Report Summary
Social Security Administration
Office of the Inspector General

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Impact of State Employee Furloughs on the Social Security Administration’s Disability Programs

March 2009

A-01-09-29137

QUICK RESPONSE
EVALUATION

MEMORANDUM

Date: March 27, 2009 Refer To:

To: The Commissioner

From: Inspector General

Subject: Quick Response Evaluation - Impact of State Employee Furloughs on the Social Security Administration’s Disability Programs (A-01-09-29137)

The attached final quick response evaluation presents the results of our review. Our objective was to assess the impact of State employee furloughs on the Social Security Administration’s disability programs.

If you wish to discuss the final report, please call me or have your staff contact Steven L. Schaeffer, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at (410) 965-9700.

/s/
Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr.

Attachment

March 2009

Mission

By conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations and investigations, we inspire public confidence in the integrity and security of SSA’s programs and operations and protect them against fraud, waste and abuse. We provide timely, useful and reliable information and advice to Administration officials, Congress and the public.

Authority

The Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units, called the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG, as spelled out in the Act, is to:

 Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and investigations relating to agency programs and operations.
 Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.
 Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and operations.
 Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations.
 Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems in agency programs and operations.

To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:

 Independence to determine what reviews to perform.
 Access to all information necessary for the reviews.
 Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.

Vision

We strive for continual improvement in SSA’s programs, operations and management by proactively seeking new ways to prevent and deter fraud, waste and abuse. We commit to integrity and excellence by supporting an environment that provides a valuable public service while encouraging employee development and retention and fostering diversity and innovation.

Background
OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to assess the impact of State employee furloughs on the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) disability programs.

BACKGROUND

SSA provides Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit payments to eligible individuals under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. To receive either, an individual must file an application with SSA. Once an application is filed, an SSA field office determines whether the individual meets the non-disability criteria for benefits, and if so, generally forwards the claim to the disability determination services (DDS) in the State or other responsible jurisdiction in accordance with the Social Security Act and Federal regulations for a disability determination. DDSs are in each of the 50 States plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

SSA reimburses the DDS for 100 percent of allowable expenditures up to its approved funding authorization. The expenditures include both costs directly related to claims processing (such as disability adjudicators’ salaries) and indirect costs. (See Appendix C for additional information about DDS funding.)

To deal with budget deficits, some States have instituted, or are considering, furloughs for State employees—including staff at the DDSs, which are 100 percent funded by SSA. However, Federal regulations state:

Subject to appropriate Federal funding, the State will, to the best of its ability, facilitate the processing of disability claims by avoiding personnel freezes, restrictions against overtime work, or curtailment of facilities or activities.

Additionally, on February 3, 2009, California began delaying payments to individuals who provide consultative examinations and medical records. California also notified SSA that there would be a 30-day delay in payment (which was due to SSA by February 26, 2009) of the estimated amount of its March 2009 federally administered State supplement to SSI recipients.

To perform this review, we gathered and reviewed data related to workloads in FYs 2008 and 2009; interviewed SSA officials to obtain information on SSA’s disability programs; sent a survey to all DDS Administrators to determine the status of furloughs and hiring freezes; and calculated the dollar impact of furloughs in California. (See Appendix B for additional information about our scope and methodology.)

The results presented in this report are a snapshot of what was happening in States during late February and early March 2009. Because of the current economic crisis nationwide, other States may impose furloughs and/or hiring freezes and may continue to do so until their State economies improve.

Results of Review
Furloughs of DDS employees will impact SSA’s ability to process the disability workload. Additionally, because fewer disability decisions will be made in States with DDS furloughs, as well as other State budget issues affecting DDS operations, there will be a negative impact on the flow of money in the U.S. economy.

FURLOUGHS

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, SSA spent $1.8 billion funding DDS operations for almost 14,000 DDS employees who processed about 3.6 million disability claims nationwide. (See Appendix D for a breakout by DDS.) Further, SSA plans to spend about $2 billion in FY 2009 on DDS operations and expects the DDSs to process almost 4 million claims. However, SSA’s ability to process this workload will be negatively impacted by furloughs. As of March 3, 2009, of the 52 DDSs,
• 5 were furloughing,
• 3 were considering furloughs, and
• 44 were not furloughing or the DDS was exempt.

Of the five States furloughing:
• California is furloughing all DDS staff 2 days each month through June 2010.
• Connecticut had one voluntary furlough day for managers on February 13, 2009. Since then, the Governor has extended the request for voluntary furloughs to all State employees through June 1, 2009.

• Maryland is furloughing 2 unpaid holidays for all State employees and additional furlough days for State employees within certain salary ranges through June 2009.
• Massachusetts is furloughing DDS managers 3 days through June 2009.
• Oregon is furloughing DDS managers from 1 to 4 days, depending on salary range, through June 2009.

These five States represent over 15 percent of the national DDS workload each year. See the map below and Appendix E for details of the furlough status for the 52 DDSs.

Furlough Status by State
DDSs Furloughing
States Furloughing- DDS Exempt
States Considering Furloughs- DDS Not Likely Exempt
States Considering Furloughs- DDS Likely Exempt or Unknown
No Furloughs

Dollar Impact of Furloughs on Economy

In FY 2008:
 SSA issued over $142 billion in DI and SSI payments to more than 14 million individuals. The majority of these beneficiaries and recipients were found disabled by the DDSs.
 The DDSs handled more than 3.6 million claims. The DDSs allowed 36.0 percent of claims at the initial level and 13.8 percent of claims at the reconsideration level of appeal.
 DDSs processed initial DI and SSI claims in 81 days, on average.

In FY 2009 (through February 2009), DDS initial claims receipts have increased almost 10 percent over the same period last year. Nationwide, SSA expects applications for benefits to increase 12 percent by year-end. (See Tables D-3 and D-4 in Appendix D for statistics and costs by DDS.)

Furloughs will impact the number of disability determinations the DDS will make in FY 2009, including the number of claims allowed. For example, the California DDS will encounter a shortfall of capacity by 10 percent due to furlough days. As a result, we expect approximately 2,375 disability cases would be delayed in processing per month. This would translate into about 776 allowances. Therefore, we estimate that about $648,000 in benefits will be delayed in being paid to newly disabled claimants and from flowing into the economy on a rolling monthly basis. (See Appendix F for more details.)

Further, since January 1, 2009, the California DDS’ initial claims pending has increased 9.7 percent, and its reconsideration claims pending has increased 16.1 percent, as a result of increased applications and the furloughs. Therefore, claimants will have to wait longer for disability decisions.

Continuing Disability Reviews

SSA conducts periodic continuing disability reviews (CDR) to ensure that only those beneficiaries who remain disabled continue to receive benefits. Most CDR cases that are profiled as having a high likelihood of medical improvement are sent to the DDS for a full medical review. The DDS is also responsible for processing all CDRs for SSI disabled children and in all cases where there has been a report of medical improvement.

In FY 2007, DDS employees processed 189,955 medical CDRs and ceased benefits in 52,490 cases. SSA estimates that for FY 2007, the ratio of program savings to administrative costs was approximately $12 to $1. However, furloughs will have a direct impact on processing these CDRs—resulting in ongoing DI benefits and SSI payments to individuals who would no longer be eligible based on the CDR.

Compassionate Allowances

SSA implemented its Compassionate Allowance (CAL) initiative in October 2008—designed to quickly identify those cases where the claimant’s medical condition invariably qualifies under the Listing of Impairments based on minimal, but sufficient, objective medical evidence.

Cases selected for CAL processing receive priority at all adjudicative levels and are handled by the most experienced disability examiners. Furloughs of DDS employees will negatively affect CAL claims by delaying the processing of these claims.

Informal Remand Processing

When a claim for disability benefits is denied, the claimant can appeal the determination. As part of the appeal, the hearing office can return a claim to the DDS for review of the previous determination, in what is sometimes called an informal remand (IR). The DDS then conducts a pre-hearing case review. Cases selected for IR are initial claims in which there is a strong likelihood that the DDS will revise its determination to be wholly or partially favorable to the claimant.

A special DDS IR initiative began in June 2007 to assist in reducing the backlog of appealed cases. According to SSA, the results have been positive and exceeded expectations. In FY 2008, DDSs processed over 52,000 IRs. In FY 2009, DDSs have processed over 15,000 IRs and revised the determinations in about 4,500 of these claims (through January 30, 2009). The IR initiative has been extended through FY 2009.

As a result of furloughs, the California DDS may not be able to continue processing IRs. This would have a negative impact on SSA’s plan to reduce its backlog of cases waiting for a hearing, as well as delaying payment to some deserving individuals.

OTHER ISSUES IMPACTING DDS PROCESSING

In addition to furloughs, other issues, such as hiring freezes, attrition rates, and State budget shortfalls, will impact the DDSs’ ability to process workloads.

Hiring Freezes

Of the 52 DDSs,
• 5 had hiring freezes,
• 1 was considering a hiring freeze, and
• 46 did not have hiring freezes or the DDS is exempt.

For example, the Indiana DDS reported that it had a hiring freeze. The State had deactivated positions in the DDS that could not be filled. The deactivations affected approximately 30 disability examiner positions, and several other positions including supervisory and professional positions, the Senior Medical Doctor, and quality assurance positions. In FY 2009, Indiana’s initial claims pending has increased 4.4 percent. (See Appendix E for status of hiring freezes by DDSs.)

Attrition Rate

The attrition rate for DDS disability examiners was 12.5 percent in FY 2008 and 9.8 percent in FY 2009 (as of February 2009). (See Table D-5 in Appendix D for attrition rates by DDS.) In a 2004 report, we found that lower-performing DDSs had higher rates of disability examiner attrition and fewer examiners in relationship to total staff than their higher-performing DDS counterparts. These issues may become more of an obstacle to SSA processing disability workloads if furloughs continue.

California Budget Issues

Because of budget shortfalls, in February 2009, California began delaying payments to preserve cash flow and prioritize those payments required by the State constitution, Federal law, or court rulings. DDS operations have been affected by these delayed payments because the State has stopped paying for the evidence the DDS needs to make disability determinations—even though SSA reimburses the DDS for these expenditures up to its approved funding authorization. If the California DDS does not obtain existing medical evidence or purchase medical examinations that it needs to make correct determinations, the quality of its disability determinations could suffer.

SSA’s EFFORTS TO ENSURE OPTIMAL DDS PROCESSING

SSA has been proactive in addressing the impact of furloughs. On February 3, 2009, the Commissioner of Social Security sent a letter to the Chair of the National Governors Association, urging States to exempt their DDSs from hiring restrictions and furloughs. In this letter, the Commissioner stated that SSA funds 100 percent of DDS employees’ salaries as well as overhead—about $2 billion nationwide in FY 2009. States cannot use these funds for any other purpose, so States do not save money by cutting employees in the DDSs—they only slow getting benefits to the disabled. The Commissioner also pointed out that States receive significant benefits from the operation of the DDSs. The faster SSA approves claims for benefits, the sooner many disability applicants move from State to Federal support. In addition, the salaries for DDS employees funded by SSA reduce unemployment levels in the States.

Additionally,
• The Commissioner of Social Security sent a letter to all State Governors to educate them about the SSA Federal/State DDS relationship and reemphasize that SSA pays for 100 percent of the costs to process SSA disability workloads.
• Over the past 6 months, SSA Regional Commissioners have urged States to exempt DDSs from hiring restrictions and furloughs.
• SSA staff met with staff members from the House Ways and Means Subcommittee, Subcommittee on Social Security regarding the impact of the furloughs and hiring freezes on the disability program.
• SSA’s Associate Commissioner of Disability Determinations plans to speak at a Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation conference regarding the importance of exempting the DDSs from State-wide hiring restrictions and furloughs.

Matters for Consideration
Furloughs and other DDS issues, such as hiring freezes, will impact SSA’s disability programs as well as the flow of money in the economy. The decision to furlough DDS employees means the processing of disability workloads will be delayed. Also, DDSs will not be able to respond to the growing demand for their services if they are unable to hire sufficient staff or if existing staff are told not to report for work.

Since SSA funds 100 percent of DDS employees’ salaries as well as overhead, and these funds cannot be used by the States for any other purpose, there is no cost savings to the States who furlough DDS employees. Furloughs and other budget issues—including hiring freezes—slow the processing of claims for disability benefits and reduce the flow of those benefits into the economy. Therefore, SSA should continue to urge States to ensure DDSs are operating at full capacity or pursue other options to avoid these delays by shifting work away from States that are implementing furloughs.

Options for Addressing Impact of DDS Furloughs
Option Positives Negatives
Work with States to exempt DDS employees from furloughs. Will eliminate all impacts of State furloughs.
Work with furloughing States to allow DDS employees to work more hours on non-furlough days. Will partially reduce the impact of furloughs—depending on number of hours worked. Medical consultants/contractors do not traditionally work overtime so there may be personnel restrictions about working additional hours.
Transfer work to Federal disability examiners (in Regions or in Headquarters). Will partially reduce the impact of the furloughs— depending on the availability of Federal disability examiners to take on additional work. Will not fully address impact of the furloughs.
May reduce the Federal disability examiners’ ability to help other DDSs.
Transfer of claims would involve administrative planning and resources.
Transfer work to other State DDSs that are not furloughing. Will partially reduce the impact of the furloughs—depending on the availability of other DDSs to take on additional work. Will not fully address impact of the furloughs and may impact other DDSs’ ability to complete their own workloads.
Transfer of claims would involve administrative planning and resources.
Hire retired DDS and Disability Quality Branch (DQB) disability examiners as rehired annuitants on contract (in Regions or Headquarters). Will partially reduce the impact of the furloughs— depending on the availability of retired examiners to perform work. Will not fully address impact of the furloughs.
Will require refresher training and possible enhanced quality reviews of these disability determinations.
Allow current SSA employees who used to work as disability examiners in DDS or DQB to work disability claims on overtime (in Regions or Headquarters). Will partially reduce the impact of the furloughs— depending on the availability of former examiners to perform work. Will not fully address impact of the furloughs.
Will require refresher training and possible enhanced quality reviews of these disability determinations.
Contract disability claims out to private companies. Will reduce the impact of furloughs and allow for future flexibility in handling future DDS backlogs. May require legislative and regulatory authority.
May not be cost effective and may require an assessment to determine if contracting for these services is permissible.
Note: this work has been identified by SSA as ‘inherently governmental activity’ and therefore exempt from competitive contracting.
Will require oversight of the contract(s) and possible enhanced quality reviews of these disability determinations.
Take over State DDS Operations (Federalize the DDSs). Will eliminate all impacts of State furloughs and give SSA complete control over its disability determinations.
SSA could achieve savings by maintaining one case processing and fiscal system rather than supporting separate systems for each DDS. Would require legislative and regulatory changes.
Will require significant administrative and planning resources.
Will impact SSA’s costs for disability determinations. For example, Federal salaries for disability examiners may be higher than some State salary rates.

Other Matter
California delayed paying its estimated share of the March 2009 federally administered State supplement to SSI recipients (which was due to SSA by February 26, 2009)—approximately $286 million paid monthly to almost 900,000 recipients—and administrative fees estimated at $13 million. SSA issued these supplemental payments on behalf of the State, but California is required to reimburse SSA for the State supplement payments and fees in addition to interest charges accruing on the late payments.

Appendices
APPENDIX A – Acronyms
APPENDIX B – Scope and Methodology
APPENDIX C – Disability Determination Services Funding
APPENDIX D – Disability Statistics by Jurisdiction
APPENDIX E – Furlough/Hiring Freeze Status by Disability Determination Services
APPENDIX F – Methodology of Furlough Impact
APPENDIX G – OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Appendix A
Acronyms

CAL Compassionate Allowance
CDR Continuing Disability Reviews
C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations
DDS Disability Determination Services
DI Disability Insurance
DQB Disability Quality Branch
FY Fiscal Year
IR Informal Remand
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Pub. Law No. Public Law Number
SSA Social Security Administration
SSI Supplemental Security Income
U.S.C. United States Code

Appendix B
Scope and Methodology

To accomplish our objective, we:

 Reviewed applicable sections of the Social Security Act and Social Security Administration (SSA) regulations, policies and procedures.

 Researched prior reports issued by the Office of the Inspector General.

 Reviewed continuing disability review data.

 Reviewed National Disability Determination Services (DDS) Performance Summary reports for Fiscal Years (FY) 2006 through 2008.

 Gathered and reviewed data related to anticipated DDS workloads in FY 2009.

 Interviewed SSA officials to obtain information on SSA’s disability programs.

 Sent a survey to all DDS administrators to determine the status of furloughs and hiring freezes.

 Calculated dollar impact of furloughs in California.

We performed our review in February and March 2009 in Boston, Massachusetts. We conducted our review in accordance with the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency’s Quality Standards for Inspections.

Appendix C
Disability Determination Services Funding

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is responsible for implementing policies for the development of disability claims under the Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. The DI program provides benefits to wage earners and their families in the event of disability. The SSI program provides benefits to financially needy individuals who are aged, blind or disabled. Additionally, States have the option of supplementing their residents' SSI payments and may choose to have the additional payments administered by SSA.

Disability determinations under both the DI and SSI programs are performed by disability determination services (DDS) in each State or other responsible jurisdiction in accordance with the Social Security Act and Federal regulations. In carrying out its obligation, each DDS is responsible for determining claimants’ disabilities and ensuring adequate evidence is available to support its determinations. To assist in making proper disability determinations, each DDS is authorized to purchase medical examinations, X rays and laboratory tests on a consultative basis to supplement evidence obtained from the claimants’ physicians or other treating sources.

SSA reimburses the DDS for 100 percent of allowable expenditures up to its approved funding authorization. The DDS withdraws Federal funds through the Department of the Treasury’s Automated Standard Application for Payment system to pay for program expenditures. Funds drawn down must comply with Federal regulations and intergovernmental agreements entered into by the Department of the Treasury and States under the Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990. An advance or reimbursement for costs under the program must comply with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87. At the end of each quarter of the Fiscal Year, each DDS submits a Form SSA-4513, State Agency Report of Obligations for SSA Disability Programs, to account for program disbursements and unliquidated obligations.

Appendix D
Disability Statistics by Jurisdiction

Table D-1 shows the number of all Disability Insurance (DI) beneficiaries and their dependents as of December 2007, and the estimated total annual benefits paid to those individuals.

Table D-1: December 2007 DI Statistics by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Disabled
Beneficiaries Dependents Annual
Benefits Paid
(in millions)
Alabama 211,668 50,792 $2,542
Alaska 11,737 2,711 $147
Arizona 143,125 32,475 $1,872
Arkansas 130,110 31,368 $1,534
California 675,491 140,871 $8,430
Colorado 88,431 17,940 $1,107
Connecticut 81,921 17,870 $1,030
Delaware 25,412 5,515 $334
District of Columbia 12,328 1,706 $129
Florida 466,830 98,148 $5,848
Georgia 242,033 53,975 $2,923
Hawaii 22,881 4,810 $285
Idaho 36,685 8,773 $447
Illinois 281,168 61,593 $3,441
Indiana 178,959 41,307 $2,178
Iowa 73,818 15,079 $846
Kansas 65,692 14,080 $780
Kentucky 198,836 48,592 $2,392
Louisiana 145,689 38,292 $1,700
Maine 56,646 13,632 $652
Maryland 111,716 21,724 $1,402
Massachusetts 188,613 45,137 $2,307
Michigan 303,099 69,424 $3,852
Minnesota 113,489 23,931 $1,375
Mississippi 129,993 33,551 $1,503
Missouri 197,456 44,502 $2,374
Montana 25,601 5,107 $302
Nebraska 40,203 8,912 $462
Nevada 53,086 10,613 $718
New Hampshire 40,178 11,226 $530
New Jersey 188,202 41,653 $2,523
New Mexico 56,661 12,777 $674
New York 503,928 116,553 $6,389
North Carolina 305,284 63,319 $3,707
North Dakota 14,332 2,678 $156
Ohio 306,402 63,552 $3,555
Oklahoma 117,499 25,340 $1,396
Oregon 92,712 16,449 $1,143
Pennsylvania 375,865 85,898 $4,590
Rhode Island 34,831 7,515 $417
South Carolina 159,995 33,738 $1,956
South Dakota 18,186 3,557 $200
Tennessee 226,309 49,070 $2,668
Texas 500,548 120,629 $6,034
Utah 39,327 10,350 $483
Vermont 20,183 4,613 $232
Virginia 203,412 46,039 $2,537
Washington 152,960 29,269 $1,915
West Virginia 101,006 23,912 $1,271
Wisconsin 141,085 30,001 $1,686
Wyoming 11,507 2,299 $142
American Samoa 1,269 763 $13
Guam 1,493 617 $16
Northern Mariana Islands 249 79 $2
Puerto Rico 171,528 48,729 $1,752
U.S. Virgin Islands 2,057 579 $24
Foreign countries 18,658 3,857 $162
Total 8,118,382 1,817,491 $99,086

Table D-2 shows the number of disabled Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients and the amount they received in December 2007.

Table D-2: December 2007 SSI Disability Statistics by DDS
Jurisdiction Disabled
Recipients Payments Issued in December 2007 (in thousands)
Alabama 149,835 $73,740
Alaska 9,419 $4,803
Arizona 87,377 $44,118
Arkansas 87,126 $42,598
California 880,384 $572,476
Colorado 49,810 $25,185
Connecticut 47,551 $23,812
Delaware 13,191 $6,510
District of Columbia 20,043 $11,006
Florida 332,257 $166,921
Georgia 182,111 $91,775
Hawaii 16,983 $9,271
Idaho 21,903 $10,934
Illinois 231,486 $120,076
Indiana 98,796 $50,738
Iowa 41,259 $19,276
Kansas 37,191 $18,758
Kentucky 171,464 $84,209
Louisiana 146,498 $71,919
Maine 31,112 $15,052
Maryland 82,871 $44,331
Massachusetts 133,412 $72,695
Michigan 211,535 $112,914
Minnesota 68,050 $34,158
Mississippi 109,470 $52,879
Missouri 113,037 $55,475
Montana 14,538 $7,097
Nebraska 20,991 $10,158
Nevada 26,757 $14,050
New Hampshire 14,315 $7,141
New Jersey 122,336 $63,451
New Mexico 47,997 $23,701
New York 512,418 $290,622
North Carolina 182,300 $88,063
North Dakota 7,105 $3,089
Ohio 242,832 $127,622
Oklahoma 77,798 $39,003
Oregon 56,160 $28,526
Pennsylvania 306,004 $161,365
Rhode Island 27,189 $14,512
South Carolina 94,465 $46,262
South Dakota 11,391 $5,203
Tennessee 148,021 $74,714
Texas 436,704 $212,829
Utah 22,130 $11,397
Vermont 12,791 $6,418
Virginia 120,667 $56,932
Washington 106,417 $58,675
West Virginia 75,143 $37,483
Wisconsin 88,140 $43,592
Wyoming 5,438 $2,558
Northern Mariana Islands 696 $380
Total 7,359,525 $3,270,520

Table D-3 shows workload statistics at Disability Determination Services (DDS) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008.

Table D-3: FY 2008 DDS Workload Statistics
DDS Total Dispositions DDS Costs Employees Processing Time (days)
DI SSI
Alabama 75,641 $41,596,075 342 64 63
Alaska 4,831 $3,858,083 20 78 78
Arizona 62,330 $29,136,899 223 94 93
Arkansas 64,658 $22,902,043 235 63 62
California 357,556 $198,593,617 1,310 86 88
Colorado 32,609 $18,580,491 133 77 77
Connecticut 28,633 $17,616,286 105 72 81
Delaware 9,183 $5,988,105 44 97 97
District of Columbia 8,531 $5,987,299 34 78 77
Florida 230,003 $100,169,044 832 80 83
Georgia 128,131 $52,448,208 441 88 88
Hawaii 9,007 $5,692,256 40 84 92
Idaho 16,615 $6,896,280 52 62 62
Illinois 144,975 $68,138,817 482 74 76
Indiana 87,124 $38,199,876 271 80 84
Iowa 29,552 $18,670,523 122 80 83
Kansas 31,613 $14,674,611 116 73 71
Kentucky 94,093 $39,280,761 385 83 84
Louisiana 65,180 $31,999,862 286 67 67
Maine 15,172 $7,528,838 61 64 68
Maryland 58,763 $27,957,577 225 78 82
Massachusetts 63,449 $40,453,622 254 71 76
Michigan 123,252 $72,179,008 514 83 85
Minnesota 50,220 $22,329,232 156 75 77
Mississippi 76,320 $25,907,947 260 72 69
Missouri 73,447 $29,070,791 274 61 60
Montana 9,945 $4,918,848 43 78 81
Nebraska 17,334 $9,222,641 78 65 64
Nevada 24,140 $11,625,528 98 94 98
New Hampshire 10,269 $5,274,467 45 91 101
New Jersey 79,019 $50,830,026 288 113 113
New Mexico 26,783 $12,059,628 86 78 78
New York 187,645 $143,994,254 821 78 81
North Carolina 125,476 $48,387,556 437 93 94
North Dakota 5,563 $2,502,789 25 67 72
Ohio 176,252 $75,610,439 570 90 92
Oklahoma 54,185 $23,187,209 207 85 85
Oregon 39,328 $23,077,980 163 83 87
Pennsylvania 142,130 $88,139,201 569 94 94
Puerto Rico 27,735 $14,612,254 149 130 ***
Rhode Island 12,387 $7,014,615 40 122 131
South Carolina 68,481 $31,425,550 273 85 86
South Dakota 7,477 $3,126,011 28 88 97
Tennessee 104,972 $47,283,932 419 92 94
Texas 284,578 $122,628,215 974 61 60
Utah 16,429 $9,611,617 68 87 90
Vermont 5,982 $3,554,829 31 90 92
Virginia 76,973 $36,908,443 320 77 78
Washington 66,300 $33,329,700 235 74 75
West Virginia 40,835 $18,106,038 168 77 77
Wisconsin 59,799 $28,344,924 213 78 84
Wyoming 3,889 $2,650,167 16 84 88
Total 3,614,794 $1,803,283,012 13,604 81 81
*** SSI is limited to individuals in the United States and does not include Puerto Rico.

Table D-4 shows workload statistics at DDSs in FY 2009 through February 13, 2009.

Table D-4: FY 2009 DDS Workload Statistics (through February 13, 2009)
DDS Total Dispositions DDS Costs Employees
Alabama 31,065 $19,626,485 354
Alaska 1,679 $1,784,998 20
Arizona 24,923 $12,589,918 220
Arkansas 22,592 $10,286,994 235
California 130,358 $87,881,890 1348
Colorado 11,690 $7,896,158 131
Connecticut 11,596 $8,188,136 106
Delaware 3,444 $2,299,154 41
District of Columbia 3,845 $3,476,593 36
Florida 98,137 $44,123,056 853
Georgia 46,812 $23,970,738 449
Hawaii 3,607 $2,718,495 42
Idaho 7,704 $3,372,350 59
Illinois 47,506 $30,837,706 469
Indiana 31,895 $17,649,124 267
Iowa 11,706 $9,216,282 125
Kansas 12,172 $7,308,947 116
Kentucky 34,848 $17,064,833 402
Louisiana 25,321 $15,114,625 291
Maine 6,758 $3,580,848 62
Maryland 22,251 $12,513,645 230
Massachusetts 26,979 $18,746,235 259
Michigan 38,792 $33,984,293 515
Minnesota 18,198 $10,013,788 153
Mississippi 29,746 $11,642,615 268
Missouri 28,567 $14,219,616 282
Montana 3,712 $2,276,989 46
Nebraska 6,135 $4,289,616 79
Nevada 8,629 $5,442,370 99
New Hampshire 4,003 $2,358,438 45
New Jersey 28,019 $23,355,258 277
New Mexico 9,325 $5,462,761 80
New York 72,252 $63,809,384 823
North Carolina 48,578 $23,312,987 443
North Dakota 1,945 $1,100,298 25
Ohio 63,693 $34,588,149 585
Oklahoma 19,015 $11,031,966 212
Oregon 16,062 $10,123,780 171
Pennsylvania 51,683 $38,149,614 571
Puerto Rico 10,428 $6,701,286 146
Rhode Island 5,221 $3,429,013 39
South Carolina 24,750 $13,693,431 284
South Dakota 2,625 $1,350,044 29
Tennessee 42,384 $22,319,958 435
Texas 103,115 $56,191,061 974
Utah 6,157 $4,360,241 70
Vermont 2,697 $1,654,538 32
Virginia 28,188 $16,341,273 324
Washington 25,444 $15,392,666 242
West Virginia 15,318 $8,487,841 172
Wisconsin 19,993 $13,436,468 216
Wyoming 1,387 $1,139,184 16
Total 1,352,949 $819,906,136 13,792

Table D-5 shows the attrition rates at DDSs in FY 2008 and FY 2009 (through February 13, 2009).

Table D-5: DDS Attrition Rates FYs 2008-2009
DDS FY 2008 FY 2009
Examiner All Staff Examiner All Staff
Alabama 7.6 6.5 12.4 7.9
Alaska 46.5 27.5 20.1 25.2
Arizona 21.4 14.1 15.2 7.2
Arkansas 11.9 4.9 6.9 7.0
California 8.4 9.4 7.2 8.7
Colorado 14.1 9.7 4.6 2.1
Connecticut 4.9 3.9 8.5 4.9
Delaware 24.7 21.5 23.2 32.7
District of Columbia 4.2 12.1 20.5 15.7
Florida 19.7 15.3 8.7 7.9
Georgia 19.9 13.7 14.6 5.2
Hawaii 9.1 4.5 14.7 7.3
Idaho 11.8 9.9 0 0
Illinois 13.7 12.4 10.4 10.8
Indiana 15.3 9.2 15.4 8.6
Iowa 0.8 3.5 0.0 0.0
Kansas 12.0 8.0 9.4 10.6
Kentucky 14.9 14.3 6.9 10.9
Louisiana 34.0 19.9 35.3 20.5
Maine 40.4 18.9 0 0
Maryland 16.7 15.9 11.7 3.9
Massachusetts 3.6 3.4 1.7 10.4
Michigan 7.0 7.1 7.1 4.5
Minnesota 11.7 9.5 3.3 5.7
Mississippi 13.9 10.9 3.6 2.0
Missouri 11.4 5.8 5.4 5.0
Montana 2.7 9.3 11.5 18.5
Nebraska 15.2 9.8 0 0
Nevada 16.7 10.5 15.8 15.0
New Hampshire 0 1.3 0 0
New Jersey 12.6 11.9 2.7 1.7
New Mexico 3.5 6.0 33.8 10.9
New York 8.5 8.3 5.9 5.8
North Carolina 13.3 14.5 26.1 15.3
North Dakota 0.0 2.3 35.4 36.9
Ohio 9.8 10.2 11.8 9.1
Oklahoma 12.2 8.0 5.8 3.9
Oregon 31.4 17.6 27.8 14.3
Pennsylvania 9.4 6.9 19.3 13.5
Puerto Rico 5.9 4.0 0 3.5
Rhode Island 2.7 19.7 9.7 20.2
South Carolina 12.5 10.1 1.6 4.5
South Dakota 27.9 25.7 14.4 19.2
Tennessee 15.4 10.8 7.0 6.5
Texas 10.3 8.5 9.4 8.6
Utah 1.5 9.5 7.5 8.4
Vermont 10.5 13.8 0 0
Virginia 17.4 11.2 9.6 12.2
Washington 8.8 14.9 4.0 5.4
West Virginia 9.7 11.3 2.5 4.2
Wisconsin 8.9 10.2 10.8 11.7
Wyoming 22.7 23.3 0 0
National 12.5 10.5 9.8 8.3

Appendix E
Furlough/Hiring Freeze Status by Disability Determination Services

Table E-1 shows the results of our survey of each disability determination services (DDS) administrator to determine each DDS’ furlough and hiring freeze status as of March 3, 2009.

Table E-1: Status of Furlough/Hiring Freeze by DDS
DDS Furlough Status Hiring Freeze Status Remarks
Alabama No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Alaska No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Arizona Furlough but DDS exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Arkansas No furlough. No hiring freeze.
California Furlough in place. No hiring freeze. 2 days per month—started in February 2009.
Colorado Considering furloughs, DDS not likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt. Possible furlough of DDS employees up to 2 days per month.
Connecticut Administrator took one voluntary furlough day. The governor extended the request for voluntary furloughs to all state employees through June 1. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Delaware Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
District of Columbia No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Florida No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Georgia Furlough but DDS exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Hawaii Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Idaho Furloughs but DDS exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Illinois No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Indiana No furlough. Hiring freeze for DDS. Several positions “deactivated,” including 30 disability examiners. These positions are temporarily eliminated and would require “reactivation” to be filled again.
Iowa No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Kansas No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt. “Soft” freeze—hiring is restricted but occurs as warranted. DDS hired 75 percent of positions.
Kentucky No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Louisiana Considering furloughs, DDS status not decided. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt. DDS hiring freeze but given a limited number of hires.
Maine No furlough. Hiring freeze for DDS.
Maryland Furloughs in place. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt. Furlough between 2 and 3 days depending on salary.
Massachusetts Furloughs in place. Considering a hiring freeze and DDS not likely exempt. Furloughing 3 days for DDS managers. Most are going to work the days and be compensated after retirement. They can also work without pay. Hiring cap but DDS is in the process of getting the cap lifted for DDS disability examiner positions.
Michigan No furlough. No hiring freeze. Furlough may be possible in 2010.
Minnesota No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Mississippi No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Missouri No furlough. Considering hiring freeze but DDS likely exempt.
Montana No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Nebraska No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Nevada Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
New Hampshire No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS likely exempt.
New Jersey Considering furloughs, DDS status not decided. Hiring freeze for DDS.
New Mexico No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
New York No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
North Carolina No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
North Dakota No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Ohio Considering furloughs, DDS not likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt. DDS says it is under a hiring freeze, but it has received approvals to hire.
Oklahoma Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt Considering hiring freeze but DDS likely exempt
Oregon Furlough in place. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt. Furlough for management staff from 1 to 4 days depending on salary range. Furloughs expected for represented staff but the number of days has not been finalized. Governor is proposing 26 furlough days.
Pennsylvania Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Puerto Rico No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS likely exempt. Layoffs planned but DDS likely exempt.
Rhode Island No furlough. No hiring freeze.
South Carolina Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Considering hiring freeze but DDS likely exempt.
South Dakota No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Tennessee Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Texas No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Utah No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Vermont Considering furloughs, DDS not likely exempt. No hiring freeze.
Virginia No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Washington No furlough. Hiring freeze for DDS.
West Virginia No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Wisconsin No furlough. Hiring freeze for DDS.
Wyoming No furlough. No hiring freeze.

Appendix F
Methodology of Furlough Impact

To calculate the amount of benefits that would be delayed from flowing into the economy on a rolling monthly basis as of February 2009, we used the methodology shown in the tables below. California was furloughing 2 days per month (Table F-1), but as of February 17, 2009, California had a tentative agreement with its union to reduce the furloughs from 2 days to 1 day per month (Table F-2).

Table F-1: Effects of California’s 2-Day Furlough on Claimants and the Economy
DI Only SSI Only Both DI and SSI TOTAL
Initial Recon Initial Recon Initial Recon
Dispositions Per Month 5,728 1,429 8,180 1,602 5,278 1,537 23,754
Allowance Rate September 29, 2008 through February 13, 2009 45.3% 14.7% 39.5% 12.3% 26.2% 9.6%
Number of Cases Not Worked Per Month Because of Furloughs 573 143 818 160 528 154 2,375
Monthly Allowances Delayed Because of Furloughs 259 21 323 20 138 15 776
Amount of Monthly Benefits Delayed Because of Furloughs $254,600 $20,606 $210,106 $12,810 $135,694 $14,482 $648,297
DI – Disability Insurance
SSI - Supplemental Security Income
Recon - Reconsideration

Table F-2: Effects of California’s 1 Day Furlough on Claimants and the Economy
DI Only SSI Only Both DI and SSI TOTAL
Initial Recon Initial Recon Initial Recon
Dispositions Per Month 5,728 1,429 8,180 1,602 5,278 1,537 23,754
Allowance Rate September 29, 2008 through February 13, 2009 45.3% 14.7% 39.5% 12.3% 26.2% 9.6%
Number of Cases Not Worked Per Month Because of Furloughs 286 71 409 80 264 77 1,188
Monthly Allowances Delayed Because of Furloughs 130 11 162 10 69 7 388
Amount of Monthly Benefits Delayed Because of Furloughs $127,300 $10,303 $105,053 $6,405 $67,847 $7,241 $324,148

Appendix G
OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
OIG Contacts

Judith Oliveira, Director, Boston Audit Division

Phillip Hanvy, Acting Audit Manager

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above:

Katie Greenwood, Auditor

For additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at www.socialsecurity.gov/oig or contact the Office of the Inspector General’s Public Affairs Staff Assistant at (410) 965-4518. Refer to Common Identification Number A 01 09 29137.

DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE

Commissioner of Social Security
Office of Management and Budget, Income Maintenance Branch
Chairman and Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security
Majority and Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives
Chairman and Ranking Minority, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security Pensions and Family Policy
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging
Social Security Advisory Board

Overview of the Office of the Inspector General
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of an Office of Audit (OA), Office of Investigations (OI), Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG), Office of External Relations (OER), and Office of Technology and Resource Management (OTRM). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures, internal controls, and professional standards, the OIG also has a comprehensive Professional Responsibility and Quality Assurance program.
Office of Audit
OA conducts financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) programs and operations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently. Financial audits assess whether SSA’s financial statements fairly present SSA’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA’s programs and operations. OA also conducts short-term management reviews and program evaluations on issues of concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.
Office of Investigations
OI conducts investigations related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in SSA programs and operations. This includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing their official duties. This office serves as liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the investigation of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General
OCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including statutes, regulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCIG also advises the IG on investigative procedures and techniques, as well as on legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material. Also, OCIG administers the Civil Monetary Penalty program.
Office of External Relations
OER manages OIG’s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the principal advisor on news releases and in providing information to the various news reporting services. OER develops OIG’s media and public information policies, directs OIG’s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the primary contact for those seeking information about OIG. OER prepares OIG publications, speeches, and presentations to internal and external organizations, and responds to Congressional correspondence.
Office of Technology and Resource Management
OTRM supports OIG by providing information management and systems security. OTRM also coordinates OIG’s budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human resources. In addition, OTRM is the focal point for OIG’s strategic planning function, and the development and monitoring of performance measures. In addition, OTRM receives and assigns for action allegations of criminal and administrative violations of Social Security laws, identifies fugitives receiving benefit payments from SSA, and provides technological assistance to investigations.