a lack of interaction between OHA and the rest of

SSA and fostered a “stepchild” mentality among many OHA employees. For

example, SSA found that OHA staff had little sense of belonging to the wider

SSA and were unfamiliar with its organizational structure, philosophy, and

goals. This mentality has affected SSA’s ability to implement operational

plans for the disability programs.

Finally, SSA lacks a common automated database for managing claims as

they move through the various components involved in the disability

determination process. Consequently, as a claim moves from one

organizational level to another, some data must be manually reentered into

the computer by the various components, and the status of disability

claims is not adequately recorded for reference by others. Outdated

manual processes and fragmented automated systems have made

improving the disability determination and appeals process difficult.

Decisional Disparities

Between DDS and OHA

Adjudicators

In 1994, ALJs allowed benefits in about 75 percent of the cases they

decided. By awarding a relatively high percentage of cases that DDSs have

previously denied, ALJs may encourage more appeals to OHA. While all of

the reasons for decisional disparities are not conclusively known, many

have hypothesized that possible causes include the de novo hearings

process, which allows claimants to submit additional evidence upon

appeal; face-to-face interviews between ALJs and claimants; decisional

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 2 

Increasing Workloads and Long-Standing

Problems Have Contributed to OHA’s Case

Backlog

errors by both DDSs and ALJs; and different applications of disability

decisional policies at the DDS and ALJ levels.

Some decisional disparities may be attributable to OHA’s de novo hearings

process. Under this process, the ALJ does not review the DDS’ decision or

rule on its adequacy. Instead, the ALJ conducts what is called a de novo

hearing in which evidence is considered and weighed again, and the ALJ

issues a decision based on his or her own findings. With the de novo

hearing, claimants may submit new evidence to the ALJ that may not have

been available at the time of the DDS review and decision. SSA’s reviews

have found that more than a quarter of ALJ awards are based on such new

evidence, which may include claimant testimony that their condition has

worsened since the original DDS review. Thus, by design, some differences

in decisional results are built into the system.

Also, face-to-face interviews between ALJs and claimants may lead to

disparate decisions. The ALJ hearing is generally the first time that

claimants have the opportunity for a meeting with a decisionmaker. Unlike

DDSs, which perform a paper review of the file to determine disability, ALJs

personally interview claimants concerning their disability claim. A 1982

SSA study reported that a personal appearance by claimants during the

hearing increased the likelihood of an ALJ allowance.5

 In 1989, we reported

that hearings provide ALJs with the opportunity to extensively question

claimants and that, as a result, ALJs often reverse DDS decisions because

they determine that claimants are more limited in their activities than DDSs

had perceived.6

Errors made by both DDS staff and ALJs may also contribute to disparities.

In a 1994 SSA study, a group of medical consultants and disability

examiners found a 29-percent DDS error rate for cases appealed to OHA.

7

 In

the same study, a group of ALJs found a 19-percent error rate in ALJ

allowances. These relatively high rates of error suggest that obtaining

consistency across the two levels may be difficult.

Finally, some disparities may be attributable to SSA’s differing mechanisms

for providing decisional guidance to DDSs and ALJs. To determine disability,

5

Secretary of HHS, Report on Implementation of Section 304(g) of P.L. 96-265, Social Security

Disability Amendments of 1980 (the Bellmon Report) (Washington, D.C.: HHS, Jan. 1982).

6

Social Security: Selective Face-to-Face Interviews With Disability Claimants Could Reduce Appeals

(GAO-HRD-89-22, Apr. 20, 1989).

7

HHS, SSA, Office of Program and Integrity Reviews, Findings of the Disability Hearings Quality

Review Process (Washington, D.C.: HHS, Sept. 1994).

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 2 

Increasing Workloads and Long-Standing

Problems Have Contributed to OHA’s Case

Backlog

SSA has a single standard composed of various statutes, regulations, Social

Security Rulings, and court rulings governing eligibility. DDS

decisionmakers are required to use SSA’s Program Operations Manual

System (POMS), which is SSA’s detailed interpretation of the standard. ALJs,

on the other hand, are not required to use POMS, which provides little

decisional latitude. Instead, they base their decisions on their own

interpretation of the statutes, regulations, Social Security Rulings, and

court rulings. To an undetermined extent, different interpretations of the

same disability standard may cause DDSs and ALJs to reach disparate

decisions on the same claim.

Problems With SSA’s

Management Authority

Over ALJs

APA protects ALJ decisional independence. Although ALJs are SSA employees,

APA prohibits SSA management from taking actions that might interfere

with an ALJ’s ability to conduct full and impartial hearings. However, SSA

has not consistently defined and communicated to regional and hearing

office management the types of management actions that are legally

permissible for managing ALJs without hindering judicial independence.

SSA’s 1992 Office of Workforce Analysis report found that many ALJs are

operating under the belief that they are exempted by APA from nearly all

management control. As a result, SSA has experienced numerous legal and

operational challenges to its efforts to better manage the appeals process.

SSA management has also been reluctant to exercise its management

authority over ALJs for fear it will violate APA. The APA issue continues to be

important today, because the success of the redesign plan may be affected

by the degree of ALJ cooperation and the extent to which SSA can mandate

ALJ compliance with the plan’s initiatives.

In 1989, we reported that, since the 1970s, ALJs had successfully opposed

management initiatives to increase their productivity on the grounds that

such SSA actions interfered with their decisional independence.8

 Many ALJs

believe they need to closely protect their judicial independence because of

what they perceive as past excesses of agency authority. For example, in

1977 several ALJs sued SSA when it attempted to impose case production

quotas on them. The ALJs alleged that SSA’s actions violated their decisional

independence under APA and the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. SSA

ultimately settled the lawsuit, rescinded its policy of establishing quotas

for ALJ dispositions, and revised transfer and training policies to remove

any mention of production figures. In the early 1980s, SSA began targeting

8

Social Security: Many Administrative Law Judges Oppose Productivity Initiatives (GAO-HRD-90-15,

Dec. 7, 1989).

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 2 

Increasing Workloads and Long-Standing

Problems Have Contributed to OHA’s Case

Backlog

the decisions of ALJs with high award rates for special review. According

to SSA, these reviews were conducted in response to congressional

concerns that ALJs with high allowance rates could be more prone to

errors. As a result of these reviews, some ALJs were to be subject to

retraining and possible disciplinary actions. The initiative prompted a

lawsuit by the Association of Administrative Law Judges, which claimed

that the practice of targeting selected ALJs violated their decisional

independence. Before the court’s ruling, SSA entered into a settlement

agreement with the ALJs and rescinded its practice of targeting individual

decisionmakers.

Although APA is an important safeguard of due process, SSA’s own studies

confirm that, in many instances, the act has been interpreted in a way that

has impeded SSA’s ability to effectively manage day-to-day hearing office

work and to implement uniform policies and procedures. For example,

SSA’s 1992 Office of Workforce Analysis report noted that an “extreme”

interpretation of APA by many ALJs had led to a lack of clear lines of

management authority within hearing offices and impeded effective

service delivery. SSA also found that hearing offices lacked procedural

consistency and effective mechanisms to share “best practices,” because

many ALJs believed judicial independence entitled them to establish their

own “unique” work flow procedures. The report also noted that

inconsistent procedures resulted in significant variations in the content

and organization of hearing office files and created obvious problems

when case files were transferred among offices to balance OHA’s

workloads.

SSA also reported a wide variety of organizational configurations among

hearing offices, despite an agency effort to actively encourage “pooling”

hearing office resources to increase efficiency and distribute work more

evenly. Many ALJs opposed the pooling initiative, preferring instead a “unit”

system in which each ALJ had his or her own personal staff. SSA reported

that several ALJs had rejected the pooling configuration despite the

agency’s findings that the “unit” system unnecessarily increased

case-processing time. However, the report did not include any directives

or recommendations for mandating ALJ compliance with SSA’s pooling

efforts.

In an early 1990s plan to improve the disability appeals process, SSA noted

that significant ambiguities existed regarding the limits APA imposed on SSA

management practices and that APA issues underlie many of the problems

affecting the disability program’s variations in hearing office procedures,

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 2 

Increasing Workloads and Long-Standing

Problems Have Contributed to OHA’s Case

Backlog

work flow, and workload management. In April 1995, SSA once again

acknowledged the constraints APA imposed on its ability to manage and

called for better clarifying APA principles.

Our most recent field work confirmed that SSA still has not consistently

defined and communicated the types of management actions that are

legally permissible under APA. During our review, a number of SSA and OHA

managers and staff told us that despite SSA’s recognition of the problems

associated with ensuring ALJ compliance with agency initiatives, it has not

resolved the issue. Staff commonly complained that ALJs often used APA

protections to oppose initiatives they did not agree with and conceded that

managers were reluctant to mandate ALJ compliance for fear of violating

the act. They also told us that ALJ opposition to prior agency initiatives to

improve the appeals process has contributed to the growth in OHA’s

backlog of cases and that reducing the backlog will be difficult unless SSA

addresses the APA issue. Officials in SSA’s Office of General Counsel also

noted that while SSA is aware of the management tools available to it, there

have been inconsistencies in the way this information has been

communicated agencywide. In their opinion, SSA needs to develop a

consistent APA message and thoroughly communicate it to both SSA and

OHA field personnel.

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 3 

Backlog Reduction and Process Redesign

Initiatives Under Way

During the past decade, OHA’s backlog of pending cases continued to grow,

even though SSA hired more professional and support personnel and

increased its reliance on overtime to service the appeals workload. In

1994, SSA initiated both short- and long-term plans in response to the

continued rapid growth in OHA’s pending case backlog and increasing

criticism of SSA’s ability to effectively manage the DI and SSI caseloads.

STDP represents SSA’s near-term effort to reduce OHA’s backlog of pending

cases and improve case-processing times. The plan does not directly

address the long-standing problems affecting SSA’s disability appeals

process but instead relies on temporary “emergency” measures to alleviate

workload pressures at OHA until SSA’s longer-term strategy is under way.

Although STDP’s initiatives are now under way, implementation delays and

the limited impact of key initiatives may impede SSA’s short-term efforts to

achieve its backlog reduction goals.

SSA’s second initiative—its Plan for a New Disability Claim Process, or

redesign plan—when fully implemented, is intended to result in significant

long-term improvements in the quality, accuracy, speed, and efficiency of

disability claims processes. The plan is scheduled to be implemented in

phases that will be completed sometime in fiscal year 2000. The redesign

effort, which provides a framework for radically reengineering the entire

disability process, is aimed at addressing three of the four long-standing

problems we identified: multiple levels of claims development and

decision-making, fragmented program accountability, and inconsistent

decisions between DDS and OHA adjudicators.

While SSA believes the redesign plan will eventually address many systemic

program problems, the plan was still in the early implementation and

testing stages at the time of our review. More importantly, the redesign

plan does not include an initiative to clearly and consistently define and

communicate SSA’s management authority over the ALJs. APA constraints

have been a source of considerable management difficulties for many

years, and if SSA does not act to address this issue, it may be hindered in its

current efforts to reduce OHA’s pending case backlog and improve

case-processing times.

Previous SSA Efforts

Did Not Reduce

Backlog

Over the last decade, SSA attempted to address the growth in OHA’s backlog

of pending cases. Between 1985 and 1995, SSA increased field office ALJ

staffing levels by 49 percent and support staff by about 45 percent (see

table 3.1). From 1990 to 1995, the agency also increased its use of overtime

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 3 

Backlog Reduction and Process Redesign

Initiatives Under Way

more than 850 percent, from about 74,000 hours to 713,000 hours.

Although the number of cases OHA processed annually increased from

246,000 in 1985 to about 527,000 in 1995, the growth in OHA’s workload

during that time outpaced its case-processing capacity.

Table 3.1: OHA Field Office Staffing

Levels, 1985-95

Fiscal year ALJsa

Support

staffa

1995 1,053 5,044

1994 1,002 4,743

1993 830 4,316

1992 819 4,143

1991 859 4,308

1990 786 3,809

1989 703 3,571

1988 715 3,636

1987 651 3,498

1986 699 3,444

1985 707 3,478

aRepresents the average number on duty during the fiscal year.

In addition to devoting more staff resources and overtime to the backlog

crisis, SSA initiated at least three major studies between 1990 and 1992 to

identify issues affecting the performance of its disability programs.9

 These

reviews resulted in recommendations for improving program efficiency

through such actions as standardizing some hearing office procedures,

sharing agency “best practices” among offices, and improving access to

training and automation for OHA personnel. During our field work, a

number of SSA and OHA officials told us that prior agency initiatives were

limited in their effectiveness because SSA focused primarily on minor

process changes and applying additional resources to the disability

program rather than addressing long-standing, systemic problems central

to the backlog of cases awaiting processing. Several officials also noted

that previous initiatives for improving the appeals process were limited in

their effectiveness because SSA was reluctant to mandate ALJ compliance

with them.

9

HHS, SSA, Office of Workforce Analysis, Process Review Report: The Office of Hearings and Appeals

(Washington, D.C.: HHS, June 1992); HHS, SSA, Management and Administrative Systems Review

Team, Implementation of the Commissioner’s Decisions on Enhancing OHA Management and

Administrative Systems (Washington, D.C.: HHS, Oct. 22, 1992); and HHS, SSA, Workgroup on OHA

Workload Issues, Recommended Actions to Address Hearings Workload (Washington, D.C.: HHS,

Dec. 22, 1992).

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 3 

Backlog Reduction and Process Redesign

Initiatives Under Way

Backlog Reduction

Efforts Focus on

STDP

SSA issued its STDP in 1994 in order to make some immediate progress

toward reducing OHA’s backlog of pending cases. STDP includes 19

initiatives to expedite the disability determination process and reduce

OHA’s pending case workload from its October 1994 level of 488,000 to

375,000 cases by December 1996. The plan’s goals are based primarily on

two key initiatives that expand OHA prehearing conferencing proceedings

and SSA regional screening unit activities. These initiatives target certain

appealed cases for review and possible allowance by OHA attorneys or SSA

regional staff before the ALJ hearing stage is reached.

Resource Reallocations

Are a Component of STDP

STDP relies heavily on the temporary reallocation of program resources to

help OHA prepare cases and draft disability decisions. Under the plan, 150

OHA and SSA staff have been detailed to help prepare cases for hearings.

Case preparation includes assembling and reorganizing claimant files, date

stamping exhibits, and preparing evidence lists. Reallocating resources is

intended to ensure that case files are organized in a way that facilitates the

processing of disability cases. An additional 150 nonhearing office

personnel have also been detailed to help draft hearing decisions.

To further improve decision-writing capacity, 800 additional computers

have been provided for use by OHA personnel. This influx of computers is

intended to reduce OHA’s current dependence on manual processes and

support personnel during the preparation of hearing decisions and to limit

the movement of documents back and forth between staff for proofreading

and editing.

Prehearing Conferencing

Initiative Has Experienced

Delays

The initiative expected to have the greatest impact on reducing OHA’s

backlog of cases involves the expansion of OHA prehearing conferencing.

However, implementation delays associated with prehearing conferencing

have affected SSA’s ability to achieve STDP’s goals.

Before STDP, prehearing conferencing involved the review of certain

appealed cases by OHA staff attorneys and paralegal specialists in the

various OHA regions. These individuals conferred with claimant

representatives after reviewing cases, conducted limited case

development, and drafted decisions to be reviewed and approved by ALJs.

With expanded prehearing conferencing under STDP, OHA attorneys have

been given quasi-judicial powers, such as the authority to issue allowance

decisions for certain appealed cases without ALJ involvement or approval.

Under the initiative, OHA attorneys now engage in extensive development

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 3 

Backlog Reduction and Process Redesign

Initiatives Under Way

of the case record, conduct conferences with claimant representatives and

sources of medical and vocational evidence, and are empowered to issue

allowance decisions. If they cannot allow the claim on the basis of their

review of the evidence, it is scheduled for hearing before an ALJ.

OHA guidelines for prehearing conferencing give 595 senior attorneys the

authority to issue allowance decisions. To fully implement the initiative,

SSA had to pursue a regulatory change giving OHA staff attorneys the

authority to decide certain appealed cases that were formerly limited to

ALJ jurisdiction. But the process of defining the specific duties and

responsibilities these attorneys would have under STDP was lengthy, and

implementation did not begin until July 1995, or almost 6 months after the

projected start date. Delays also occurred with other initiatives designed

to support prehearing conferencing. For example, backlog reduction goals

for prehearing conferencing are partly dependent upon STDP initiatives to

provide more computers and staff to assist OHA with case preparation and

decision-writing. But due to protracted collective bargaining negotiations

with SSA’s union and other difficulties, full implementation of these

initiatives was delayed for several months. Through expanded prehearing

conferencing, SSA had originally expected to process 98,000 additional

cases by December 1995 and 126,000 more by December 1996. However,

1995 goals were not achieved, and senior staff attorneys issued only 22,271

additional allowance decisions nationwide through February 1996.

Screening Units Are Not

Sufficiently Reducing the

Number of Cases Requiring

an ALJ Hearing

A second major initiative under STDP is intended to further reduce the flow

of cases from DDSs to OHA hearing offices by increasing the effectiveness of

SSA regional screening units. However, these units have not performed as

expected.

Before STDP, SSA established screening units in each region to review DDS

reconsideration denials. Before an ALJ hearing occurred, screening unit

examiners reviewed these cases to determine if an allowance could be

made on the basis of evidence in the case file. Although screening unit

allowances required ALJ approval, they expedited the decision-making

process and prevented many cases from going into OHA’s hearings backlog.

Under STDP, OHA staff attorneys have been assigned to all SSA regional

screening units to dispose of more appealed claims before they reach an

ALJ hearing. The decision to add OHA attorneys was based upon the

experiences of SSA’s Boston and New York regional offices, which had

tested the use of OHA attorneys in screening units and were obtaining

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 3 

Backlog Reduction and Process Redesign

Initiatives Under Way

higher allowance rates. According to SSA, the opportunity for screening

unit examiners to discuss issues with an attorney gives examiners helpful

insight into the intent of the POMS requirements and enables them to

reverse incorrect DDS reconsideration denials earlier in the process.

Most cases reviewed by the screening units are selected on the basis of

computer-generated profiles that identify disability claims likely to be

incorrectly denied by DDSs. SSA officials contend that “profiling” minimizes

the risk of making incorrect allowances. However, to increase screening

unit outputs, the case selection criteria were expanded in January 1995 to

include all hearing requests accompanied by any additional evidence, even

if the case did not meet the profile. Consequently, screening units are now

reviewing some cases that are not necessarily error prone.

Screening units, like prehearing conferencing, are not achieving STDP’s

allowance goals. Before STDP, existing screening units were expected to

allow about 20,000 cases per year. With the introduction of OHA senior

attorneys, SSA expected to allow 38,000 cases annually, or about 3,167

cases per month. However, screening units had allowed a total of only

28,376 cases through February 1996. Only two of SSA’s screening

units—Boston and New York—are allowing cases at a level that may

facilitate reaching STDP’s 1996 goals. SSA officials overseeing the initiative

told us that regional differences in allowances were primarily due to the

reluctance of some hearing offices to provide sufficient staff and senior

attorney support to the regional screening units.

STDP May Have

Unintended Effects

Despite slippage in the implementation of STDP’s major initiatives, SSA

management has not revised its original backlog reduction goals or the

timeframes for accomplishing them. As a result, a number of SSA and OHA

personnel involved in the design and implementation of STDP are

concerned that the plan may have unintended negative impacts.

When STDP was announced in November 1994, it called for reducing OHA’s

backlog from 488,000 to 375,000 (113,000 cases) by December 1996.

However, by the end of September 1995, OHA’s backlog had increased to

548,000 cases. To achieve the plan’s original goal of reducing pending

cases to 375,000, SSA would have to increase its backlog reduction target

from the original 113,000 cases to about 173,000 during the remaining

timeframe. Many SSA and OHA officials have expressed concern that the

growth in OHA’s pending case backlog over the last several months,

combined with STDP’s aggressive goals, may create pressure to

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 3 

Backlog Reduction and Process Redesign

Initiatives Under Way

inappropriately allow cases. As a means of determining STDP’s impact on

OHA decision-making, SSA management is closely monitoring and tracking

OHA allowance rates.

Finally, the prehearing conferencing initiative under STDP has diverted

almost 600 attorneys from their regular decision-writing duties. SSA intends

to offset this loss in decision-writing resources with 150 temporary

detailees from various components and increased overtime for support

and professional staff. However, many SSA and OHA officials are concerned

that the number of detailees is insufficient to offset the loss of experienced

decision-writers.

SSA’s Redesign Plan Is

Aimed at Addressing

Several Long-Standing

Problems

Unlike STDP, the redesign plan includes initiatives that SSA believes will

address some of the program’s long-standing problems: multiple levels of

claims development and decision-making, fragmented program

accountability, and decisional disparities between DDS and OHA

adjudicators. In announcing the plan in September 1994, SSA acknowledged

that a longer-term strategy was needed to address the systemic problems

placing the DI and SSI programs under increasing stress. The agency also

noted that, to substantially improve the level of service to claimants,

incremental improvements to the process were no longer feasible. At the

time of our review, SSA was in the early implementation planning and

testing stages of the redesign effort, and none of the initiatives had been

fully implemented.

To address the problem of multiple levels of claims development and

decision-making, the redesign plan includes initiatives to eliminate both

DDS reconsideration and Appeals Council reviews. In place of the

reconsideration review, SSA plans to establish an Adjudication Officer (AO)

position as the focal point for prehearing activities. The AO’s duties will

include (1) identifying the specific issues in dispute, (2) determining if

additional evidence development is needed to support a claim,

(3) reaching agreement with claimants or their representatives on the

issues not in dispute, and (4) deciding appealed claims on the basis of the

evidence developed. By focusing prehearing responsibilities on a single

adjudicator, SSA expects that the time needed to ensure the completeness

of the record will be substantially reduced and that more appealed cases

will be resolved without ALJ involvement.

The redesign plan also includes initiatives that SSA believes will address

the problem of fragmented program accountability. To improve overall

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 3 

Backlog Reduction and Process Redesign

Initiatives Under Way

accountability for claims processing, SSA plans to revise its management

information processes to better assess the agency’s service to claimants.

Information regarding staff actions at each step of the process is to be

made available to all components, and a single measure of time from the

claimant’s first point of contact with SSA until final notification of a

decision will be developed. SSA has proposed developing or revisiting other

measures related to cost, productivity, pending workload, and accuracy to

better assess the performance of each participant, and the agency as a

whole. The plan also calls for installing a common database for claims

control and management purposes, rather than relying on the currently

fragmented automated systems.

To address organizational fragmentation issues, SSA plans to emphasize

accountability and teamwork throughout the disability claim process. At

the initial DDS level, a Disability Claims Manager position will be

established as the focal point for moving the claim through the earliest

stages. For OHA’s prehearing activities, the AO position will be the

responsible agent. At the hearing level, the ALJ will be the responsible

official. SSA plans to hold these individuals accountable for their part of the

disability determination and appeals process and require them to work

with other components to ensure timely case processing.

The disability redesign plan also includes several initiatives to reduce

decisional disparities between DDS and OHA decisionmakers by

(1) providing an opportunity for the initial decisionmaker to meet

claimants face-to-face, (2) improving SSA’s quality assurance processes,

and (3) unifying policy guidance at both the DDS and ALJ levels. Under the

redesigned process, claimants will be provided the opportunity to meet

with a DDS decisionmaker before the claim is initially decided. This

meeting is intended to ensure that all available evidence has been

presented and that claimants understand what evidence will be considered

in reaching the decision. SSA also plans to improve its quality assurance

processes by extending such reviews to all levels of the adjudicatory

process and using the results to identify areas for improving agency

policies and training.

To further ensure consistent standards for decision-making, the redesign

plan includes an initiative to develop a single presentation of all

substantive policies used in the determination of disability. Both DDS and

ALJ adjudicators will be required to follow these same policies. SSA plans to

provide policy clarifications and nationwide training to both DDS and ALJ

decisionmakers to facilitate the use of the new policies. However, SSA has

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 3 

Backlog Reduction and Process Redesign

Initiatives Under Way

not proposed any changes to the de novo hearings process and the ability

of claimants to submit new medical evidence upon appeal. According to

SSA, revising these processes would require a legislative change, which was

not within the scope of the plan at its initial stage.

Redesign Does Not

Address SSA’s

Management

Authority Over ALJs

SSA’s disability redesign plan includes initiatives that SSA believes will

address several of the long-standing problems affecting program

performance, but the plan does not specifically address how SSA will

consistently define and communicate its management authority over the

ALJs.

Although APA is an important safeguard of due process, SSA has not

consistently defined and communicated to its field staff the actions that

can be legally employed by managers to increase program efficiency

without hindering judicial independence. For years, SSA has acknowledged

the management difficulties associated with the APA issue, and the need to

develop specific guidelines of allowed and prohibited practices that are

fully understood by everyone involved. More recently, the Director of SSA’s

redesign effort again acknowledged that APA procedures and mandates

should be better clarified and refined to fit SSA’s mass adjudication

approach to its disability programs.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 4 

Conclusions, Agency Comments, and Our

Evaluation

SSA’s disability programs have been the subject of numerous internal and

external studies over the last 2 decades. Despite these studies and

continuing agency efforts to improve the disability determination and

appeals process, OHA’s case backlog has reached crisis levels. In an

environment of unprecedented disability program growth, SSA has both a

short- and a long-term approach to better service its DI and SSI workloads.

In the near term, STDP is designed to expedite the disability appeals

process and reduce OHA’s pending case backlog to a manageable level. In

developing its long-term Plan for a New Disability Claim Process, SSA has

also acknowledged the need for the agency to move ahead with more

dramatic program changes.

Considering the current backlog crisis at OHA, STDP’s approach for

temporarily reducing OHA backlogs is reasonable in that it establishes

specific goals and timeframes for reducing OHA backlogs. It also represents

an SSA-wide commitment involving the reallocation of resources from both

within and outside OHA, and coordination and cooperation among all

organizational components involved in the adjudication process.

Disposing of cases earlier in the decisional process may also be less costly

and time consuming than allowing them to reach the ALJ hearing stage.

Although backlog reduction efforts are receiving greater agencywide

emphasis under STDP, implementation delays associated with prehearing

conferencing and the limited impact of regional screening have adversely

affected SSA’s ability to achieve the plan’s backlog reduction goals. Many

OHA and SSA staff are also concerned that the continued growth in OHA’s

pending case backlog and SSA’s reluctance to adjust the plan’s goals may

affect the quality of decisions and lead to increased pressure to

inappropriately award cases.

To ensure decisional accuracy, SSA intends to monitor the quality of STDP

decisions and the overall allowance rate for its disability programs. The

agency’s reliance on computer-generated profiles to select certain

error-prone cases for review under STDP is also intended to reduce the risk

of inappropriate decisions. However, the screening unit case selection

criteria have been expanded to include some nonprofiled cases, and

prehearing conferencing regulations do not preclude OHA senior attorneys

from reviewing nonprofiled cases in the future.

Although the redesign plan includes initiatives that SSA believes will

address several long-standing program problems, it does not specifically

address the need to consistently define and communicate the types of

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 4 

Conclusions, Agency Comments, and Our

Evaluation

management actions SSA can legally employ to better manage ALJ activities.

For years, SSA has recognized that ALJ management issues underlie many of

the problems affecting its disability programs, and that it should better

define and thoroughly communicate a consistent APA message to field

staff. We believe that addressing the APA issue will be a challenge for SSA.

However, it is a challenge that must be overcome if SSA is to resolve the

current disability backlog crisis and achieve its long-term service delivery

goals.

SSA’s Comments and

Our Evaluation

In providing comments on this report, SSA identified a number of actions

that it has taken since 1992 to streamline and expedite the processing of

hearing workloads. These actions include developing a plan to standardize

disability claim file preparation, creating a Practices and Procedures

Exchange Workgroup within OHA, suspending the preparation of medical

summaries, standardizing decision-writing instructions, and encouraging

ALJs to write some of their own decisions. However, the agency did not

provide data regarding the impact of these initiatives on reducing OHA’s

backlog of pending cases. Our data show that, despite SSA’s efforts, OHA’s

backlog has continued to grow since 1992.

In regard to STDP, SSA acknowledged that, because of increases in hearing

receipt projections and the pace of STDP implementation, the plan’s

backlog reduction goals would not be met by December 1996. However,

SSA officials stated that a shortfall in screening unit allowances would have

only a limited impact on meeting STDP’s overall goals. We disagree with

SSA’s assessment, since SSA originally intended that the screening units

would be second only to prehearing conferencing in terms of impact and

would result in 38,000 additional allowances through December 1996. Not

meeting screening unit allowance targets will, in our opinion, hinder OHA’s

backlog reduction efforts. SSA did not provide us with revised backlog

reduction goals for STDP or any documentation indicating that they would

be changed in the near future.

Regarding our concerns that pressure to meet STDP’s goals may have

unintended effects, SSA has advised its adjudicators that STDP should not be

interpreted to inappropriately allow cases. SSA also noted that through the

deployment of resources not previously devoted to hearing office

workloads, the decision-writing pending workload has been reduced from

over 43,000 to about 28,000 cases.

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Chapter 4 

Conclusions, Agency Comments, and Our

Evaluation

Finally, SSA agreed that clarifying the scope of its authority over ALJs under

APA would be appropriate and stated it is developing such a document.

However, the agency questioned the statement in our report that many

ALJs believe they are exempt from nearly all management control. This was

not our conclusion, but one that was reported by SSA’s Office of Workforce

Analysis following its 1992 review of OHA operations. SSA also disagreed

with our statement that ALJs have successfully opposed agency

productivity initiatives. However, ALJ opposition to agency initiatives to

improve productivity has been documented in prior SSA and GAO reviews

and through field work conducted during this assignment. The full text of

SSA’s comments and our response are included in appendix III.

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Page 35 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix I 

SSA Organizational Chart

Office of the

Commissioner

of SSA

Principal Deputy

Commissioner

of SSA

Chief

of Staff

Office of

the Actuary

Office of Senior

Executive Officer

Office of

Executive

Operations

Strategic

Planning

Staff

Operations

Deputy

Commissioner

Systems

Deputy

Commissioner

Human

Resources

Deputy

Commissioner

Finance,

Assessment, and

Management

Deputy

Commissioner

Legislation and

Congressional

Affairs

Deputy

Commissioner

Office of the

Inspector

General

Inspector

General

Office of the

General

Counsel

General

Counsel

Communications

Deputy

Commissioner

Office of

Program

Benefits Policy

Associate

Commissioner

Office of

Disability

Associate

Commissioner

Office of

Program

Support

Associate

Commissioner

Office of

International

Policy

Associate

Commissioner

Office of

Research,

Evaluation,

and Statistics

Associate

Commissioner

Office of Policy

and Planning

Associate

Commissioner

Office of

Hearings and

Appeals

Associate

Commissioner

Programs

and

Policy

Deputy

Commissioner

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix II 

OHA Organizational Chart

Office of

Hearings and

Appeals

Associate

Commissioner

Special Counsel

Staff

Executive

Secretariat

Office of

Planning and

Evaluation

Office of

Appellate

Operations

Office of

Management

Office of Chief

ALJ

RCALJ

Atlanta

RCALJ

Boston

RCALJ

Chicago

RCALJ

Dallas

RCALJ

Denver

RCALJ

Kansas City

RCALJ

New York

RCALJ

Philadelphia

RCALJ

San Francisco

RCALJ

Seattle

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix III 

Comments From the Social Security

Administration and Our Evaluation

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in

the report text appear at

the end of this appendix.

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix III 

Comments From the Social Security

Administration and Our Evaluation

See comment 1.

Now on p. 17.

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix III 

Comments From the Social Security

Administration and Our Evaluation

See comment 2.

Now on p. 25.

See comment 3.

Now on pp. 27-28.

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix III 

Comments From the Social Security

Administration and Our Evaluation

Now on pp. 28-29.

See comment 4.

Now on p. 21.

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix III 

Comments From the Social Security

Administration and Our Evaluation

Now on p. 21.

See comment 5.

Now on p. 22.

See comment 6.

Now on p. 18.

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix III 

Comments From the Social Security

Administration and Our Evaluation

See comment 7.

Now on p. 20.

See comment 8.

Now on p. 10.

Now on pp. 21-22.

Now on p. 25.

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix III 

Comments From the Social Security

Administration and Our Evaluation

The following are GAO’s comments on the Social Security Administration’s

letter dated May 14, 1996.

GAO Comments 1. Our analysis notes that the growth in OHA’s backlog of pending cases has

been due to the “rapid surge” in disability program applications,

ever-increasing appeals to OHA, and SSA’s not addressing several

long-standing problems associated with its disability programs.

2. This report does not challenge SSA’s staffing and overtime allocations.

However, it does confirm that SSA has relied heavily on increasing OHA

staffing levels and the use of overtime to address the backlog problem.

Although SSA identified a number of additional actions taken over the last

several years to expedite the hearings process, it did not provide data

regarding their impact on reducing OHA’s backlog. Our data show that,

despite SSA’s efforts, the backlog has continued to grow.

3. We disagree with SSA’s statement that a shortfall in screening unit

allowances will have only a limited impact on meeting STDP’s goals. It was

originally intended that the screening units would be second only to

prehearing conferencing in terms of impact and result in 38,000 additional

allowances by the end of December 1996. Therefore, not meeting

screening unit allowance targets will hinder SSA’s backlog reduction

efforts.

4. SSA disagreed with the statement in our report that many ALJs believe

they are exempt from nearly all management control. While SSA viewed

this as “conjectural,” it should be noted that this was not our conclusion,

but one that was reported by SSA’s Office of Workforce Analysis in 1992.

SSA also disagreed with our statement that ALJs have opposed agency

efforts to improve productivity. However, ALJ opposition to agency

productivity initiatives has been documented in prior SSA and GAO reviews

and through field work conducted during this assignment.

5. Upon review of the source documents, our reference to an “official”

agency policy of pooling hearing office staff was revised. However, our

data still support the statement that ALJs opposed SSA’s efforts to actively

encourage the “pooling” of hearing office resources to increase efficiency

and distribute work more evenly.

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix III 

Comments From the Social Security

Administration and Our Evaluation

6. Upon review of the source documents and SSA’s comments, the report

was revised to better reflect the range of factors affecting overall case

processing time at OHA.

7. We are aware of the judgmental aspects of disability decision-making

and the “zone of choice” under which decisions can be rendered. However,

SSA’s own reviews have reported a relatively high error rate for both DDS

and OHA decisions. Errors at any level may contribute further to decisional

inconsistencies between the two levels.

8. Where source documents were provided by SSA, changes were made to

the report to more accurately reflect the growth in the DI and SSI programs

from 1985 to 1995, and the total number of OHA case dispositions for fiscal

year 1995. We also incorporated SSA’s statement that a previous agency

effort to review the decisions of ALJs with high allowance rates was

initiated in response to Senator Bellmon’s concern that these decisions

could be more prone to errors.

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix IV 

Studies on SSA’s Disability Decision-Making

Process

This appendix is divided into two parts: the first contains studies done by

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), of which SSA was a

part until 1995; the second contains studies done by others.

Studies Done by HHS Dr. Shirley Chater, Commissioner of Social Security. “Reinventing” the

Social Security Administration, testimony before the Subcommittee on

Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means. Washington, D.C.: HHS,

Oct. 28, 1993.

HHS, Office of the Inspector General. Management Oversight Review

Report on Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration.

Washington, D.C.: HHS, May 1981.

HHS, SSA. Defining World Class Service at the Social Security

Administration, discussion paper. Washington, D.C.: HHS, Feb. 14, 1994.

_____. Disability Process Redesign: Next Steps in Implementation.

Washington, D.C.: HHS, Nov. 1994.

_____. Improving Service Delivery at the Social Security Administration.

Washington, D.C.: HHS, Oct. 21, 1993.

_____. Plan for a New Disability Claim Process. Washington, D.C.: HHS,

Sept. 1994.

HHS, SSA. Report on a Study of Social Security Beneficiary Hearings,

Appeals, and Judicial Review. Washington, D.C.: HHS, May 15, 1975.

_____. SSA Strategic Priority: Improve the Appeals Process, report of the

Strategic Priority Workgroup. Washington, D.C.: HHS, Jan. 1992.

_____. SSA Strategic Priority Transition Guidance. Washington, D.C.: HHS,

June 1992.

_____. The Social Security Strategic Plan: A Framework for the Future.

Washington, D.C.: HHS, Sept. 1991.

HHS, SSA, Disability Advisory Council, John E. Affeldt, M.D., Chairman.

Report of the Disability Advisory Council. Washington, D.C.: HHS,

Mar. 1988.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix IV 

Studies on SSA’s Disability Decision-Making

Process

HHS, SSA, Office of the Commissioner, Office of Strategic Planning.

Implementation of the Social Security Administration’s Strategic Plan: A

Status Report. Washington, D.C.: HHS, June 1993.

HHS, SSA, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Finance, Assessment, and

Management, Management and Administrative Systems Review Team.

Implementation of the Commissioner’s Decisions of Enhancing OHA

Management and Administrative Systems. Washington, D.C.: HHS, Oct. 23,

1992.

HHS, SSA, Office of Program and Integrity Reviews. Findings of the

Disability Hearings Quality Review Process. Washington, D.C.: HHS, Sept.

1994.

HHS, SSA, Office of Workforce Analysis. Process Review Report: The Office

of Hearings and Appeals. Washington, D.C.: HHS, June 1992.

HHS, SSA, Workgroup on OHA Workload Issues. Recommended Actions to

Address Hearings Workload. Washington, D.C.: HHS, Dec. 22, 1992.

Secretary of Health and Human Services. Report on Implementation of

Section 304 (g) of P.L. 96-265, Social Security Disability Amendments of

1980 (the Bellmon Report). Washington, D.C.: HHS, Jan. 1982.

Studies Done by

Others

Administrative Conference of the United States. Disability Benefit Claim

Processing and Appeals in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United

Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, Dec. 1993.

_____. Procedures for Determining Social Security Disability Claims

(recommendation 78-2). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1978.

_____. Report and Recommendation on the Social Security

Administration’s Administrative Appeals Process. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, July 1989.

_____. Social Security Disability Program Appeal Process: Supplementary

Recommendation (recommendation 90-4). Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, June 8, 1990.

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix IV 

Studies on SSA’s Disability Decision-Making

Process

_____. The Fourth Bite of the Apple: A Study of the Operation and Utility

of the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 28, 1988.

_____. The Social Security Disability Program: A System in Crisis.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 27, 1971.

_____. The Use of Medical Personnel in Social Security Disability

Determinations (recommendation 89-10). Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1989.

Arner, Frederick B. A Model Disability Structure for the Social Security

Administration. Washington, D.C.: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Sept. 1989.

Association of Administrative Law Judges in the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare. Crisis in the Disability Insurance Program: The

Attack on the Judges. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare, May 5, 1975.

Center for Administrative Justice, Milton M. Carrow, Director, and Jerry L.

Mashaw, Project Director. Final Report of the Social Security

Administration Hearing System. Washington, D.C.: Center for

Administrative Justice, Oct. 1977.

Cofer, Donna Price. Judges, Bureaucrats, and the Question of

Independence: A Study of the Social Security Administration Hearing

Process. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985.

Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. Committee

Staff Report on the Disability Insurance Program. Washington, D.C.: House

of Representatives, July 1974.

Federal Courts Study Committee, Judge Joseph F. Weis, Jr., Chairman.

Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, Apr. 2, 1990.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Administrative Law Process: Better

Management is Needed. GAO/FPCD-78-25, May 15, 1978.

_____. Management Improvements in the Administrative Law Process:

Much Remains to Be Done. GAO/FPCD-79-44, May 23, 1979.

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix IV 

Studies on SSA’s Disability Decision-Making

Process

_____. Social Security Administration Policies for Managing Its

Administrative Law Judges. GAO/HRD-81-91, June 2, 1981.

_____. Social Security Disability: Action Needed to Improve Use of Medical

Experts at Hearings. GAO/HRD-91-68, May 20, 1991.

_____. Social Security Disability: Management Action and Program

Redesign Needed to Address Long-Standing Problems, testimony of Jane

L. Ross, Director, Income Security Issues, before the Subcommittee on

Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives.

GAO/T-HEHS-95-233, Aug. 3, 1995.

_____. Social Security: Many Administrative Law Judges Oppose

Productivity Initiatives. GAO/HRD-90-15, Dec. 7, 1989.

_____. Social Security: Production Initiatives in OHA’s Region V Comply

With Law and Guidelines. GAO/HRD-91-36BR, Dec. 21, 1990.

_____. Social Security: Racial Differences in Disability Decisions Warrant

Further Investigation. GAO/HRD-92-56, Apr. 21, 1992.

_____. Social Security: Reforms in the Disability Determination and

Appeals Process. GAO/T-HRD-91-2, May 24, 1991.

_____. Social Security: Results of Required Reviews of Administrative Law

Judge Decisions. GAO/HRD-89-48BR, June 13, 1989.

_____. Social Security: Selective Face-to-Face Interviews With Disability

Claimants Could Reduce Appeals. GAO/HRD-89-22, Apr. 20, 1989.

Gwirtzman, M., Dillman, J., Dislom, E., and others. Social Security in

America’s Future: Final Report of the National Commission on Social

Security. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Social Security,

Mar. 1981.

Mashaw, Jerry L. Administrative Justice: A Management Model. New York:

The Ford Foundation, June 27, 1979.

_____. Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims.

New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, May 18, 1983.

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix IV 

Studies on SSA’s Disability Decision-Making

Process

Rosenblum, Victor G. “The Administrative Law Judge in the Administrative

Process: Interrelations of Case Law with Statutory and Pragmatic Factors

in Determining ALJ Roles,” reprinted in Recent Studies Relevant to the

Disability Hearings and Appeals Crisis, unnumbered Committee print, 94th

Congress, first session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Dec. 20, 1975.

Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate. Disabled Yet Denied:

Bureaucratic Injustice in the Disability Determination System, staff report,

101st Congress, second session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate, Dec. 1990.

Stone, Deborah, A. The Disabled State. Philadelphia: Temple University

Press, 1984.

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Committee on

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. Social Security Disability Reviews: The

Role of Administrative Law Judge, 98th Congress, first session.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate, June 8, 1983.

Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, House

of Representatives. Delays in Social Security Appeals, 94th Congress, first

session. Washington, D.C.: House of Representatives, Sept. 19, 26; Oct. 3,

20, 1975.

_____. Social Security Administrative Law Judges: Survey and Issue Paper,

96th Congress, first session. Washington, D.C.: House of Representatives,

Jan. 27, 1979.

_____. Social Security Hearing and Appeal: Pending Problems and

Proposed Solutions, 97th Congress, first session. Washington, D.C.: House

of Representatives, Oct. 27, 1981.

The President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (the Grace

Commission). Task Force Report on the Department of Health and Human

Services, Social Security Administration. Washington, D.C.: The Grace

Commission, June 13, 1983.

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Appendix V 

GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Roland Miller III, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7246

Daniel Bertoni, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-5988

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, the following individuals made

important contributions to this report: Diana Eisenstat, Associate Director,

Income Security Issues; Robert Rosensteel, Senior Evaluator; William

Hutchinson, Senior Evaluator; and Carlos Evora, Evaluator.

(105141) Page 51 GAO/HEHS-96-87 OHA Backlog
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100