Social Security Administration: Improvements Needed in Facilities Planning and Service Delivery Evaluation
Published: 2017-07-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: SSA has one of the largest physical footprints of any federal agency. It has about 1,500 facilities nationwide, including field offices where customers can meet with SSA staff to apply for benefits and conduct other business. SSA is re-examining its footprint in light of expanding online and other remote service options and a 2012 government-wide initiative to make more efficient use of physical space. GAO was asked to examine SSA's changing footprint and service delivery.
This report (1) describes the trends in SSA's physical footprint and service delivery, (2) assesses the steps SSA is taking to reconfigure its footprint, and (3) assesses the steps SSA is taking to address any challenges to expanding remote service delivery. GAO reviewed SSA documents and data on facilities and service delivery for fiscal years 2006 to 2016; interviewed officials from SSA and other federal agencies; and visited SSA facilities in four states, chosen for diversity in geographic location, visitor to staff ratio, and proportion of local residents with Internet access, among other factors.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Social Security Administration (SSA) has reduced its physical footprint and expanded delivery of services remotely, including online. SSA reduced the total square footage of its facilities by about 1.4 million square feet (or about 5 percent) from fiscal years 2012 to 2016, according to GAO's analysis, by applying new standards for determining the size of offices and consolidating facilities (see figure). SSA has also expanded the services it offers remotely, and online use has increased for certain services such as disability and retirement applications. Despite this increase, in-person contacts at field offices have not changed substantially, with about the same number in fiscal year 2016 as in fiscal year 2007 (approximately 43 million). This may be due to growing demand for services as well as certain services not yet being fully available online.
SSA's steps to reconfigure its footprint do not fully incorporate changes in service delivery, such as the expansion of remote service delivery. As mentioned above, SSA has been expanding the services it delivers online. While SSA has a strategic goal of re-thinking its footprint as it expands remote service delivery, it lacks a facility plan that links to this goal, as called for by facility planning criteria. Without a plan that considers the increasing use of online services and wide variation in online service use across field offices, SSA may miss opportunities to further reduce its footprint.
SSA is taking steps to make remote services easier to use, for example by adding new features to its website and offering alternate approaches for accessing services, but does not consistently evaluate them, which could limit its ability to shift more services online and further reconfigure its footprint. For example, SSA has added features allowing online customers to interact directly with SSA staff. However, SSA does not track staff follow-ups to deal with any errors in online benefit applications in order to improve them, as called for by federal internal control standards. To enhance access to remote services, SSA has introduced alternate service approaches such as videoconferencing in third-party sites; however, it does not have performance goals for these approaches. GAO has previously identified performance goals as a best practice, which may help agencies improve their customer service.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making five recommendations, including that SSA develop a facility plan for reconfiguring its footprint as it expands remote service delivery, track staff follow-ups of online applications, and develop performance goals for alternate service approaches. SSA agreed with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides benefits and services  that touch the lives of nearly all Americans. For example, in February  2017, SSA provided benefit payments to over 66 million people through  the major programs it administers. SSA also issues Social Security  numbers and maintains worker earnings information in support of its  benefit programs. SSA occupies about 1,500 facilities nationwide—it has  one of the largest physical footprints of any federal agency—most of  which are field offices that customers can visit to access services.  However, SSA is considering changes to its physical footprint in light of  several factors. It has stated in strategic planning documents that it will  evaluate and potentially reconfigure or reduce its footprint to reflect the  availability of remote service delivery options, including Internet access.  In addition, Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) policy requires  federal agencies to reduce the total square footage of their real property  inventories. Finally, SSA has cited growing facility costs as a reason to re- think its footprint. The agency’s major benefit programs face long-term  budgetary challenges.
You asked us to review SSA’s physical footprint and service delivery. This  report (1) describes trends in SSA’s physical footprint and how it delivers  its services, (2) assesses the steps SSA is taking to reconfigure its  physical footprint, and (3) assesses the steps SSA is taking to address  any challenges to expanding remote service delivery.
To address these objectives, we reviewed SSA documents related to  facilities and service delivery planning, including strategic plans,  procedures for local facility planning, and surveys of customers’ use of  SSA’s online services. We analyzed SSA data on SSA facilities for fiscal  years 2006 to 2016 including square footage, number of facilities, and  rent. We analyzed SSA data on service delivery for fiscal years 2006 to  2016, including the number of benefit applications and other transactions  completed online and through field offices and the number of visits to field  offices. We assessed the reliability of these data through electronic  testing and interviews with SSA staff, and found them to be sufficiently  reliable for our reporting objectives. We interviewed SSA headquarters  staff involved in facilities and service delivery planning, as well as officials  at the General Services Administration (GSA), OMB, and three other  federal agencies that have co-located their offices with SSA or are also  taking steps to reduce their footprints. We visited seven field offices as  well as some other SSA facilities, such as hearing offices, where we  interviewed local managers and staff and observed interactions with  customers. We also conducted phone interviews with senior managers  responsible for these seven field offices plus an additional six field offices.  In sum, we interviewed managers who oversee 13 of SSA’s  approximately 1,200 field offices. These offices were selected to achieve  diversity in geography, visitor to staff ratio, and proportion of local  residents with Internet access, among other factors. The results of these  site visits and interviews are not generalizable to SSA’s full portfolio of  field and hearing offices. To assess SSA’s efforts related to its facilities  and remote services, we applied criteria previously identified by GAO for  facility planning and customer service standards, as well as standards for  internal control in the federal government. Finally, we reviewed pertinent  federal laws and regulations. For further details on our scope and  methodology, see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2016 to July 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: SSA Programs and Services
paragraphs: SSA provides financial assistance to eligible individuals through three  major benefit programs:
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI)—provides retirement  benefits to eligible older workers and their families and to survivors of  deceased workers.
Disability Insurance (DI)—provides benefits to eligible workers who  have qualifying disabilities, and their eligible family members.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)—provides income for aged,  blind, or disabled individuals with limited income and resources.
In administering these programs, SSA provides a range of services to the  public. For example, SSA calculates retirement benefits for individuals  based on factors including earnings history and the age at which an  individual chooses to start receiving benefits. Also, SSA staff determine  whether DI and SSI benefit applicants meet the agency’s non-medical  eligibility criteria. Applicants who are not satisfied with the initial decision  on their claim may appeal, which can include a hearing before an SSA  administrative law judge. Recipients of SSA benefits can work with the  agency to manage their benefits in various ways, including obtaining  letters verifying that they receive benefits, changing their address and  telephone number, and starting or changing their direct deposit of  benefits.
SSA has other responsibilities in addition to administering benefit  programs. Its mission includes issuing Social Security numbers, which  are currently used for many non-Social Security purposes. Most original  Social Security cards are issued at birth during the Enumeration at Birth  process, which is completely electronic. SSA also issues both original  cards not issued at birth and replacement cards. In addition, SSA uses  and stores a great deal of sensitive information, including financial and  medical records as well as Social Security numbers.
section_title: SSA Service Delivery
paragraphs: Customers access SSA services primarily through four delivery channels:  In-person at SSA facility: Customers can access a wide range of  services at SSA’s field offices, including applying for benefits,  managing benefits, and obtaining Social Security cards. Customers  can also obtain Social Security cards at SSA’s card centers.  Individuals who are appealing SSA’s decision on their disability  applications may participate in an in-person hearing before an  administrative law judge at one of SSA’s hearing offices.
By phone with field office staff: Customers can access many of the  services that are available in-person at field offices through phone  calls with field office staff, including applying for and managing their  benefits, according to SSA officials.
By phone through national 800 number: Customers can manage their  benefits and obtain informational services through the national 800  number. They have the option of conducting business through an  automated system or by speaking directly with an SSA staff person at  a teleservice center.
Online: Many services are available online. Customers can apply for  retirement and DI through SSA’s website. The majority of online  retirement benefit applications are reviewed by SSA staff at one of 16  Workload Support Units, while most online DI applications are  reviewed by staff at field offices, according to SSA officials. Also, the  mySocialSecurity online portal allows customers with an account to  manage their benefits and view information online such as their  earnings record.
See table 1 for a summary of how some of the more commonly used SSA  services may be accessed.
section_title: SSA Facilities
paragraphs: SSA’s facilities include:  Its headquarters, located mainly in the Baltimore, Maryland, and  Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
A network of field offices, Social Security card centers, teleservice  centers, and other facilities that deliver services directly to the public.  These services are managed by SSA’s Office of Operations, which is  further organized into 10 regional offices around the country, each  with a regional commissioner, and 51 area offices, each with an area  director who reports to a regional commissioner.
A network of hearing offices around the country where claimants can  participate in hearings before administrative law judges. The Office of  Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) manages the appeals  process for disability applications out of its headquarters in Falls  Church, Virginia, and through a network of regional offices.
SSA leases all of its facilities from the GSA through occupancy  agreements—a signed agreement between GSA and SSA to the financial  terms and conditions for occupying a GSA-controlled space. GSA- controlled space can be in privately-owned or federally-owned buildings;  approximately two-thirds of SSA’s space is in privately-owned buildings.
section_title: SSA Facility Planning
paragraphs: Overall, the Office of Facilities and Logistics Management (OFLM), within  SSA’s Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Budget, Finance, Quality,  and Management, is responsible for planning and implementing the  agency’s policies related to its physical footprint. In fiscal year 2012, SSA  began centralizing its facility planning process, moving responsibility for  this process from the regional offices to OFLM. This shift included  establishing one signatory for all requests for office space and monitoring  changes to the amount of office and warehouse space in its inventory.
SSA’s facility planning is guided by factors including:  (1) Leasing cycle. SSA’s typical leasing cycle, according to interviews  with SSA officials as well as agency documentation, begins approximately  36 months before a lease expires. SSA begins developing alternatives for  future space use, which could mean renewing the lease for the current  space, moving to a new location, or adjusting the current space (e.g.,  consolidating or co-locating offices). Facilities officials at each SSA  regional office work with area directors and field office managers to  determine an office’s space needs. For field offices, regional facilities  officials then apply space allocation standards (space standards) to  determine the size of the office based on the current number of staff on  board. After determining the space needs and applying the space  standards, OFLM officials provide final approval before a request is  submitted to GSA. Then GSA officials work directly with SSA regional  facilities officials to complete the process for renewing a lease, including  identifying potential sites if a field office needs to change location due to,  for example, a shift in the service area population.  (2) Service area review. SSA policy requires area directors to conduct  service area reviews—which assess the need for office changes based  on service delivery conditions—at least every 10 years for each field  office in their area of responsibility to determine whether the service  area’s needs are being met by the field office. However, area directors  can decide to conduct these reviews on an ad hoc basis, such as when  an office’s lease is expiring. Service area reviews consider a wide variety  of factors, including demographics, workload, and the physical  accessibility of the office. They can result in an internal recommendation  that, among other things, an office be consolidated with another office or  move location. Recommendations to change location or consolidate,  made by the area director, must be approved by the regional  commissioner and, as needed, headquarters officials. Headquarters  officials would approve, for example, a recommendation to establish a  new field office or change the location of an existing field office to a new  congressional district. For approved location changes or consolidations,  SSA then works with GSA as described above to identify sites for its  potential use.  (3) Space reduction initiatives. Two OMB government-wide initiatives also  guide SSA’s facilities planning. The Freeze the Footprint (2012) and  Reduce the Footprint (2015) policies were developed to help federal  agencies more efficiently use their excess and underutilized properties in  light of a fiscally-constrained environment and changes in how agencies  conduct business, including the utilization of technology to deliver  services to the public. The policies required SSA to initially avoid  increasing the square footage in domestic offices and warehouses  beyond a baseline established in 2012, and then to set and meet annual  reduction goals. The Freeze the Footprint policy was in effect until 2015;  the Reduce the Footprint policy took effect in 2016. SSA determines its  annual reduction goals in consultation with GSA and OMB. In fiscal year  2015, OMB and GSA re-categorized over half of SSA’s facilities as  “public-facing”—primarily used to serve and interact with the public—and  exempted these facilities from its Reduce the Footprint baseline and  reduction targets. As a result of this change, the fiscal year 2016  reduction target for SSA’s facilities was lowered from 260,000 to 120,000  square feet.
section_title: SSA Has Reduced Its Physical Footprint and Expanded Remote Service Delivery
subsections: section_title: SSA Has Reduced Its Total Square Footage and Number of Facilities Since 2012
paragraphs: SSA reduced its square footage and the number of its facilities from fiscal  year 2012, when the overall federal effort began to limit agencies’  physical footprint, to fiscal year 2016. SSA is continuing to reduce its  footprint to align with these federal efforts and to reduce costs, according  to agency documents and interviews with agency officials.
SSA reduced its footprint by about 1.4 million square feet (or 5.2 percent)  from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2016, according to our analysis (see  fig. 1). These space reductions met both its Freeze the Footprint and  Reduce the Footprint goals, according to SSA. SSA officials said over  600,000 square feet of its space reduction since 2012 was in field offices,  with the remainder in headquarters space. According to SSA, the agency  issued revised space standards for its field offices in 2012 in response to  OMB’s Freeze the Footprint policy; the revised standards contributed to  these reductions. The application of the revised standards as field office  leases come up for renewal has helped reduce SSA’s overall field office  space. While the revised standards expand the space in public reception  areas, the standards’ larger reductions in space for personnel and  support space reduce the overall field office footprint. For example, the  2006 space standards allocated 125 square feet per SSA staff member,  which the 2012 standards reduced to 120 square feet; the 2006  standards allocated 7 square feet per filing cabinet, while the 2012  standards include no space for filing cabinets as SSA’s digitization of data  has reduced the need to store paper. Similarly, the revised standards  applied to large facilities, such as the headquarters facilities, reduce office  space needs by lowering allocations for personnel and support space.
SSA also decreased the number of occupied buildings by 4.7 percent  (1,634 to 1,558) from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2016, according to  our analysis of SSA facilities data (see fig. 2). For example, SSA  decreased the number of field offices through consolidations from 1,273  in fiscal year 2012 to 1,245 in fiscal year 2014, with no further reductions  from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2016. Additional reductions in space  and the number of occupied buildings resulted in part from consolidating  leased office and warehouse facilities into federally-owned facilities at  headquarters.
Despite the overall decrease in space, SSA’s inflation-adjusted rental  costs remained essentially steady until fiscal year 2016, when they  decreased, according to our analysis of SSA data. The total inflation- adjusted cost of SSA’s leases was 3 percent lower in fiscal year 2016  than in fiscal year 2012. However, the cost per square foot was slightly  higher in fiscal year 2016 than in fiscal year 2012, according to our  analysis (see fig. 3). For example, the cost of a lease might increase,  due to increased market rates, even if it is renegotiated for less space. In  Queens, New York, annual rent for a field office increased by 15 percent  in 2015 despite its using 12 percent less space under the terms of a  renegotiated lease.
As of the end of fiscal year 2016, our analysis of SSA data indicates 65  percent of the total square footage in SSA’s inventory is in buildings  where the majority use was field operations (see fig. 4). Field  Operations includes, for example, field offices and card centers. Square  footage in buildings whose majority use was ODAR (15 percent) and  headquarters (13 percent) represent the next largest space users.  However, we were not able to calculate the exact number and square  footage of different types of offices (such as field offices or hearing  offices) due to limitations with SSA’s facility data, which we describe in  greater detail later in this report. These limitations also preclude the  presentation of comprehensive data on how the composition of SSA’s  offices has changed over time.
section_title: SSA Is Expanding Benefit Application and Management Services It Offers Remotely, but Overall Demand for Field Office Services Has Not Decreased
paragraphs: SSA is expanding its remote delivery of services—such as online and  other new technologies to connect with the agency—to provide more  choices to its customers and because of overall trends in Americans’ use  of online services. SSA has had online services available for a number of  years, introducing online retirement and disability applications in 2000  and 2002, respectively. It continues to move more services online. For  example, SSA launched an online Medicare Only application in 2010 and  a new online portal for managing benefits (mySocialSecurity) in 2012.  SSA officials said they have plans to introduce online options for other  high-volume workloads in the coming years. For example, there were  10.6 million requests for replacement Social Security cards in fiscal year  2016, and as of April 2017 SSA was piloting online requests for  replacement cards in 17 states and Washington, D.C., with plans to  expand to additional states. There were also over 2 million SSI  applications in 2016, and in April 2017 SSA introduced an online SSI  application for individuals who meet certain conditions.
The number of online transactions completed by SSA customers for  benefit applications and certain benefit management services has  increased as SSA has expanded the types of services available. For  example, from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2016, the number of  retirement applications submitted online increased from approximately  220,000 (9 percent of total retirement applications) to approximately 1.4  million (52 percent of applications), according to our analysis of SSA data  (see fig. 5).
There is wide variation in the use of these online services between field  offices, however, with customers in certain areas continuing to conduct  the majority of services directly with SSA staff either in person at field  offices or over the phone with field office staff. The use of online services  varied across the 13 field offices included in this review, including for  benefit verification letters (4 percent to 36 percent), disability claims (31  percent to 62 percent), and retirement claims (13 percent to 62 percent),  according to our analysis of SSA service delivery data for fiscal year 2016  (see fig. 6). SSA officials attribute this variation across service areas to  particular population demographics and needs (e.g., computer literacy).  For example, SSA field offices in San Francisco, California, have a  relatively low percentage of online claims due to large non-English  speaking and homeless populations, SSA officials said.
In addition to its main service delivery methods (in person, phone, online),  SSA has rolled out a variety of technologies for customers to conduct  business with the agency, many of which are self-service. For example, in  2008 SSA introduced self-help personal computers in field offices, which  allow customers to complete transactions online at these locations,  according to SSA officials. Visitors completed over 390,000 online  transactions on these computers in fiscal year 2016. SSA has also  increased use of video service delivery, which allows SSA staff to take  claims or conduct hearings remotely, either in SSA facilities or in third- party locations such as senior centers. For example, the proportion of  hearings on disability claims that were conducted by video increased from  11 percent in fiscal year 2007 to 26 percent in fiscal year 2016, according  to SSA data. Another emerging service delivery approach is the desktop  icon, which provides a shortcut to access SSA online services on  computers in third-party locations, such as libraries or social service  agencies. Customers completed about 94,000 transactions by clicking on  these icons during fiscal year 2016, according to SSA data. SSA also  recently ended a trial of customer service station kiosks in seven SSA  field offices and third-party locations, which allowed customers to  complete online transactions, print and scan documents, and interact with  SSA staff through a video connection.
Despite the increase in online transactions relative to field office  transactions for certain benefit application and management services,  overall demand for field office services has not decreased. As indicated  above, our analysis of SSA data for disability and retirement applications  and benefit verification letters shows an increasing proportion of these  services being completed online. However, our analysis of separate SSA  data on total visits to field offices and phone calls to SSA for all services  shows that the number of these contacts has not decreased. For  example, the number of in-person visits to field offices in fiscal year 2007  (42.9 million) was about the same as in fiscal year 2016 (42.7 million),  according to SSA data. The demand for services with SSA staff over the  phone has not decreased either (see fig. 7). SSA officials said this may  be due to increased demand for certain services and customer  preference. For example, overall demand for retirement and some related  benefits increased 20 percent from 2009 to 2016, as evidenced by SSA  claims data. SSA officials said that given the rise in the overall U.S.  population over the last decade—the population increased by 7 percent  between 2007 and 2016, according to data from the Census Bureau—the  expanded use of online services has likely prevented a substantial  increase in visits to field offices, even if in-person visits have not actually  declined. SSA expects overall demand for SSA services to continue  increasing as the U.S. population ages. In addition, there are still SSA  services with significant workloads, such as SSI claims, that are not yet  fully available online.
section_title: SSA’s Steps to Reconfigure Its Physical Footprint Do Not Fully Incorporate Changes in Service Delivery and Also Face External Constraints
subsections: section_title: While SSA Has Developed Strategic Goals, It Does Not Always Consider Evolving Service Delivery or Collect Needed Information
paragraphs: SSA has developed strategic goals for expanding remote service delivery  while reconfiguring its physical footprint and is beginning to implement  initiatives that may help reduce space; however, SSA has not integrated  its facility plan with its strategic plan, provided flexibility for individual  offices, or compiled accurate facility data as suggested by standards for  internal control and leading practices for facility planning.
subsections: section_title: Integrating Facility and Strategic Plans
paragraphs: SSA’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan and Vision 2025—the latter, published in  2015, lays out SSA’s priorities and vision for the agency over 10 years— emphasize the agency’s goal to expand remote service delivery options  and adjust its physical footprint to reflect the emphasis on remote  services. Also, in 2016 SSA developed a 5-year Real Property Efficiency  Plan in response to OMB’s Reduce the Footprint requirements. This plan  includes information on, among other things, annual space reduction  targets; progress made in reducing domestic office and warehouse  space; initiatives to help continue space reductions; and challenges to  further reduction.
Leading practices for facility planning state that such plans should reflect  a decision-maker’s priorities for the future and should meet the goals and  objectives in the agency’s strategic plans, including identifying the proper  mix of existing and future facilities needed to fulfill its goals. SSA’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan and Vision 2025 set broad goals, but neither is  a facility plan nor includes specific steps to reduce facilities as the agency  expands remote service delivery beyond identifying a small number of co- location opportunities. Furthermore, SSA’s Real Property Efficiency Plan  is driven by OMB requirements, which are distinct from SSA’s strategic  goal to expand remote service delivery, and does not explicitly detail how  SSA will change its physical footprint in relation to its strategic goal to  expand remote service delivery options. SSA has developed targets for  online use by customers, for example increasing the number of online  transactions completed by 25 million each year, but it is unclear how  those inform its facility planning decisions. In addition, though we found  high online usage rates in some of the field offices we analyzed, SSA  headquarters officials said a high percentage of online service use by  SSA customers has not been a determining factor in local-level decisions  on facility space because not all services are available online.
As SSA continues to expand remote service delivery and develop plans  to reflect the priorities of Vision 2025, there may be more opportunities for  it to reconfigure its physical footprint. SSA has recently started making  several additional services available online that represent significant  workloads, such as the SSI application, which may reduce the number of  in-person visits over time and the associated space needs. Further, SSA  officials said they are currently developing the Strategic Plan for 2018- 2022, which will implement the long-term Vision 2025 priorities to adjust  its physical footprint in anticipation of delivering a greater number of  services remotely. However, because SSA lacks a long-term facility plan  that identifies the needed composition of its facilities as it moves to  emphasize remote service delivery, SSA could be missing opportunities  to achieve its strategic goals, including identifying opportunities to  reconfigure or reduce some field offices.
section_title: Providing Flexibility for Individual Offices
paragraphs: SSA’s policies and procedures for making space planning decisions have  helped achieve space reductions, but may not always provide sufficient  flexibility to adapt to changing service demands. Currently, SSA uses  service area reviews—conducted periodically—and space standards to inform its decisions about needed space. At the local level, a service area  review for an individual field office considers several factors, such as  customers’ use of online services, accessibility of the office, and office  workload trends, on which to base recommendations for changes, such  as, for example, field office consolidations. Unlike service area reviews,  space standards are automatically applied to all offices when a lease is  expiring to determine how much space each office requires. The space  standards, revised in 2012, take into account changing needs to some  extent. For example, the revised standards eliminated space for filing  cabinets due to the digitization of records and added space to the  reception areas because of the continued demand for in-person services  (see fig. 8).
While the application of the revised space standards has helped reduce  SSA’s overall field office space, some SSA officials said the standards do  not provide flexibility for individual offices. SSA headquarters officials said  the standards are used to determine the amount of space to lease for an  office, and after an office is acquired, planning and design efforts are  conducted to configure the space. However, three of five regional  commissioners we interviewed said the space standards did not provide  flexibility to accommodate equipment for emerging technologies, such as  an area for self-help personal computers for customers. The standards  allot 100 square feet for equipment for emerging technologies in general  because, according to SSA headquarters officials, some technologies  were not available when the standards were being revised so the actual  amount of space needed for them could not have been known. However,  offices may not be able to be configured to accommodate the equipment  at the time it is delivered without making trade-offs affecting other  services. For example, some field offices use interviewing windows,  which are needed for in-person service, as a place for self-help  computers. In the Wilmington, Delaware, field office, the self-help  computers take up two interviewing stations and are located at the end of  a long hallway requiring an escort for customers who want to use them  (see fig. 9).
The space standards also may not provide sufficient flexibility to  accommodate unanticipated staff growth, according to 8 of 10 area  directors we interviewed. The pre-2012 space standards allowed field  offices to request 10 percent more space for potential staff growth; the  current standards allot space only for current on-board staff. SSA  headquarters officials as well as 4 of 10 area directors said long-term  leases make it difficult for SSA to adjust field office space as needs arise,  such as to accommodate changes in staff levels. For example, one area  director said two field offices in Utah were understaffed at the time of their  lease renewal, which resulted in insufficient space in the new location to  add staff to meet the office’s service demands.
According to SSA officials, the field office space standards currently meet  the agency’s needs. Furthermore, they have no plans to reassess the  space standards at this time, though they may do so in the future if, for  example, changes to service delivery require it. According to federal  standards for internal control, management should identify, analyze, and  respond to significant internal and external changes to the agency, such  as changes in personnel and technology. Absent the flexibility to adjust  space to accommodate changes in staff levels or incorporate new service  delivery technologies, the quality of service at some field offices may  decline because of increased wait times and decreased availability of  potentially time-saving service delivery technologies. Therefore,  reassessing the space standards as it expands service delivery options  could better position SSA to maintain its current level of customer service.
section_title: Compiling Accurate Facility Data
paragraphs: Currently, SSA cannot obtain an accurate, automated inventory of the  space used by its organizational components in its buildings. As currently  configured, SSA’s data system associates a building’s use with the  organizational component (e.g., the office type such as field office or  hearing office) that occupies the majority of its space. As a result, in  cases where more than one office occupies a building, SSA’s data  system only counts the office using the majority of the space. Since fiscal  year 2015, SSA has been annually developing a list of its buildings and  their associated office types, and using this list to meet OMB reporting  requirements. However, to develop that list, SSA must manually match  records from multiple data sources and OFLM and organizational  component staff must coordinate. These are resource-intensive actions  that may introduce error in the resulting list. Furthermore, because the list  does not identify all offices in each building, it provides partial information  on SSA’s inventory.
SSA officials said having an easy-to-access inventory of offices would  allow them to concentrate their efforts on analyzing data to help with  facility planning—for example, determining the number and location of  offices for each organizational component. Along these lines, SSA  officials said the Real Estate and Lease Tracking (REALT) application  they are developing may provide this functionality at a future time.  However, SSA officials said they have not yet defined requirements and a  timeline to implement changes that would enable REALT to have this  functionality. According to our guidance on leading practices for capital  decision-making, a critical step to facility planning is to maintain a  baseline of current assets using quality information. As SSA develops  the REALT application, it will be important to ensure that it is structured to  provide the information needed by SSA officials to make effective facility  planning decisions. Without ensuring REALT can provide a complete and  descriptive inventory of SSA offices using an automated process, SSA  will lack useful baseline information to inform its planning efforts.
section_title: Implementing Initiatives That May Further Reduce Space
paragraphs: SSA is implementing two co-location initiatives that may help reduce its  physical footprint. SSA has co-located approximately 10 percent of its  field offices with ODAR permanent remote sites, as of May 2017. SSA  recently initiated a co-location pilot program with the Internal Revenue  Service (IRS), and is taking steps to evaluate the results to determine the  utility of the pilot agency-wide. The goal of the co-location pilot, which  combines SSA field offices with IRS Taxpayer Assistance Centers, is to  lower each agency’s infrastructure costs. Since it began in January 2017,  four IRS staff have moved into SSA field offices. According to an IRS  official the pilot will continue through January 2018. The two agencies are  collecting customer service information based on visitor data, weekly  surveys of SSA field office managers, and customer surveys; they plan to  use the results to determine whether to expand the pilot and pursue  additional co-location opportunities. The weekly visitor data includes the  number of visitors to the pilot locations and the wait times. SSA’s field  office managers participating in the pilot complete surveys weekly to  determine how much time SSA staff spend on co-location-related  activities, such as notifying an IRS employee when customers arrive. SSA  officials said they intend to end the co-location pilot if the service  deteriorates or proves to be a security risk.
SSA has two additional initiatives that could help reduce space, but it is  too early to assess whether these efforts could provide space reduction.  SSA introduced telework at some field and hearing offices. Telework has  the potential to further reduce needed desk space and SSA plans to  expand telework agency-wide. However, it may not be possible for some  time in field offices due to the nature of SSA programs and the continued  high demand for in-person services, according to 7 of 10 area directors  we interviewed. SSA is developing two model field offices, which will  help SSA further reduce its physical footprint, according to the agency’s  2016 Real Property Efficiency Plan. SSA officials said these model field  offices will test, among other things, emerging technologies and new  service delivery methods; SSA will incorporate successful processes into  existing field offices. One model field office is under construction and the  other office is in a design phase.
section_title: SSA’s Ability to Further Reconfigure Its Physical Footprint Is Constrained by Rental Markets and Stakeholder Concerns
paragraphs: SSA field officials we spoke with said reconfiguring SSA’s facilities can be  constrained by finding suitable space in some locations due to high rent  prices or limited building stock, and by concerns of community members  and SSA staff. For example, it took SSA longer than expected to find an  office location in Mountain View, California, that met the agency’s space  needs because of the high rental costs. The Douglas, Arizona, area  director stated the office is challenged to find an alternate location  because Douglas is a small town with a limited number of buildings and  the cost of renovating an existing building to suit a field office’s needs  would be too high. Similarly, the Hazard, Kentucky, field office currently  has excess space, but the limited building options in downtown are in a  higher crime area and, therefore, are not acceptable for an SSA field  office, according to the field office manager. SSA headquarters officials  mentioned other constraints, including a complicated federal leasing  process and that some property owners may not want SSA in their space  due to the high number of visitors and lack of available public parking.
SSA also works within constraints that can come from addressing the  concerns of community stakeholders and unions. Elected officials or  community leaders may sometimes oppose SSA’s plans to consolidate  field offices. For example, though the San Francisco Chinatown and  Downtown offices are approximately 1.5 miles apart and SSA’s internal  analysis supported consolidation, SSA officials stated the agency decided  not to do so due to community concerns about access if the Chinatown  office was eliminated. In Kingston, New York, SSA initially retained a  contact station after the field office was consolidated with the  Poughkeepsie field office, which is approximately 20 miles away, in  response to political concerns about Kingston losing an office, according  to a local manager. Also, according to SSA officials, employee unions  negotiate office layout and design if conditions of employment of the  bargaining unit employees are impacted by proposed changes.  Additionally, they noted that unions provide input on the impact and  implementation of space changes, including ergonomics and security of  the field offices. SSA headquarters officials said while the interactions with its employee unions are positive, there are times these interactions  can cause delays to individual projects. For example, four of the five  regional commissioners we spoke with said union concerns can  complicate efforts to co-locate field and hearing offices, requiring buy-in  from all three employee unions and increasing the length of the leasing  process.
section_title: SSA Has Taken Steps to Make Remote Services Easier to Use, but Does Not Consistently Evaluate These Services
subsections: section_title: SSA Is Trying to Make Its Online Services More User-Friendly, but Lacks Comprehensive Data on Issues with Online Claims
paragraphs: The complexity of SSA’s programs can make it challenging for customers  to complete certain processes online, especially disability applications,  according to SSA officials. Customers’ difficulties with online applications  could limit SSA’s ability to shift more of its business online and further  reconfigure its physical footprint. More than half the regional  commissioners and field office managers we interviewed, as well as front- line staff in three of the four field offices where we interviewed these staff,  said this complexity is a challenge; many cited the complexity of disability  programs in particular. The online application for disability benefits  requires claimants to provide detailed information on their medical and  work histories and, according to SSA officials, to navigate through over 10  separate web pages. Several staff we interviewed—three of five  regional commissioners and three of seven field office managers— believe the online applications could be improved. For example, one  regional commissioner said the online disability application asks the same  questions multiple times and this can be confusing. In our observations of  in-person disability claims at field offices, we saw examples of the  assistance that SSA staff may provide with benefit claims. In one  instance, an SSA staff member asked the applicant a number of  questions to try and determine the date the claimant stopped working,  and ultimately got permission to contact the claimant’s employer. The  staff member told us that if the application had been done online, SSA  staff almost certainly would have had to follow up with the claimant to  complete the application. On the other hand, a number of SSA staff— including five of seven field office managers and front-line staff in four  field offices—said some processes such as changes of address or  managing direct deposit are simpler and more suited to being completed  online.
SSA is trying to improve its online services and make them more user- friendly, which may promote greater use of these services and less  reliance on in-person services at field offices. For example, SSA is adding  new features that make it possible for online customers to interact with  SSA staff to resolve problems. It has introduced a click-to-callback option  allowing online customers to request a call from an SSA staff member,  and a click-to-chat option for a live online conversation; and in fiscal year  2018 or later, SSA plans to introduce click-to-video for a live conversation  with video image. In 2015, SSA surveyed customers who had started but  failed to complete online benefit applications, with the goal of identifying  difficulties and ways to address them, according to SSA officials. The  survey found, for example, that the most common reason disability benefit  applicants failed to complete an online claim was that they did not  understand what the questions meant (30 percent of respondents listed  this as a reason). SSA officials told us that, aside from adding a reminder  to the final screen of the online application to click “submit,” the survey  has not led to any other enhancements to the online application.
Furthermore, despite anecdotal evidence that online claims submitted to  SSA contain errors, SSA does not track these issues on an on-going  basis. Six of seven field office managers and front-line staff in four field  offices told us at least some online benefit claims have issues that require  staff to follow up with claimants. Front-line staff in several field offices said  such follow-ups are common, and staff in one field office said it often  takes longer to process an online claim than one submitted in-person as a  result. Staff in two field offices cited problems with missing medical  release forms and with the start dates claimants gave for their  disabilities. SSA officials said they do not collect any data on which  online claims require staff follow-up, because staff must decide in each  case what is needed and it would be complex to track each time this  happens. Standards for internal control in the federal government state  agency management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks to  meeting agency objectives, including risks related to complex programs  and new technologies. Without data on the number and nature of errors  in online claims, SSA may miss opportunities for improvements that make  the claims process easier for customers and the agency, and that could  help SSA further reconfigure its footprint to the extent that more  customers migrate to online services.
Another challenge with SSA’s online services is data security, which the  agency is taking steps to address. Several SSA staff we interviewed—two  of five regional commissioners and 3 of 10 area directors—told us  customers’ concerns about the security of their personal information are  an obstacle to wider use of online services. For example, one area  director said data security breaches affecting government agencies have  raised public concerns about the security of personal information on the  Internet. In a 2015 survey of SSI recipients about their Internet use, SSA  found that among responding adult recipients, 74 percent were not very  or not at all comfortable with providing their Social Security number  online—which is required to use a mySocialSecurity account. SSA  officials told us a major component of their effort to protect customers’  data involves complying with federal data security requirements.
Officials said the agency completed a risk assessment of its  mySocialSecurity portal in 2016, and as a result is developing stronger  identity proofing and new multi-factor authentication options. For  example, customers with cell phones can now use their phones to further  confirm their identities when logging into mySocialSecurity, but SSA is  also developing—and plans to introduce in 2017—other multi-factor  authentication options, according to SSA officials.
section_title: SSA Has Introduced New Approaches to Enhance Access to Remote Delivery of Services, but Lacks Performance Goals
paragraphs: Some of SSA’s customers may have difficulty accessing online services,  according to SSA staff and data from an SSA survey, which may also limit  the agency’s ability to further reconfigure its footprint. Lack of access to  the Internet or to a computer was mentioned as an obstacle to wider use  of SSA’s online services by four of five regional commissioners and 7 of  10 area directors. One regional commissioner said the major obstacle to  expanding remote service delivery is lack of broadband Internet access in  rural areas. Additionally, an area director told us low levels of Internet  access and computer literacy are challenges in low-income urban areas.  According to SSA’s 2015 survey of recipients of SSI—a program for  people with limited income—only 34 percent of adult respondents said  they use the Internet. Among adult respondents who do not use the  Internet, close to half (43 percent) said they either lack a computer or lack  Internet access. Some SSA customers simply prefer interacting directly  with an SSA staff member to conducting business on-line, according to 9  of 10 area directors and six of seven field office managers we  interviewed. Several of these officials said older people and non-English  speakers in particular may feel more comfortable with in-person services.
A key part of SSA’s strategy to address customers’ challenges with  access to online delivery of services has been to make these services  available in more locations, from SSA field offices to community-based  sites such as public libraries, according to agency officials. As noted  previously, in recent years SSA has rolled out self-help personal  computers in field offices, giving visitors the option of completing business  online on an SSA computer; desktop icons on computers in third-party  locations such as public libraries, to link users to SSA services online;  and a small number of customer service stations in third-party locations,  which offer both online and video connections with SSA (see fig. 10 for  images of these technologies). Additionally, SSA uses video service  delivery to conduct business such as claims and hearings with customers  in remote locations.
Some SSA staff and a staff member at a community organization shared  the benefits of these new approaches. For example one area director said  the self-help personal computers in field offices give customers the option  of taking care of their business quickly rather than waiting to speak with  an SSA staff member. A field office manager said these computers can  help educate the public about the online option for accessing SSA  services. With regard to video service delivery, one area director told us it  is used to conduct claims and other business with Native Americans on  remote reservations, who prefer the personal interaction with SSA  provided by the video. A staff member at a community organization that  hosts a desktop icon site said that for older, non-English speakers, it has  been a helpful alternative to visiting a crowded SSA field office. Staff said  they walk these clients through each step of using SSA’s online services.
SSA officials also reported some implementation challenges with these  new technologies and approaches. Most area directors (6 of 10) and field  office managers (five of seven) we spoke with said there have been  challenges with the use of self-help personal computers, such as  customers who may lack technological skills and need assistance to use  the computers. SSA has also experienced some difficulties in working  with other organizations to host these new technologies. For example,  several SSA staff and a staff member at a host site said some entities  have had concerns about including desktop icons on their computers due  to issues such as data security and increasing workloads for staff at host  sites.
While these new service delivery approaches are integral to SSA’s efforts  to expand remote service delivery, the agency lacks clear performance  goals or targets for them. SSA is collecting data on the use of some of  these approaches. For example, it collects data on the number of different  types of transactions—such as benefit claims and registrations for  mySocialSecurity accounts—completed through the self-help personal  computers, the number of transactions completed by clicking on desktop  icons, and some data on use of video services. However, SSA has not  established performance goals for all of these new approaches. In prior  work we have identified setting performance goals and collecting  performance information related to these goals as key elements of  effective customer service. Without setting meaningful performance  goals, for example, for speed, quality, or customer satisfaction, and  measuring progress towards these goals, SSA may miss opportunities to  improve its service delivery and potentially encourage more customers to  use remote services rather than visit field offices. This may be especially  relevant in light of the implementation issues raised by some SSA staff.  SSA officials told us they have not established set criteria for assessing  the desktop icon sites—such as what level of usage indicates success— because each site is different and must be assessed individually. Officials  also said there is little cost to the agency for installing these sites apart  from staff time. Similarly, officials said they have no set criteria for the  success of video services in third-party locations because each site has  different needs and must be evaluated individually. They said they rely on  anecdotal information from local video service coordinators to determine if  each site makes sense. However, strategies do exist for developing  performance goals that account for local variation. In a prior report we  have recognized this challenge in developing national performance goals,  and identified strategies to address it such as providing guidance to local  sites but letting them develop their own individualized performance  goals.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Reconfiguring its physical footprint is critical for SSA, as it strives to meet  government-wide goals for reducing the federal footprint and as SSA  faces long-term budgetary challenges. The agency has recently made  progress in streamlining its space needs, but faces several challenges  with its efforts to reconfigure its footprint. Until recently, a significant  impediment to reducing or downsizing field offices has been the  continuing demand for in-person services, but this trend could change as  SSA shifts more and more services online. Without a long-term facilities  plan for reconfiguring its field office structure as it expands options for  customers to access services remotely and in light of the wide variation in  remote service use across offices, SSA could miss opportunities to further  reduce its footprint. The agency’s 2012 space standards have contributed  to space reductions, yet the standards may in some cases impede  effective customer service because they do not provide sufficient flexibility  in how SSA uses space to meet local staffing or technology needs.  Finally, SSA’s capacity to conduct long-term facilities planning will likely  be hampered as long as it lacks a facilities data system that it can use to  accurately track the composition of offices in its buildings over time.
Similarly, despite SSA’s success in expanding remote services, it could  be missing opportunities to make additional progress or improve its  customer services. If the agency can encourage greater use of remote  services, it will potentially make further reconfiguration of its physical  footprint more feasible. For example, SSA does not have data on the  incidence and cause of staff follow-ups required with online applicants to  inform SSA about how to make these processes better. In addition,  unless it establishes clear performance goals and collects related data for  alternative service approaches such as desktop icons and video service  at third-party sites, SSA risks foregoing opportunities to improve service  delivery for customers.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security  Administration direct the agency to take the following actions:  1.  Develop a long-term facility plan that explicitly links to SSA’s strategic  goals for service delivery, and includes a strategy for consolidating or  downsizing field offices in light of increasing use of and geographic  variation in remote service delivery.  2.  Reassess and, if needed, revise its field office space standards to  ensure they provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate both  unexpected growth in the demand for services and new service  delivery technologies.  3.  Ensure the REALT application has the capacity to accurately track the  composition of SSA’s office inventory over time.  4.  Develop a cost-effective approach to identifying the most common  issues with online benefit claims that require staff follow-up with  applicants, and use this information to inform improvements to the  online claims process.  5.  For its alternative customer services approaches, including desktop  icons and video services in third-party sites, develop performance  goals and collect performance data related to these goals.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to SSA, OMB, and GSA for review and  comment, and also provided a relevant excerpt to IRS. See appendix III  for SSA’s written comments. In its written comments, SSA agreed with  our recommendations and noted steps it plans to take to enable further  reduction in its footprint, such as expanding the use of video and co- locating field and hearing offices. SSA and IRS also provided technical  comments on our draft report, which we incorporated as appropriate.  OMB and GSA did not provide comments.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to appropriate  congressional committees, the Acting Commissioner of the Social  Security Administration, and other interested parties. In addition, this  report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  Barbara Bovbjerg at 202-512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov or David Wise  at 202-512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff members who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this report were to (1) describe the trends in the Social  Security Administration’s (SSA) physical footprint and how it delivers  services, (2) assess the steps SSA is taking to reconfigure its physical  footprint, and (3) assess the steps SSA is taking to address any  challenges to expanding remote service delivery. To address these  objectives, we reviewed SSA documents including agency-wide strategic  planning documents, facility planning documents, procedures for  identifying local facility needs, and SSA studies of customers’ use of  online services. We determined that the methodologies of SSA internal  studies were sufficient to allow us to report certain findings from these  studies. We interviewed headquarters officials at SSA who are  responsible for facility and service delivery planning, as well as officials  from the General Services Administration (GSA), which works with SSA  on facility planning; the Office of Management and Budget, which has  established a government-wide space reduction initiative; the Internal  Revenue Service, which according to agency officials has a pilot co- location initiative with SSA; and the Department of Veterans Affairs and  U.S. Postal Service, which are also taking steps to reduce their footprints.  We also interviewed officials and reviewed documents from external  organizations including the Social Security Advisory Board, the National  Academy of Social Insurance, the National Academy of Public  Administration, and the American Federation of Government Employees.  We applied criteria previously identified by GAO for facility planning and  customer service standards, as well as standards for internal control in  the federal government. In addition, we analyzed SSA administrative data  and conducted field work through site visits and phone interviews (see  below for more information on these methodologies). Finally, we reviewed  pertinent federal laws and regulations.
subsections: section_title: Analysis of SSA and GSA Administrative Data
subsections: section_title: Facility Data
paragraphs: To describe trends in the composition of SSA’s facilities and develop an  inventory of the majority use of buildings SSA occupies for fiscal year  2016, we obtained data from SSA on its facilities for fiscal years 2006 to  2016. SSA’s facility data are compiled from two data sources. First, the  office name, location, usable and rentable square feet, annual rent, lease  start and expiration dates are from GSA’s Rent on the Web database,  which is a public database. The office code and office type are from an  SSA internal database. The data for each fiscal year are based on the  facilities SSA had as of the September 15 billing date of that year. We  assessed the reliability of these data by conducting electronic data tests  and interviewing knowledgeable officials about how data are collected  and maintained and their appropriate uses. We found the data we  reported to be sufficiently reliable for purposes of our reporting objectives.
Nonetheless our analysis was constrained due to limitations with SSA’s  facility data. We could not develop an exact count of all of SSA’s offices,  such as area offices, field offices, and hearing offices, in fiscal year 2016  because of the structure of the data set. Specifically, the records in the  data set represent individual leases. Each lease is categorized according  to a “space type” denoting a type of SSA office, such as area office, field  office, and hearing office. Leases may be associated with a single SSA  office or with multiple offices. In cases when a lease is associated with  multiple offices, the lease’s “space type” is categorized according to the  office representing the largest amount of square footage among the  offices associated with the lease. For example, if a lease is associated  with an area office and a field office, and the area office occupies more  space, then the lease’s “space type” is set to area office as the majority  use of the space—and we would not know that the lease is also  associated with a field office. Thus, rather than presenting an inventory of  SSA offices by “space type,” we presented an inventory of buildings  occupied by SSA according to the majority use of the SSA-occupied  space in the building. We categorized each building according to the  majority-use “space type” of the SSA lease associated with the building.  When a building is associated with multiple SSA leases, we identified the  lease’s space type representing the largest amount of square footage,  and categorized the building according to that lease’s “space type.” In  almost all cases, when there are multiple leases associated with a  building, we identified one lease that represented the majority of the SSA- occupied square footage in the building. In less than 1 percent of the  buildings, there was no office representing the majority use, so we  categorized the building according to the office with the largest amount of  space.
section_title: Service Delivery Data
paragraphs: To describe trends in how SSA delivers services to the public, we used  data from several SSA sources. The time frames for the data vary among  the sources, ranging up to 11 years of historical data (fiscal years 2006 to  2016). Unless otherwise noted, we obtained data at the national,  aggregate level.
To examine trends in how the public accesses specific SSA  services—such as retirement applications, disability applications, and  benefit verification letters—we used SSA’s eService Statistics  Quarterly Tracking Reports. These reports are drawn from a variety of  SSA data sets and tools, including Management Information Central,  Google Analytics, and the Executive and Management Information  System. They provide data on the number and percentage of  customer transactions for various services that were provided through  the Internet each year. We also used the reports to calculate the  number and percentage of transactions that were provided through all  service channels other than the Internet. Other service channels  include in-person visits to field offices, phone calls to field offices, and  calls to the national 800 number; the reports do not distinguish  between these specific non-Internet service channels. We obtained  and analyzed reports for fiscal year 2007 to 2016.
To examine trends in the number of in-person visits to field offices, we  used data from the SSA Unified Measurement System Customer  Service Record. We obtained annual data on in-person visits for fiscal  years 2006 to 2016.
To examine trends in the number of phone calls received by field  offices, we used data from SSA’s Avaya Reporting System. Data on  phone calls received by field offices were only available for fiscal  years 2012 to 2016.
To examine trends in the number of phone calls to SSA’s national 800  number, we used data from the Cisco Unified Intelligent Contact  Management (Unified ICM) System. We obtained annual data on the  number of calls received for fiscal years 2006 to 2016.
To examine trends in the proportion of hearings conducted by video,  we used data from the Case Processing Management System. We  obtained annual data on total hearings held and hearings held by  video for fiscal years 2007 to 2016.
To examine geographical variation in how customers access services,  we used data from SSA’s Local Management Information, which  draws from several SSA databases. We obtained data for the 13 field  offices that were covered in our site visits and interviews. For these  offices, we obtained fiscal year 2016 data on the number of retirement  applications, disability applications, and benefit verification letter  requests completed online and through other service channels (which  can include field offices and in some cases the national 800 number).
To examine the number of times customers used certain self-service  delivery technologies, we used data from two different SSA systems.  We used data on the number of transactions through self-help  personal computers during fiscal year 2016 from a MySQL database  that SSA uses to record these transactions. We used data on the  number of times customers accessed desktop icons during fiscal year  2016 from a Google Analytics tool that SSA developed to record these  transactions.
To examine the workload for certain SSA services that are not yet  fully available online, we obtained data from different sources. We  used data on the number of Supplemental Security Income  applications during fiscal year 2016 from the agency’s District Office  Workload Report, which draws from several other SSA databases.  We used data on the number of replacement Social Security card  requests during fiscal year 2016 from the SSA Unified Measurement  System Counts Data Warehouse.
We assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing and obtaining  written responses from SSA officials and by reviewing documentation  such as data dictionaries. We determined the data to be sufficiently  reliable for our reporting purposes.
section_title: Site Visits and Interviews with SSA Managers and Staff in the Field
paragraphs: We conducted site visits to four states and interviewed 10 area directors  and 5 regional commissioners, using field offices as our unit of selection.  We used a four-step process to identify field office locations. We began  with a list of all SSA field offices as of June 2016. This list was used to  identify offices that had been part of an office consolidation since fiscal  year 2013 or had a service area review conducted between January 2014  and June 2016.
Step 1: We narrowed the list to identify offices with a lease expiration  date between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019.
Step 2: We used the fiscal year 2015 visitor to staff ratio to divide the  resulting list of 65 field offices into five equal groups.
Step 3: We selected a non-generalizable sample of three field offices  from each group to obtain a range of regions, Internet use, and  urban/rural designation. Because there were more field offices with  service area reviews than office consolidations we selected one  “consolidation” field office and two “service area review” field offices  from each group.
Step 4: From the list of 15 field offices, we selected 10 for interviews  with area directors based on the purpose of the service area review  (when applicable) and “unique” characteristics. For example, we  selected the downtown St. Louis, Missouri, field office because the  service area review was conducted to explore the possibility of  consolidating the office with the St. Louis Central West End office.  One reason we chose the Billings, Montana, field office is because it  has one of the largest service areas (45,000 square miles), resulting  in potentially very long distances to reach the field office.
In addition to the Wilmington, Delaware, field office, our pilot site visit  location, we chose three additional site visit locations from the 10  selected field offices based on (1) unique services provided at the  selected field office or in the surrounding area such as being co-located  with an ODAR permanent remote site or having a video unit linked to an  external location (e.g., another city or town) and (2) geographic diversity.  To be consistent with the selection process above, we chose one office  that had been part of a consolidation and two that had a service area  review.
At each of the three site visit locations aside from Wilmington, Delaware,  we visited two field offices, a hearing office, and a third-party location that  provided remote service delivery (e.g., a Korean community organization  with a Social Security Express desktop icon). The first field office was  selected from the original list of 10 offices discussed above. The second  field office in each location was chosen based on its proximity to the first  field office or a hearing office that we visited. For example, we selected  the Lexington, Kentucky, field office because it is located in the same  building as the hearing office we visited. As a result, in total we visited or  interviewed the area director associated with 13 field offices (see table 2).  During each visit we interviewed the field office manager, hearing office  manager, and chief Administrative Law Judge, and conducted a group  interview with a random selection of field office staff. In total we spoke  with 30 field office staff. We also observed staff-customer interactions at  the field offices that were selected; observed hearings; and toured each  field and hearing office. The results of our site visits and interviews with  field staff are not generalizable to all of SSA’s field and hearing office  staff.
Finally, we interviewed five regional commissioners. We interviewed the  regional commissioners for the four offices selected for site visits,  including the regional commissioner for the Wilmington, Delaware, office,  as well as the commissioner for one region where a high number of  service area reviews had been conducted.
section_title: Appendix II: Descriptions of Select Field Offices
paragraphs: Appendix II provides additional information about the three field offices  chosen as site visit locations based on our site selection process. See  appendix I for more information on our site selection process.
The office has experienced a decline in staff and has excess space,
Footprint: 10,678 sq. ft.
Square footage per staff: 562
Annual Visitors: 19,013  according to local officials. However, officials said there have been  challenges with downsizing the office space. For example, officials  explained that SSA has been unable to identify another agency  component—such as a hearing office—to share the building occupied  by the field office.
Many customers in the service area prefer direct interaction with SSA  staff to online services, due to factors including poor internet access in  the area, according to a local official.
subsections: section_title: Service area
section_title: Facility
subsections: section_title: The field office is the sole tenant of a privately-owned building leased by GSA. The office has interviewing workstations at a barrier wall, where SSA staff interact with the public through Plexiglas windows, as well as separate cubicles for staff. It has three self-help personal computers and a video service unit.
paragraphs: Poughkeepsie field office in March 2014, with the Poughkeepsie office  absorbing Kingston staff and customers, according to SSA officials.  The consolidation has created challenges for the Poughkeepsie field  office, as there is higher walk-in traffic but further expansion of the  office space is not possible, according to the field office manager.  Additionally, according to staff at a Kingston social service agency, it  can be challenging for some individuals in their area to get to the  Poughkeepsie field office due to poor public transit connections.
section_title: Service area
paragraphs: The field office is located in  downtown Poughkeepsie, and is  responsible for a service area that  covers three counties, is somewhat  rural, and includes people with a  mix of income levels, according to  the field office manager. office have been disruptive and caused several closures in recent  years, according to field office staff.
section_title: Facility
subsections: section_title: The office occupies part of a GSA- leased space in a privately-owned building. The staff workstations are adjacent to the barrier wall separating the back office and reception areas, so their personal workstations are also where they interview customers. The office has a self-help personal computer and a video service unit. In addition, the field office is co-located with a facility for conducting hearings, with which it shares a reception area, according to the field office manager.
section_title: Service area
paragraphs: threatening or violent behavior. According to the manager,  approximately 25 customers have been banned from the office since  2015.
The field office is in a densely- populated urban area with diverse  populations–both economically and  linguistically. In addition to affluent  neighborhoods, the office serves a  large number of homeless  individuals. The service area  population is expected to continue  growing.
The office has one of the highest numbers of walk-in visitors in the  Bay Area due to a large number of homeless individuals and limited  English speakers. Over half of the office staff members are bilingual.
section_title: Facility
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Social Security Administration
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contacts named above, Erin Godtland (Assistant  Director), Michael Armes (Assistant Director), Lorin Obler (Analyst-in- Charge), Swati Deo, Brian Wanlass, Sydney Petersen, Susan Aschoff,  James Bennett, Nicole Jarvis, Lisa Pearson, James Rebbe, Jerome  Sandau, Monica Savoy, and Almeta Spencer made key contributions to  this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: High Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial  Efforts Needed on Others. GAO-17-317. Washington, D.C.: February 15,  2017.
Social Security: Improvements to Claims Process Could Help People  Make Better Informed Decisions about Retirement Benefits. GAO-16-786.  Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2016.
Federal Real Property: GSA Could Decrease Leasing Costs by  Encouraging Competition and Reducing Unneeded Fees. GAO-16-188.  Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2016.
Social Security Administration: Long-Term Strategy Needed to Address  Key Management Challenges. GAO-13-459. Washington, D.C.: May 29,  2013.
Federal Real Property: Strategic Partnerships and Local Coordination  Could Help Agencies Better Utilize Space. GAO-12-779. Washington,  D.C.: July 25, 2012.
Federal Real Property: National Strategy and Better Data Needed to  Improve Management of Excess and Underutilized Property.  GAO-12-645. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2012.
Social Security Administration: Better Planning Needed to Improve  Service Delivery. GAO-10-586T. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2010.
Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan Needed to Address  Baby Boom Retirement Challenges. GAO-09-24. Washington, D.C.:  January 9, 2009.