Social Security Administration: Further Actions Needed to Address Disability Claims and Service Delivery Challenges
Published: 2009-03-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: For years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has experienced challenges managing a large disability workload and making timely decisions. In fiscal year 2006, SSA made about 3.7 million disability claims decisions, while over a million were awaiting a decision. Further, SSA has faced staffing challenges and difficulties managing its workloads at its network of approximately 1,300 field offices, where millions of people go to apply for disability and retirement benefits, to obtain Social Security cards, and for a host of other services. The Subcommittees on Income Security and Family Support, and on Social Security, House Committee on Ways and Means, asked GAO to address (1) key service delivery challenges facing SSA, particularly with respect to the backlog of disability claims, and (2) steps SSA is taking to address these challenges. This testimony is based primarily on reports assessing trends in disability claims processing and backlogs, steps SSA is taking to reduce the backlog, and other challenges SSA faces in meeting future service delivery needs. Certain information was updated to reflect recent legislative changes.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In recent years, SSA has experienced a growing backlog of disability claims and deteriorating customer service at field offices. SSA's total backlog of disability claims doubled from 1997, reaching 576,000 in 2006, which has resulted in claimants waiting longer for final decisions. The backlog was particularly acute at the hearings level. SSA also experienced declines in field office service delivery, with average customer wait times in field offices increasing by 40 percent from 2002 to 2006, and over 3 million customers waiting more than 1 hour to be served in 2008. Two key factors likely contributed to the backlog and service delivery challenges: (1) staffing reductions or turnover of field office staff and key personnel involved in the disability claims process, and (2) increased workloads. In particular, initial applications for disability benefits grew by more than 20 percent over the past 10 years. SSA projects further increases in workloads as the baby boom generation reaches its disability-prone years and retires. SSA has taken steps to improve its disability claims process, reduce the claims backlog, and manage its field office workloads, but some efforts were hampered by poor planning and execution while others are too recent to evaluate. In 2006, SSA introduced a comprehensive set of reforms to improve the efficiency, accuracy and timeliness of the disability claims process. However, this initiative produced mixed results and many aspects were suspended to focus on the hearings backlog and other priorities. While final decisions regarding many aspects of this reform are pending, SSA outlined a new plan in 2007 that concentrates on clearing out backlogged cases at the hearings level. GAO is currently reviewing this plan as part of its ongoing work. To address overall workloads and maintain customer service, SSA has shifted workloads to less busy offices and deferred workloads it deemed lower priority. However, deferring certain workloads, such as continuing eligibility reviews, can result in beneficiaries receiving payments who no longer qualify. In response to a recent GAO recommendation, SSA agreed to develop a single service delivery plan to help it better manage future service delivery challenges. However, it remains unclear how SSA will address current and future challenges given its current service delivery infrastructure and resource constraints.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss challenges facing the  Social Security Administration (SSA) with respect to its disability claims  processing and field office service delivery. SSA provides a number of  services that touch many lives. In particular, each year millions of  Americans who believe that they can no longer work because of severe  physical or mental impairments, apply for cash benefits through the Social  Security Administration’s (SSA) two disability programs—Disability  Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). In addition, SSA  annually processes millions of applications for retirement benefits through  its Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) program, issues millions of  Social Security cards, and provides many other services through its large  and decentralized workforce. In fiscal year 2008, SSA had an  administrative budget of over $11 billion, and employed about 63,000  employees, 44 percent of whom are located in approximately 1,300 field  offices across the country.
For more than 20 years, SSA has faced challenges managing a large  disability claims workload and making timely decisions. During fiscal year  2006, SSA made about 3.7 million disability claims decisions, and some 1.5  million disability claims were awaiting a determination. SSA’s data show  that disability applicants can wait years for their claims to be resolved at  the final administrative appeals level. Disability claims—as well as  retirement claims—are expected to increase further as the baby boom  generation continues to enter its disability-prone years and begins to  retire. The current economic downturn may prompt even more people to  apply for SSA benefits as a source of income security. Constrained  budgets and staffing reductions, coupled with increases in retirement and  disability filings, have also challenged field offices’ ability to meet the  demand for services.
For today’s hearing, you asked us to address (1) key service delivery  challenges facing SSA, particularly with respect to the backlog of disability  claims, and (2) steps SSA is taking to address these challenges. My  statement draws on a number of prior GAO reports that were conducted in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See  related GAO products.) We updated information as appropriate to reflect  recent legislative changes.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: SSA administers three major benefit programs: Old-Age and Survivors  Insurance (OASI), which provides benefits to retired workers and their  families and to families of deceased workers; (2) Disability Insurance (DI),  which provides benefits to eligible workers with disabilities and their  family members; and (3) Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which  provides income for aged, blind, or disabled individuals with limited  income and resources. In addition to paying benefits through these three  programs, SSA also issues Social Security cards, maintains earnings  records, and performs various other functions through a network of field,  state and headquarter offices.
SSA’s field offices are the agency’s primary points for providing face-to- face service to the public. In addition to processing new disability and  retirement claims, field offices manage other workloads related to  program integrity, such as determining whether certain individuals with  disabilities remain eligible to receive disability payments based on  program criteria. Besides field offices, SSA operates Social Security Card  Centers, which issue Social Security numbers; Teleservice Centers, which  offer services nationally via a toll-free telephone number; and Program  Service Centers, which maintain earnings records, in addition to other  functions. In 2008, SSA’s administrative budget for managing its operations  was $11.1 billion.
subsections: section_title: Disability Process
paragraphs: The process for deciding who is eligible for SSA disability benefits is  complex, consuming a large portion of SSA’s administrative budget.  Several state and federal offices, and several adjudication levels are  involved in determining whether a claimant is eligible for benefits. The  process begins when an individual files an application for disability  benefits at an SSA field office, online or over SSA’s toll-free number. In  each case, an SSA representative determines whether a claimant meets the  non-medical eligibility criteria of each program, such as ensuring that an  SSI applicant meets income requirements, or determining if a DI applicant  has a sufficient number of work credits. If applicants meet the non- medical eligibility criteria, field office personnel will help claimants  complete their applications and obtain claimants’ detailed medical,  education, and work histories. The completeness of the information  gathered at this time can affect the accuracy and speed of the decision.
After the field office determines that an applicant has met SSA’s non- medical eligibility requirements for disability benefits, up to four  adjudicative levels may review the applicant’s claim for eligibility generally  based on medical criteria. The first adjudicative level is the state Disability  Determination Services (DDS), where a disability examiner, working with  medical staff, must make every reasonable effort to help the claimant get  medical reports from physicians, hospitals, clinics, or other institutions  where the claimant has received past medical treatments. After  assembling all medical and vocational information for the claim, the DDS  examiner in consultation with appropriate medical staff determines  whether the claimant meets the requirements of the law for having a  disability. In doing so, the DDS examiner uses a five-step, sequential  evaluation process that includes a review of the claimant’s current work  activity, severity of impairment, and vocational factors. See figure 1.
Claimants who are dissatisfied with the initial DDS determination have up  to three additional levels of adjudicative appeal. The claimant may request  a “reconsideration” of the claim, which is conducted by DDS personnel  who were not involved in the original decision. If the reconsideration team  concurs with the initial denial of benefits, the claimant then has 60 days  from the time of this decision to appeal and request a hearing before an  administrative law judge (ALJ). ALJs, who are based in 140 hearing offices  located throughout the nation, can consider new evidence and request  additional information including medical evidence or medical and  vocational expert testimony. A claimant who is dissatisfied with the  hearings decision may request, within 60 days of the ALJ’s decision, that  the Appeals Council review the claim. The Appeals Council is SSA’s fourth  and final adjudicative appeals level and is comprised of administrative  appeals judges. The Appeals Council may uphold, modify, or reverse the  ALJ’s action, or it may return the claim back to the ALJ for another hearing  and issuance of a new decision. The decision of the Appeals Council is the  Commissioner’s final decision. To appeal this decision, the claimant must  file an action in Federal Court.
section_title: Measuring Performance
paragraphs: SSA measures its performance in managing its workloads in various ways. For  its disability claims process, at each level of the claims process SSA tracks the  number of claims pending a decision each year and the time it takes to issue a  decision. The agency also uses a relative measure to determine the backlog by  considering how many cases should optimally be pending at year-end. This  relative measure is referred to as “target pending” and is set for each level of the  disability process with the exception of the reconsideration level. From 1999 to  2006, SSA’s target pending was 400,000 for claims at the initial stage and 300,000  and 40,000 for the hearings and Appeals Council stages, respectively. The  number of pending claims that exceed these numbers represents the backlog.  With respect to service delivery, SSA uses various measures of performance,  including work productivity (average work units performed per year, per  employee), customer wait times at field offices, and overall customer  satisfaction with service delivery.
section_title: SSA Has Faced Challenges with Disability Claims Backlogs and Field Office Service Delivery
paragraphs: SSA has experienced increased backlogs and processing times associated  with disability claims in recent years, as well as declines in measures of  field office service. These trends are likely due to rising workloads and  staffing shortfalls.
subsections: section_title: Disability Claims Process Challenges
paragraphs: The total number of backlogged disability claims in SSA more than  doubled over the last decade, with the greatest accumulation of claims  occurring at the hearing level. By the close of fiscal year 2006, the total  number of backlogged disability claims, by SSA’s measure, reached  576,000, which represented an overall growth rate of more than 120  percent from fiscal year 1997. As shown in figure 2, backlogs of varying  degree have occurred at all stages of the claims process where backlogs  are calculated. However, since fiscal year 2001, these claims were  concentrated most heavily at the hearings level and, to a lesser extent, at  the initial processing level within the DDS offices. The hearings level  accounted for the largest share of backlogged claims for 7 of the 10 years  we reviewed. In fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the DDS level accounted for  the largest share of the backlog. The Appeals Council had the largest  backlog in fiscal year 1999, but dramatically reduced these numbers by  2006.
In concert with changes in the total claims backlog, average processing  times for disability claims at most adjudicative levels increased. As shown  in figure 3, although processing times decreased dramatically at the  Appeals Council level, they increased markedly at the hearings level, and  somewhat at the initial and reconsideration levels. For example, from  1997 to 2006, processing times increased about 20 days at the DDS level  and 95 days at the hearings level. Further, in fiscal year 2006, 39 percent of  all hearing decisions took between 365 to 599 days to process; 28 percent  took 600 to 999 days to process; and 2 percent took over 1,000 days. For  two regions (region 5 in Chicago and region 10 in Seattle), nearly half of all  hearing decisions made in fiscal year 2006 took longer than 600 days to  complete.
One contributor to increased disability claims backlogs has been spikes in  new applications. For example, the number of initial applications for DI  and SSI benefits increased by 21 percent overall from fiscal years 1997 to  2006, contributing to the claims backlog and adding additional pressures  to field office personnel who initially review these claims. These increases  can be attributed to a number of influences: periodic downturns in the  economy, the aging of the baby boom population, increased referrals from  other programs, previous changes in program eligibility requirements and  regulations, and increased program outreach. Officials in one region  recounted one initiative that targeted outreach to the homeless, which  increased applications and also added to processing times. They also  attributed some processing delays to the time required to track homeless  candidates and help them document their disabilities. With respect to the  economy, SSA officials, DDS senior managers, and our prior work all  attest to the fact that economic downturns from a failing industry or  natural disaster can precipitate new disability applications.
The growth in the disability claims backlogs has also coincided with losses  in key personnel associated with the disability claims process. For  example, although DDS staff increased about 4 percent from 1997 to 2006,  DDSs have experienced high rates of staff turnover and attrition. Attrition  rates for DDS disability examiners, who are state employees, were almost  double that of SSA federal staff. Many DDS senior managers we spoke  with said that turnover of experienced disability examiners has affected  productivity. For example, from September 1998 to January 2006, over 20  percent of disability examiners hired during that period left or were  terminated within their first year. DDS officials said the loss of  experienced staff affects DDS’ ability to process disability claims  workloads because it generally takes newly hired examiners about 2 years  to become proficient in their role.
Further, at the hearings level, SSA generally experienced shortfalls in ALJs  and support staff—decision writers, staff that prepare case files for  review, attorneys, and claims technicians. The number of ALJs available to  conduct hearings ranged from a high of 1,087 in 1998 to a low of 919 in  2001, ending at 1,018 in 2006. Although SSA has had fewer than 1,100 ALJs  over the last 10 years, in May 2006, SSA’s Commissioner noted that the  agency requires no less than 1,250 ALJs to properly manage its current  pending workload. With respect to support staff, numbers ranged from a  high of 5,500 in 1999 to a low of 4,700 in 2006. Although SSA managers and  judges would like to see a ratio of 5.25 support staff per ALJ, the actual  ratio has more often been lower, ranging from a ratio of 4.59 in 1997 to  4.12 in 2006. Only in 2001, when the number of ALJs was at its lowest  point, was the target ratio achieved.
Finally, a number of initiatives undertaken by SSA to improve the  disability process and potentially remedy backlogs have faltered for a  variety of reasons, including poor planning and execution. In fact, some  initiatives had the effect of slowing processing times by reducing staff  capacity, increasing the number of appeals, or complicating the decision  process. Several other initiatives improved the process, but were too  costly and subsequently abandoned. This was the case for several facets of  a major 1997 initiative, known as the “Disability Process Redesign,” which  sought to streamline and expedite disability decisions for both initial  claims and appeals. In the past, we reported that various initiatives within  this effort became problematic and were largely discontinued due to their  ineffectiveness and high cost.  Further, implementation of an electronic  system enhanced some aspects of the disability claims process, but also  caused delays due to systemic instability and shutdowns at the DDS and  hearings offices. Further, the “Hearings Process Improvement” initiative,  implemented in 2000, involved reorganizing hearing office staff and  responsibilities with the goal of reducing the number of appeals. However,  many of the senior SSA officials we spoke with expressed the opinion that  this initiative left key workloads unattended and was therefore responsible  for dramatic increases in delays and processing times at the hearings level.
section_title: Field Office Service Delivery Challenges
paragraphs: In addition to disability claims backlogs and increased processing times,  other aspects of SSA’s service delivery at field offices have declined in  recent years. From fiscal year 2002 to 2006, the average time customers  waited in a field office to speak with an SSA representative increased by  40 percent from 15 to 21 minutes. In fiscal year 2008, more than 3 million  customers waited for over 1 hour to be served. Further, SSA’s 2007 Field  Office Caller Survey found that 51 percent of customers calling selected  field offices had at least one earlier call that had gone unanswered.  Because SSA based its results only on customers who were ultimately able  to get through, the actual percentage of customers that had unanswered  calls was likely even higher. Overall these factors may have contributed to  a 3 percent drop in SSA’s overall customer satisfaction, from 84 percent in  fiscal year 2005 to 81 percent in fiscal year 2008.
Declines in field office service delivery measures coincided with a period  of staff turnover and losses agency wide. From fiscal year 2005 to 2008,  SSA experienced a 2.9 percent reduction in total employees and a 4.4  percent reduction in field office employees. At the same time, employees  and managers reported high levels of stress. We asked 153 employees at 21  offices to rate the stress they experienced in attempting to complete their  work in a timely manner and 65 percent reported feeling stress to a great  or very great extent on a daily basis, while 74 percent of office managers  described high levels of stress.
Declines in service delivery measures also coincided with increased  workloads. For example, the number of annual field office visitors  increased by about 2.5 million customers, from 41.9 million in fiscal year  2006 to 44.4 million in fiscal year 2008. In addition, SSA’s field offices  experienced growth in other types of workloads. Between 2005 and 2008,  SSA performed more work related to managing beneficiary rolls and  assigning Social Security numbers. Finally, the work SSA performs on  behalf of other federal agencies has grown. For example, new elements of  the Medicare prescription drug program and new state laws requiring  federal government verification of work authorization are resulting in  additional work and field office visits.
section_title: Future Workload and Staffing Challenges
paragraphs: SSA projects an increase in disability claims and other workloads over the  coming years while at the same time anticipates the retirement of many  experienced workers. Specifically, SSA projects:    An overall 13 percent increase in retirement and disability claims from  fiscal years 2007 to 2017.
A growth of 22 percent in the number of retirement and disability  beneficiaries from 2007 to 2015.
That nearly 40 percent of its current workforce will be eligible to retire in  5 years and 44 percent will retire by 2016.
section_title: SSA Continues to Take Steps to Address Disability Claims Backlogs and Service Delivery Challenges
paragraphs: SSA continues to take steps to address disability claims backlogs and  service delivery challenges, including efforts to improve its disability  claims process, redistribute workloads across field offices, and develop a  plan for addressing future growth in disability and retirement claims.  Some of these efforts have been hampered by poor planning while others  are too recent to evaluate.
subsections: section_title: Improving the Disability Evaluation Process
paragraphs: SSA has pursued a number of initiatives to improve the overall efficiency  and effectiveness of its disability claims process. For example, the DSI  initiative, piloted in 2006, was designed to produce correct decisions on  disability claims as early in the application process as possible, with the  expectation that DSI would reduce both appeals of denied claims and  future backlogs. The plan involved several envisioned changes to improve  the disability determination process. However, results of the initiative by  early 2007 were mixed. (See table 1 for examples of these initiatives and  their results.) In general, we found that implementation of these and other  DSI initiatives were hampered by rushed implementation, poor  communication, and inadequate financial planning. Overall, the DSI  initiatives cost more than the agency had originally estimated.
The future of DSI currently remains uncertain. While the Quick Disability  Determination will likely be implemented nationwide, SSA suspended  national roll-out of most portions of the DSI initiative, and issued a  proposed rule to suspend the Federal Reviewing Official and Medical and  Vocational Expertise initiatives in the Boston region. SSA has said that it  will continue to conduct an evaluation of DSI initiatives to determine  whether they should be reinstated. Because SSA’s assessment of DSI  components to date has been limited, in 2007 we recommended that SSA  conduct a thorough evaluation of DSI before deciding which elements  should be implemented or discontinued. SSA noted that it would continue  to collect data and monitor outcomes to evaluate DSI, but that, due to  constrained resources, it may not be able to collect sufficient data to  ensure the reliability of the results.
SSA suspended DSI, in part, to refocus on reducing its hearings backlog,  which had reached critical levels. In May 2007, SSA outlined a new  hearings backlog reduction plan that focuses on reducing the existing  backlog and preventing its recurrence through a series of steps that  employ some prior innovations and also new initiatives. However, officials  we spoke with at SSA emphasized that the hearings backlog reduction  plan is not meant to replace the DSI initiative but to complement it until a  final decision is made regarding the future of DSI. Steps in the plan include  updating SSA’s medical eligibility criteria, expediting cases for which  eligibility is more clear-cut, improving hearings office capacity and  performance, and other actions. Also in the plan, the Commissioner  proposed dedicating $25 million to improve SSA’s electronic processing  system. SSA’s efforts to reduce the hearings backlog may be supported by  additional funds through recent legislation. Specifically, the American  Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) allocated $500 million to  SSA to assist with processing workloads and related technology  acquisitions. SSA has not yet determined how it will use this money for  its various workloads.
In December 2007, we recommended that SSA take the necessary steps to  increase the likelihood that new initiatives will succeed, such as  performing comprehensive planning to anticipate challenges of  implementation, including the appropriate staff in the design and  implementation stages, establishing feedback mechanisms to track  progress and problems, and performing periodic evaluations. SSA agreed  with the intent of this recommendation, noting that it would take  necessary steps to improve the likelihood of success of future initiatives.  Accordingly, we are currently evaluating the extent to which the hearings  backlog reduction plan includes components of sound planning and the  potential effects of the plan on the hearings backlog and other SSA  operations. As part of this review, we will (1) examine the plan’s potential  to eliminate the hearings-level backlog, (2) determine the extent to which  the plan includes components of sound planning, and (3) identify potential  unintended effects of the plan on hearings level operations and other  aspects of the disability process. We expect to complete our work later  this year.
section_title: Shifting Workloads and Maintaining Staffing Levels
paragraphs: To address overall workloads and maintain customer service, SSA is  shifting workloads to less busy offices. For example, if a field office has  work demands that it cannot immediately cover, that office can request  that some work be transferred to another office. Offices that have a  particular expertise in that particular type of work will make themselves  available, as they can process this work more quickly. These efforts likely  contributed to increased productivity levels. Specifically, the average  amount of work produced by field office employees increased by 2.9  percent between fiscal years 2005 and 2008.
Managers also are addressing workloads by using claims processing  personnel to perform the duties typically conducted by lower-graded  employees, and in some cases, office managers take on duties of their  employees. Such duties include answering the telephone, providing initial  services to arriving customers, processing requests for new or  replacement Social Security cards, and conducting some administrative  duties. Although visiting customers need attention, this practice may  reduce time spent on other workloads, such as claims processing or  managing the office. Moreover, as we noted earlier, the stress of  expanding workloads and staffing constraints can negatively impact  morale.
With fewer staff available, SSA has deferred some workloads, although  this practice may have significant drawbacks. Specifically, SSA has  focused on field office work it considers essential to its “core workloads,”  such as processing new claims for Social Security benefits and issuing  Social Security cards, while deferring other types of work including  changes of address, changes to direct deposit information, and reviews to  determine beneficiaries’ continuing eligibility for DI and SSI benefits.  Reviews of continuing eligibility, however, are key activities in ensuring  payment accuracy. Such reviews yield a lifetime savings for both DI and  SSI of $10 for every dollar invested, according to SSA. In recent years, SSA  has reduced the number of reviews conducted, citing budget limitations  and an increase in core work. When reviews of benefits are delayed, some  beneficiaries continue receiving benefits when they no longer qualify.
SSA has used a variety of strategies to maintain adequate staffing levels  overall, although it faces challenges with hiring, training and retaining  staff. For example, SSA: offers recruitment, relocation, and retention  bonuses to individuals with needed skills; offers workplace flexibilities;  uses dual compensation waivers from the Office of Personnel Management  for certain hard-to-fill positions; and developed recruiting efforts to reach  out to a broader pool of candidates, including retired military and veterans  with disabilities. SSA may also use ARRA money to hire additional staff to  help manage some of its workloads. However, in the past, SSA has  encountered obstacles that delay hiring. For example, SSA’s ability to hire  sufficient ALJ’s has been hindered by the length of the Office of Personnel  Management’s review process. In addition, field office managers and staff  at many locations we visited stated that it typically takes 2 to 3 years for  new employees to become proficient after being hired. For disability  examiners, this process can take about 2 years, according to SSA staff,  while at the same time turnover is high.
section_title: Developing a Consolidated Plan to Address Future Growth
paragraphs: More recently, in response to our recommendation that SSA develop a  detailed service delivery plan, SSA stated that it intends to consolidate its  various planning efforts into a single planning document. SSA commented  that its consolidated document will, at minimum, include comprehensive  plans for expanding electronic services for customers; increasing the  centralization of receiving phone calls and working claims from customers  while maintaining the network of local field offices; enhancing phone and  video services in field offices (where applicable) and piloting self-service  personal computers in the reception areas of those offices; and continuing  to assess the efficiency of field offices. While a consolidated planning  document will better reflect the variety of planning efforts SSA has to  improve its operations, it remains unclear how SSA will manage growing  workloads with its current infrastructure of approximately 1,300 field  offices, while minimizing the deferral of its workloads and declines in  customer service.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: By all accounts, the operational challenges that SSA faces are projected to  become more acute in the coming years as our society ages. SSA’s aging  workforce and our faltering economy may exacerbate these challenges.  Over the years and across many fronts, SSA has taken numerous and  varied steps to address its backlog of disability claims and its service  delivery challenges, but often with mixed results or at the expense of some  other key services. Funds that SSA receives through the ARRA may relieve  staffing shortages and potentially improve electronic case processing, but  more concerted efforts will likely be needed to get in front of the  challenges ahead. We have recommended that, to increase the probability  of success for any new initiatives aimed at reducing the backlog of claims,  SSA focus on comprehensive planning that anticipates implementation  challenges by involving key staff in design and implementation,  establishing feedback loops, and performing periodic evaluations to  ensure that reforms are executed effectively. We have also recommended  that SSA develop a service delivery plan that addresses in detail how it will  successfully deliver quality customer service in the future while managing  growing work demands with constrained resources. SSA agreed that it  should take necessary steps to improve the likelihood of success of future  initiatives and to develop a comprehensive service delivery plan, and  noted that they are taking steps toward these ends. We look forward to  SSA’s progress as it moves forward with these efforts.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my  remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or other  Members of the Subcommittee may have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information, please contact Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512-7215 or  Bertonid@gao.gov. Also contributing to this statement were Michele  Grgich, Erin Godtland, and Jessica Orr. Advisors included Blake  Ainsworth, Barbara Bovbjerg, Julianne Cutts, Shelia Drake, Cindy Fagnoni,  Sal Sorbello, and Paul Wright. Roger Thomas provided legal advice.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: High-Risk Series: An Update (GAO-09-271, January, 2009).
Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan Needed to Address  Baby Boom Retirement Challenges (GAO-09-24, January 9, 2009).
Social Security Disability: Better Planning, Management, and Evaluation  Could Help Address Backlogs (GAO-08-40, December 7, 2007).
Social Security Disability: Management Controls Needed to Strengthen  Demonstration Projects (GAO-08-1053, September. 26, 2008).
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.