This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-24 
entitled 'Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan Needed 
to Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges' which was released on 
February 9, 2009.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

January 2009: 

Social Security Administration: 

Service Delivery Plan Needed to Address Baby Boom Retirement 
Challenges: 

GAO-09-24: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-24, a report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. 
Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Millions of people rely on the services of Social Security 
Administration (SSA) field offices. In fiscal year 2008, SSA’s 
approximately 1,300 field offices provided service to about 44 million 
customers. People visit field offices to apply for Social Security 
cards, apply for retirement and disability benefits, establish direct 
deposit, and a host of other services. Over the last several years, 
staffing reductions have challenged field offices’ ability to manage 
work while continuing to deliver quality customer service. 

To better understand the challenges SSA faces in delivering quality 
customer service, GAO was asked to determine (1) the effect that 
staffing reductions are having on field office operations and (2) the 
challenges SSA faces in meeting service delivery needs in the future 
and the agency’s plan for addressing them. 

In May 2008, GAO reported initial observations on the effects of 
reduced staff levels. To conduct this work, GAO interviewed SSA 
headquarters and field officials and analyzed various data on SSA’s 
workloads and customer service. 

What GAO Found: 

Staffing constraints are having adverse effects on field office 
services. The number of staff in field offices dropped 4.4 percent from 
2005 to 2008, as shown in the table below. As a result of greater 
efficiencies, field office work produced fell only 1.3 percent during 
the same period. To manage the reduced staffing, SSA deferred work 
deemed as a lower priority, such as conducting reviews of 
beneficiaries’ continuing eligibility. However, deferring these reviews 
means that beneficiaries who no longer qualify for benefits may still 
receive payments erroneously. Reduced staffing also impacted key 
customer service indicators. In fiscal year 2007, more than 3 million 
customers waited for over 1 hour to be served. Further, SSA’s Field 
Office Caller Survey found that 51 percent of customers calling 
selected field offices had at least one earlier call that had gone 
unanswered, but for methodological reasons, the unanswered call rate 
was likely even higher. These factors may have contributed to a 3 
percent drop in SSA’s overall customer satisfaction rating from 84 
percent in fiscal year 2005 to 81 percent in fiscal year 2008. 

Table: End of Fiscal Year Field Office Staffing and Work Completed, 
Fiscal Years 2005-2008: 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
End of year number of field office employees: 28,790; Work productivity 
(in work units): 37.1 million; Work productivity units completed per 
employee: 1,289. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
End of year number of field office employees: 27,383; Work productivity 
(in work units): 37.0 million; Work productivity units completed per 
employee: 1,350. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
End of year number of field office employees: 26,743; Work productivity 
(in work units): 36.2 million; Work productivity units completed per 
employee: 1,352. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
End of year number of field office employees: 27,534; Work productivity 
(in work units): 36.6 million; Work productivity units completed per 
employee: 1,327. 

Fiscal year: Percent change, 2005-2008; End of year number of field 
office employees: -4.4%; Work productivity (in work units): -1.3%; Work 
productivity units completed per employee: +2.9%. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA staffing and workload data. 

[End of table] 

Increases in retirement and disability filings and a significant 
retirement wave of SSA’s most experienced staff pose difficult 
challenges for SSA in meeting future service delivery needs. SSA 
estimates that retirement and disability filings will increase the 
agency’s work by about 1 million annual claims by 2017. Further, SSA 
will experience an agency-wide retirement wave in the coming years—the 
agency projects that 44 percent of its staff will retire by 2016. SSA 
published its new strategic plan in September 2008, which calls for SSA 
to eliminate the backlog of disability hearings and increase online 
retirement filings to 50 percent of applications. While discussing the 
plan with us, SSA officials noted that it is not intended to be a 
service delivery plan detailing how the agency will address the service 
needs of the retiring baby boom generation. While the plan includes the 
goal of significantly expanding the use of electronic services, it is 
not clear how this will mitigate the increasing SSA workload. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that SSA develop a service delivery plan that 
outlines how it will deliver quality service while managing growing 
work demands and constrained resources. In response, SSA stated that it 
has intensive planning efforts in place, but agreed to develop a single 
planning document that describes service delivery and staffing plans. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-24]. For more 
information, contact Barbara Bovbjerg at 202-512-7215 or 
bovbjergb@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Reduced Field Office Staffing May Have Adversely Affected Field Office 
Operations: 

Growth in Work Demands and an Employee Retirement Wave May Pose 
Difficult Challenges without a Detailed Plan for Service Delivery: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Data on Beneficiaries, Staffing, Visitor Volume, and Wait 
Times in the 21 Offices GAO Visited: 

Appendix III: Functions of Field Offices and Other Entities in Medical 
Disability Determinations for Disability and SSI Claims: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Social Security Administration: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Federal Benefit Outlays for OASI, Disability, and SSI 
Programs: 

Table 2: Beneficiaries for OASI, Disability, and SSI Programs (average 
in payment status): 

Table 3: Type of Work Conducted by Various SSA Field Entities: 

Table 4: End of Fiscal Year Field Office Staffing and Work Completed, 
Fiscal Years 2005-2008: 

Table 5: SSA's Limitation on Administrative Expenses Account and End of 
Fiscal Year Total Number of SSA Employees, Fiscal Years 2002-2009: 

Table 6: Fiscal Year 2008 Waiting Times: 

Table 7: List of SSA Field Offices Visited and Their Beneficiary 
Populations: 

Table 8: Staffing Levels for the Field Offices GAO Visited, Fiscal 
Years 2005-2007: 

Table 9: Visitor Volume, Staff, and Waiting Time Data for Offices GAO 
Visited, Fiscal Year 2007: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: SSA Service Delivery Options: 

Figure 2: Field Office Work Units Completed by Major Category, Fiscal 
Years 2005-2008: 

Figure 3: Number of SSI Redeterminations and Continuing Disability 
Reviews Completed, Fiscal Years 2002-2008 (Actual) and Fiscal Year 2009 
(Projected): 

Figure 4: SSA Average National Waiting Times, Fiscal Years 2002-2006: 

Figure 5: Growth in OASI, Disability, and SSI Claims, Fiscal Years 2005-
2007 (Actual) and Fiscal Years 2008-2017 (Projected): 

Figure 6: Actual and Projected Number of OASI and Disability 
Beneficiaries, Calendar Years 2007-2050: 

Figure 7: Actual and Projected Retirements of SSA Staff, Fiscal Years 
2007-2016: 

Figure 8: SSA's Disability Determination Process: 

Abbreviations: 

DDS: Disability Determination Services: 

Disability: Disability Insurance: 

E-Verify: Employment eligibility verification: 

OASI: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance: 

MMA: Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act: 

NCSSMA: National Council of Social Security Management Associations: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

SSA: Social Security Administration: 

SSI: Supplemental Security Insurance: 

SSN: Social Security number: 

VIP: Visitor Intake Program: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548: 

January 9, 2009: 

The Honorable Max Baucus: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Finance: 
United States Senate: 

The Social Security Administration's (SSA) approximately 1,300 field 
offices are a vital component for providing service to the public, and 
in fiscal year 2008 served about 44 million customers who visited the 
offices. With almost 44 percent of the agency's approximate 63,000 
employees, field offices serve as SSA's primary points for face-to-face 
contact with the public. People visit their local field offices to 
apply for Social Security cards and for Social Security benefits, to 
request replacement benefit checks, and to obtain a host of other 
services. 

Constrained budgets and staffing and increases in retirement and 
disability filings by the aging baby boomer population are increasingly 
challenging field offices' ability to meet the demand for services. In 
our May 2008 testimony,[Footnote 1] we reported our initial 
observations on the adverse effects that have resulted from a reduced 
staff level in SSA field offices and the future challenges field 
offices face as the nation's 80 million baby boomers retire. As 
requested, this report conveys the final results of our evaluation. To 
better understand the challenges SSA field offices face in delivering 
quality service to customers, we reviewed (1) the effect that staffing 
reductions are having on field office operations and (2) the challenges 
SSA faces in meeting service delivery needs in the future and the 
agency's plans for addressing them. 

To review the effect staffing reductions have had on field office 
operations, we obtained various automated data on field office 
staffing, work productivity, and customer wait times for fiscal years 
2004 through 2008 and interviewed SSA headquarters officials 
responsible for overseeing field office operations. We interviewed 
managers and staff in 21 field offices, two Social Security Card 
Centers, two regional offices, and three area offices to gain their 
perspectives on the effect of staffing reductions and strategies used 
to manage work. We selected the field offices based on the populations 
they served, their geographic location, number of staff, and customer 
wait times. (See appendix I for a more complete discussion of our scope 
and methodology, and appendix II for a list of the field offices we 
visited and information about them.) As we describe in appendix I, we 
tested the reliability of SSA's work productivity and staffing data, 
the national average field office customer wait time for fiscal years 
2002 to 2006, and national and field office wait time data for fiscal 
years 2007 and 2008 from SSA's Visitor Intake Process, and found that 
they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. To 
review the challenges that SSA faces in meeting service delivery needs 
in the future, we interviewed SSA headquarters officials responsible 
for operations, budget, and strategic human capital planning, and 
obtained relevant documentation. This documentation included data on 
the projected growth in the number of claims, beneficiaries, and staff 
retirements, and SSA's fiscal year 2008 to 2013 strategic plan. 

We conducted our work between July 2007 and January 2009 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence 
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 
based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

Staffing constraints are having adverse effects on service. The number 
of staff in field offices dropped 4.4 percent between 2005 and 2008. As 
a result of greater efficiencies, field office work produced fell only 
1.3 percent during the same period. To manage the reduced staffing, SSA 
deferred work that the agency deemed as a lower priority, such as 
conducting reviews of beneficiaries' continuing eligibility. However, 
deferring these reviews means that beneficiaries who no longer qualify 
for benefits may still receive payments erroneously. Busy field offices 
also shared work with less busy offices and redirected staff from their 
usual responsibilities to meet critical needs. Reduced staffing also 
may have contributed to the buildup of work in field offices, longer 
customer wait times, and poor phone service. In fiscal year 2008, more 
than 3 million customers waited for over 1 hour to be served. Further, 
SSA's 2007 Field Office Caller Survey found that 51 percent of 
customers calling selected field offices had at least one earlier call 
that had gone unanswered. Because SSA based its results only on 
customers who were ultimately able to get through to the field offices, 
the actual percentage of customers that had unanswered calls was likely 
even higher. These factors may have contributed to a 3 percent drop in 
SSA's overall customer satisfaction rating, from 84 percent in fiscal 
year 2005 to 81 percent in fiscal year 2008. SSA currently has no 
quantitative standards for customer waiting times and field office 
telephone service, limiting the agency's ability to measure the quality 
of these services. 

Increases in retirement and disability filings and a significant 
retirement wave of SSA's most experienced staff pose difficult 
challenges for SSA but SSA does not currently have a detailed plan to 
address future service delivery needs. SSA estimates that retirement 
and disability filings will increase the agency's work by about 1 
million annual claims by 2017. Further, SSA will experience a 
retirement wave agency-wide in the coming years--the agency projects 
that 44 percent of its staff will retire by 2016. SSA also published 
its new strategic plan in September 2008, which calls for SSA to 
eliminate the backlog of disability hearings and increase online 
filings of retirement applications to a rate of 50 percent. While 
discussing the strategic plan with us, SSA officials noted that it is 
not intended to be a service delivery plan detailing how the agency 
will address the service needs of the retiring baby boom generation. 
While the plan includes the goal of significantly expanding the use of 
electronic services, it is not clear how this will mitigate SSA's 
increasing workload. As early as 1993 and most recently in 2000, we 
recommended that SSA develop a service delivery plan to address its 
resource constraints and other challenges. However, SSA officials told 
us they use their strategic plan to provide a broad vision and goals, 
and use the annual budget process to request resources for incremental 
changes. 

We are recommending that SSA develop a service delivery plan that 
describes how it will deliver quality service in the future while 
managing growing work demands and constrained resources. Further, this 
plan should establish standards for field office waiting times and 
phone service to help identify and improve offices with poor service. 

In responding to a draft of our report, SSA disagreed with our 
statement that it does not have a detailed plan to address future 
service delivery needs. Rather, it commented that it continually plans 
for the future and has been long aware that the Baby Boom generation 
would have a dramatic impact on internal staffing losses, as well as 
escalating disability and retirement claims workloads. However, in 
response to continuing concerns about a lack of a consolidated plan to 
address the disability and retirement wave of the Baby Boom generation, 
SSA now is developing a single document that describes the many 
planning efforts that it has in place. We welcome SSA's decision to 
develop a consolidated planning document. While SSA has a variety of 
planning efforts to improve its operations, it is still not clear how 
SSA plans to minimize the deferral of its workloads and its decline in 
customer service, and we continue to recommend that SSA make clear to 
what extent additional resources or an altered field office structure 
might be needed to accommodate the growing workload. 

SSA did not agree with our recommendation to establish standards for 
field office customer wait times and phone service, stating that such 
standards would create problems by diverting an already thin staff away 
from processing claims and postentitlement work. While we understand 
that SSA field offices face many pressures, we believe that clear 
standards establishing a minimum level of quality customer service are 
an essential first step for organizations to measure success. 

Background: 

SSA offers a range of services, which includes providing financial 
assistance to eligible individuals through the following three major 
benefit programs: 

* Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI)--provides benefits to retired 
workers and their families and to survivors of deceased workers. 

* Disability Insurance (Disability)--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 fiscal year 2008, these three benefit programs provided a combined 
total of approximately $650 billion to nearly 55 million beneficiaries. 
SSA projects that the benefit payments and number of beneficiaries for 
the three programs will increase in fiscal year 2009 (see tables 1 and 
2). 

Table 1: Federal Benefit Outlays for OASI, Disability, and SSI Programs 
(Dollars in billions): 

Program: OASI; 
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $479.7; 
Fiscal year: 2008 (actual): $503.0; 
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $530.6. 

Program: Disability; 
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $97.0; 
Fiscal year: 2008 (actual): $104.3; 
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $109.5. 

Program: SSI; 
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $36.0; 
Fiscal year: 2008 (actual): $43.9; 
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $43.2. 

Program: Total outlays; 
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $612.7; 
Fiscal year: 2008 (actual): $651.2; 
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $683.4. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

Table 2: Beneficiaries for OASI, Disability, and SSI Programs (average 
in payment status) (Dollars in millions): 

Program: OASI; 
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $40.7; 
Fiscal year: 2008 (estimate): $41.2; 
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $42.0. 

Program: Disability; 
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $8.7; 
Fiscal year: 2008 (estimate): $9.0; 
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $9.3. 

Program: SSI; 
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $7.0; 
Fiscal year: 2008 (estimate): $7.2; 
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $7.3. 

Program: Concurrent recipients[A]; 
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): ($2.6); 
Fiscal year: 2008 (estimate): ($2.6); 
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): ($2.7). 

Program: Total beneficiaries; 
Fiscal year: 2007 (actual): $53.8; 
Fiscal year: 2008 (estimate): $54.7; 
Fiscal year: 2009 (estimate): $56.0. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

[A] Recipients receiving benefits from the OASI and SSI or Disability 
and SSI programs. 

[End of table] 

Besides paying benefits through these three programs, SSA issues Social 
Security cards, maintains earnings records, and performs various other 
functions through a network of field office and headquarters operations 
using an administrative budget of over $10 billion. SSA's field 
operations consist of: 

* field offices, which serve as the agency's primary points for face- 
to-face contact; 

* Social Security Card Centers, which issue Social Security numbers; 

* Teleservice Centers, which offer national, toll-free telephone 
service; and: 

* Program Service Centers, which make entitlement decisions for 
benefits, as well as assist in answering 800-number calls. 

Table 3 shows the type of work that is performed by various SSA field 
components. 

Table 3: Type of Work Conducted by Various SSA Field Entities: 

Type of work: Claims and eligibility determinations for OASI, 
Disability, and SSI benefits; 
Function: Takes applications for benefits, evaluates evidence, and 
makes determinations of eligibility[A] and benefit amounts; 
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices; Teleservice Centers; 
Program Service Centers. 

Type of work: Program integrity; 
Function: Conducts continuing nonmedical eligibility reviews to ensure 
payment accuracy; 
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices (nonmedical 
eligibility reviews). 

Type of work: Social Security numbers (SSN); 
Function: Takes applications for Social Security cards and updates 
records of people who have been issued SSNs to keep them current and 
accurate; Takes applications for and issues Social Security cards with 
SSNs after determining the validity of required identification; 
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices; Social Security Card 
Centers. 

Type of work: Earnings records; 
Function: Posts updates to workers' records. Links the earnings records 
to SSNs and, when no match can be found, tracks the reported earnings 
and attempts to resolve the discrepancy; 
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices; Program Service 
Centers. 

Type of work: Employment eligibility verification (E-Verify); 
Function: Assists employers in verifying the name/SSN/citizenship/work 
authorization of new hires, and assists workers in resolving 
discrepancies between SSA and Department of Homeland Security data; 
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices. 

Type of work: Medicare program assistance; 
Function: Takes applications and determines eligibility for the 
Medicare program and processes applications for replacement Medicare 
cards. Also, makes eligibility determinations and redeterminations for 
the prescription assistance subsidy offered under the Medicare 
Prescription Drug Program, among other Medicare work; 
SSA offices involved in this work: Field offices. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA information. 

[A] For the purposes of this analysis, we include the various SSA 
entities outside headquarters that serve beneficiaries and covered 
workers, excluding SSA's payment centers. Throughout the rest of this 
report, we focus exclusively on field offices. SSA relies on state 
Disability Determination Service units and various SSA entities to make 
medical disability determinations for claims filed under the Disability 
and SSI programs. See appendix III for a more detailed description of 
the various entities involved in medical disability determinations. 

[End of table] 

Field offices are located in communities across the United States, the 
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam, delivering services through face-
to-face contact, over the phone, and through the mail. Field offices 
range in size from large urban offices with 50 or more employees to 
very small offices in remote areas called resident stations. In 
September 2008, there were 1,267 field offices and 30 resident 
stations. Resident stations have more limited services, and are staffed 
by one or two individuals. Field offices also offer services to the 
public through 734 contact stations, as of September 2008. These 
stations provide very limited functions and are staffed with one SSA 
field office employee who travels to certain locations, such as a 
hospital, once a month. Additionally, SSA has begun using video 
conferencing to take claims and provide other services to customers in 
remote locations in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, 
Utah, Alaska, and Wyoming. SSA is planning to expand the video network 
to provide additional sites and services. 

In addition to field offices, SSA offers customers a variety of other 
options for conducting their business. Individuals may call SSA's toll- 
free helpline to file for benefits or to obtain general information. 
They also may use the Internet to file for benefits, or visit a Social 
Security Card Center to request a Social Security card. Figure 1 shows 
the various options by which customers may conduct their business with 
SSA. 

Figure 1: SSA Service Delivery Options: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

Field offices: 
* Visit an SSA field office to conduct face-to-face business with a 
staff person Range of services include: 
- applying for Social Security benefits; 
- requesting change of address; 
- requesting change in direct deposit; 
- requesting Social Security card; 
* Call or mail in documents; 
* Self-help services available for requesting change of address and 
benefit verification letters. 

Teleservice Centers: Toll-free telephone services: 
* Apply for retirement benefits; 
* Obtain answers to general questions; 
* Perform other actions. 

Internet: 
* Apply for retirement, disability, or spousal benefits; 
* Change address; 
* Change direct deposit; 
* Obtain Medicare replacement cards; 
* Perform other actions. 

Social Security Card Centers: 
* Visit a card center to request Social Security cards. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

[End of figure] 

While SSA field offices take applications and determine if claimants 
meet basic, nonmedical eligibility requirements for benefits, state 
Disability Determination Services (DDS) that are under contract with 
SSA make medical eligibility determinations for Disability and SSI 
claims. SSA's Hearing Offices and Appeals Council make decisions on 
appeals of these determinations. Appendix III describes the functions 
of each of these entities in the medical disability determination 
process for Disability and SSI claims. DDSs also conduct continuing 
disability reviews for Disability and SSI beneficiaries to ensure that 
individuals are still medically eligible for payments. 

Reduced Field Office Staffing May Have Adversely Affected Field Office 
Operations: 

Overall, the number of field office staff and the amount of work 
completed declined from fiscal year 2005 through 2008. Specifically, 
both staffing levels and work completed decreased from 2005 through 
2007 and increased slightly in 2008. However, field office employees 
completed more work, on average, as a result of greater efficiency. If 
not for the increased productivity of SSA, the decline in work 
completed could have been greater. Nonetheless, staffing declines 
resulted in customers waiting longer to be served and difficulties for 
field offices in answering calls from customers. SSA and its field 
offices used various strategies to manage work demands, such as 
deferring certain work, sharing work among offices, and redirecting 
staff to serve critical needs outside of their usual responsibilities. 
Despite these efforts, field office managers and staff stated that they 
cannot keep up with their work. Further, these factors may have 
contributed to a 3 percent drop in SSA's customer satisfaction rating 
between fiscal years 2005 and 2008. While SSA has measures to monitor 
field office waiting times and, to a certain extent, customer service, 
SSA has no quantitative field office standards for how long customers 
should wait and if the phone should be answered. According to SSA, 
field offices have greatly varying circumstances with visitors and 
phone service and standards in these areas have not been established. 
Instead, SSA has a variety of field office measures for processing 
work. 

Increased Staff Productivity Helped Soften the Impact of Staffing 
Decline: 

Despite a 4.4 percent staffing decline from fiscal years 2005 through 
2008, the amount of work[Footnote 2] that field offices produced 
decreased by only 1.3 percent. As a result, the average amount of work 
produced by field office employees increased by 2.9 percent between 
fiscal years 2005 and 2008 (see table 4). One reason for this greater 
efficiency is that SSA is shifting work from busy field offices to less 
busy offices; SSA cites other reasons, including automation efforts and 
simplification of programs and policies. The field office staffing 
reduction comprised 65 percent of SSA's overall reduction. 

Table 4: End of Fiscal Year Field Office Staffing and Work Completed, 
Fiscal Years 2005-2008: 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees[A]: 65,122; 
Number of field office employees: 28,790; 
Field office work (in work units): 37.1 million; 
Work units completed per employee: 1,289. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees[A]: 63,054; 
Number of field office employees: 27,383; 
Field office work (in work units): 37.0 million; 
Work units completed per employee: 1,350. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees[A]: 61,594; 
Number of field office employees: 26,743; 
Field office work (in work units): 36.2 million; 
Work units completed per employee: 1,352. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees[A]: 63,202; 
Number of field office employees: 27,534; 
Field office work (in work units): 36.6 million; 
Work units completed per employee: 1,327. 

Fiscal year: Percent change, 2005-2008; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees[A]: -2.9%; 
Number of field office employees: -4.4%; 
Field office work (in work units): -1.3%; 
Work units completed per employee: +2.9%. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

[A] SSA provided data on employees that represented the sum of full- 
time and part-time employees, rather than full-time equivalents; as a 
result, all staffing data that we use derive from a count of the number 
of employees. 

[End of table] 

SSA officials attributed the staffing reductions to inadequate 
appropriations. Table 5 shows the Commissioner's and the President's 
budget requests and SSA's final appropriations (as available) for 
fiscal years 2002 through 2009. The table also shows the changes in 
recent staffing levels. The table does note that SSA received a $500 
million budget increase in 2005 to manage the implementation of the 
Medicare prescription drug program and hire associated staff. In 
addition, other work that SSA conducts on behalf of other federal 
agencies has grown. For example, new state laws requiring federal 
government verification of work authorization are resulting in 
additional work and field office visits associated with the Department 
of Homeland Security's E-Verify program. 

Table 5: SSA's Limitation on Administrative Expenses Account and End of 
Fiscal Year Total Number of SSA Employees, Fiscal Years 2002-2009 
(Dollars in millions): 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Commissioner's request: $7,982; 
President's budget request: $7,574; 
Final appropriation: $7,570; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 63,611. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Commissioner's request: $7,974; 
President's budget request: $7,937; 
Final appropriation: $7,885; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 65,191. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Commissioner's request: $8,895; 
President's budget request: $8,530; 
Final appropriation: $8,313; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 64,184. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Commissioner's request: $9,310; 
President's budget request: $8,878; 
Final appropriation: $8,733[A]; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 65,122. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Commissioner's request: $10,106; 
President's budget request: $9,403; 
Final appropriation: $9,109; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 63,054. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Commissioner's request: $10,250; 
President's budget request: $9,496; 
Final appropriation: $9,298; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 61,594. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Commissioner's request: $10,440; 
President's budget request: $9,597; 
Final appropriation: $9,745[B]; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: 63,202. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Commissioner's request: $10,427; 
President's budget request: $10,327; 
Final appropriation: N/A[C]; 
End of fiscal year total number of SSA employees: N/A. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

Note: SSA's Limitation on Administrative Expenses appropriation 
provides SSA with funding to administer the OASI, Disability, and SSI 
programs, and to assist the agency in performing activities in support 
of the Medicare program. The appropriation provides a limitation on the 
amounts that may be expended, in total, from the OASI, Disability, SSI, 
and Medicare programs, to meet the administrative expenses of the 
agency. 

[A] SSA's final appropriation for fiscal year 2005 includes a $500 
million appropriation for administrative start-up costs to implement 
the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act 
(MMA). The MMA created an outpatient prescription drug benefit that 
enables Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in competing private drug 
coverage plans, and offers a prescription assistance subsidy for 
certain low-income Medicare beneficiaries. 

[B] The appropriation amount shown is the enacted amount. 

[C] SSA is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution for fiscal 
year 2009, which expires Mar. 6, 2009. 

[End of table] 

Despite the staffing reductions, field offices are serving a growing 
volume of visitors. Comparing fiscal years 2006 and 2008, visitor 
volume increased by about 2.5 million customers, from 41.9 million to 
44.4 million. As figure 2 shows, from fiscal years 2005 through 2008, 
SSA processed more postentitlement[Footnote 3] work (other than for 
continuing eligibility reviews), enumeration work, and Medicare work. 
SSA processed less work for OASI, Disability, and SSI claims 
(nonmedical determinations only); Continuing Disability Reviews; and 
SSI Redeterminations.[Footnote 4] SSA attributes the high volume of 
postentitlement actions to the growth in beneficiary populations. 

Figure 2: Field Office Work Units Completed by Major Category, Fiscal 
Years 2005-2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: (Number of work units in millions) 

Work Category: OASI; 
FY 2005: 5,114,151; 	
FY 2006: 5,075,071; 	
FY 2007: 5,280,621; 	
FY 2008: 4,983,830. 

Work Category: Disability; 
FY 2005: 6,569,911; 	
FY 2006: 6,410,571; 	
FY 2007: 6,038,161; 	
FY 2008: 5,040,121. 

Work Category: SSI; 
FY 2005: 6,028,941; 	
FY 2006: 6,139,681; 	
FY 2007: 5,612,661; 	
FY 2008: 4,859,040. 

Work Category: Postentitlement; 
FY 2005: 9,757,340; 	
FY 2006: 10,41,700; 	
FY 2007: 10,991,900; 	
FY 2008: 11,025,700. 

Work Category: CDRs and Redets;	
FY 2005: 5,245,111; 	
FY 2006: 3,594,350; 	
FY 2007: 3,319,440; 	
FY 2008: 3,404,150. 

Work Category: Enumeration; 
FY 2005: 3,351,980; 	
FY 2006: 3,455,840; 	
FY 2007: 3,629,040; 
FY 2008: 3,72,710. 

Work Category: Medicare; 
FY 2005: 619,466; 	
FY 2006: 1,475,030; 	
FY 2007: 967,836; 	
FY 2008: 968,131. 

Work Category: Other; 
FY 2005: 411,204; 	
FY 2006: 412,281; 	
FY 2007: 321,621; 	
FY 2008: 329,546. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

Note: Other work includes resolving discrepancies in workers' earnings 
statements, updating information for student benefits, and replacing 
lost checks. 

[End of figure] 

SSA Deferred Certain Field Office Work, and Used Other Strategies to 
Manage Staffing Declines: 

SSA is shifting work among field offices, based on their workloads, in 
an effort to increase overall efficiency. If a field office has work 
demands that it cannot immediately cover, that office can request that 
some work be transferred to another office. Offices that have a 
particular expertise in a certain type of work make themselves 
available, as they can process this work more quickly. Field managers 
told us, however, that sometimes they are reluctant to share work 
because the office that receives and processes the work receives 
numerical credit, which helps an office justify a greater staff level 
for the future. 

Managers also are using claims processing personnel to perform the 
duties typically conducted by lower-graded employees, and in some 
cases, even office managers take on duties of their employees. Such 
duties include answering the telephone, providing initial services to 
arriving customers, processing requests for new or replacement Social 
Security cards, and conducting some administrative duties. While all 
field office personnel recognize the need to serve visitors, many also 
told us that such work is taking away from time spent processing claims 
and managing the office. 

While SSA is encouraging customers to use automated services to help 
field offices accomplish their work, many field staff said that real 
gains in automated services will likely be achieved by future 
generations of customers. SSA's vision for its "eService" program is 
that the public, businesses, and government agencies will be able to 
conduct all business through secure, electronic channels--thereby 
increasing the efficiency with which the agency can serve the public. 
SSA reported that in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, respectively, the 
public performed 2.9 million and 3.7 million electronic transactions. 
Among SSA's electronic services are applying for retirement and 
disability benefits, requesting a change of address, arranging direct 
deposit of benefit amounts, and requesting a Medicare replacement card. 
SSA's electronic services are available to the public over the Internet 
and some are also available by telephone, using the voice recognition 
capabilities of SSA's toll-free number. While field office staff and 
managers welcome automated tools that the public can use, some added 
that relatively few customers use them, and that due to erroneous or 
missing information in online forms, field staff can lose time having 
to contact the customers for clarification or more information. 

Finally, with fewer staff available, SSA focused on field office work 
it considered essential to its "core workloads," such as processing new 
claims for Social Security benefits and issuing Social Security cards, 
but deferred other types of work. Field office managers and staff told 
us that with the emphasis on completing core workloads, certain 
postentitlement actions typically are delayed or deferred when an 
office is under stress, including changes of address, changes to direct 
deposit information, and reviews to determine beneficiaries' continuing 
eligibility for disability and SSI benefits. 

Reviews of continuing eligibility, however, are key activities in 
ensuring payment accuracy. Such reviews yield a lifetime savings for 
both Disability and SSI of $10 for every dollar invested, according to 
SSA. In recent years, SSA has reduced the number of reviews conducted, 
citing budget limitations and an increase in core work (see figure 3). 
When reviews of benefits are delayed, some beneficiaries are allowed to 
continue receiving benefits when they no longer qualify. 

Figure 3: Number of SSI Redeterminations and Continuing Disability 
Reviews Completed, Fiscal Years 2002-2008 (Actual) and Fiscal Year 2009 
(Projected): 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Number of SSI redetermination and continuing disability reviews: 

SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 
Continuing disability reviews: 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 2,311,500; 
Continuing disability reviews: 1,586,090. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 2,449,670; 
Continuing disability reviews: 1,371,260. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 2,278,570; 
Continuing disability reviews: 1,604,680. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 1,724,880; 
Continuing disability reviews: 1,515,480. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 1,070,820; 
Continuing disability reviews: 1,337,640. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 1,038,950; 
Continuing disability reviews: 764,852. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 1,200,000; 
Continuing disability reviews: 1,065,000. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Projected SSI Non Disability redeterminations: 1,486,000; 
Projected Continuing disability reviews: 1,149,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

[End of figure] 

Despite SSA's efforts to manage work with reduced staff, many managers 
responding to a survey conducted in February and March 2007 by the 
National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA) 
[Footnote 5] stated that they are finding it increasingly difficult to 
keep up with the work. On average, the managers responding to the 
survey estimated that they would need a staffing increase of 16.7 
percent to provide adequate public service. 

Staffing Reductions May Have Contributed to a Buildup of Certain Work, 
Longer Waiting Times, and More Unanswered Calls: 

Reduced staffing and increases in visitors may have contributed to a 
buildup of work in field offices and longer customer wait times over 
the past few years. According to an SSA official, staffing shortfalls 
resulted in a buildup of 1,000 work years, for work that SSA was not 
able to complete at the end of fiscal year 2007.[Footnote 6] SSA 
projects that the buildup will grow to 5,800 work years by the end of 
fiscal year 2009; however, officials said that they are re-evaluating 
this figure in light of increases in productivity and overtime. 
Staffing reductions also may have led to longer customer waiting times. 
From fiscal year 2002 through 2006, the average waiting time to first 
contact for all customers increased by 40 percent from 15 to 21 minutes 
[Footnote 7] (see figure 4). 

Figure 4: SSA Average National Waiting Times, Fiscal Years 2002-2006: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a line graph depicting the following data: 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Average waiting times: 14.53-15.62 minutes. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Average waiting times: 14.90-16.07 minutes. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Average waiting times: 16.69-18.01 minutes. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Average waiting times: 18.97-20.38 minutes. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Average waiting times: 19.59-21.26 minutes. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA’s Field Office Waiting Time Study data; SSA 
replaced the study with its Visitor Intake Process, which it 
implemented nationwide at the start of fiscal year 2007. 

Notes: Fiscal year 2006 data are from October 2005 to June 2006. 

The error bars surrounding the data points represent the 95 percent 
confidence intervals surrounding the mean (average) wait time. We 
calculated the mean wait times and the confidence intervals for each 
year. Our calculated means did not differ materially from SSA's 
reported means. 

This figure presents average (mean) wait time data. However, average 
wait times were strongly influenced by a small number of long wait 
times. For this reason, we also calculated median wait time for each 
year (but we do not show such data in the figure above). The median 
wait times for fiscal years 2002 through 2006 are, respectively, 8, 8, 
9, 11, and 12 minutes. The median wait time data also showed a 
statistically significant increase from fiscal years 2002 through 2006. 

[End of figure] 

SSA has not established standards for how long customers should wait to 
be served and waiting times vary considerably among offices. In fiscal 
year 2008, 8 percent of customers nationwide--more than 3 million 
people--waited more than an hour, which included approximately 405,000 
customers who waited more than 2 hours for service (see table 6). In 
both fiscal years 2007 and 2008, customers with appointments waited 
significantly less time than those without appointments.[Footnote 8] 
For example, for fiscal year 2007, SSA reported that 1,214 offices had 
average waiting times of less than 10 minutes for customers with 
appointments, while only 2 had average waiting times of more than an 
hour. We also found significant variability in waiting times among 
field offices for customers without appointments. For customers without 
appointments, more than 300 offices had average waiting times of less 
than 10 minutes, while 23 offices had average waiting times that 
exceeded 1 hour in fiscal year 2007. Further, customers without 
appointments during fiscal year 2007 waited more than an hour on 
average at 4 of the offices we visited. In contrast, customers at the 
office in Devils Lake, North Dakota, waited on average for less than 1 
minute (see appendix II, table 9). 

Table 6: Fiscal Year 2008 Waiting Times: 

Waiting times (in minutes): 0-60; 
Number of customers: 35,242,456; 
Percentage of total: 91.8%. 

Waiting times (in minutes): 61-120; 
Number of customers: 2,731,042; 
Percentage of total: 7.1. 

Waiting times (in minutes): More than 120; 
Number of customers: 404,753; 
Percentage of total: 1.0. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA's Visitor Intake Process data. 

Note: SSA replaced the previous method of collecting wait time data 
with the nationwide implementation of the Visitor Intake Process at the 
start of fiscal year 2007. 

[End of table] 

Further, some field office managers and staff in the offices we visited 
told us that many customers report they waited for over an hour before 
meeting with SSA representatives. In 17 of the 21 field offices 
visited, managers and staff told us that long waiting times were among 
the top customer complaints. In addition, 82 percent of the managers 
responding to the February and March 2007 NCSSMA survey reported that 
waiting times in their offices were longer than they had been in the 
prior 2 years; in the 2005 survey, 72 percent of the managers reported 
that their staffing was not sufficient to maintain reasonable waiting 
times. 

Insufficient staffing also may have been a factor in poor office phone 
service. SSA's 2006 Field Office Caller Survey found that 51 percent of 
customers that called 48 randomly selected field offices had one or 
more earlier calls that had gone unanswered.[Footnote 9] Because SSA 
based its results only on customers who were ultimately able to get 
through to the field offices, the actual percentage of customers that 
had unanswered calls was likely even higher. In addition, staff at 13 
of the 21 offices we visited characterized their phone service as 
inadequate, while staff in 2 of these offices reported that they did 
not answer their offices' phones at all. Employees we interviewed also 
cited inadequate telephone service as a common customer complaint at 15 
offices. SSA has undertaken efforts to improve service in this area. 
For example, in 2007, SSA officials told us they initiated a pilot 
program called "Forward on Busy" in 25 field offices to address these 
deficiencies. Under the pilot, calls receiving a busy signal at field 
offices are automatically forwarded to a Teleservice Center. SSA has 
since expanded the pilot to approximately 200 field offices. 

SSA has not established standards for customer waiting times or 
telephone service. Without such standards, SSA is less able to target 
its scarce resources to improve customer service. To enable agencies to 
identify areas in need of improvement, GAO internal control standards 
state that agencies should establish standards and monitor performance. 
[Footnote 10] Further, while SSA conducts national surveys of customer 
satisfaction and provides field offices with customer comment cards, at 
10 of the 21 offices we visited, officials told us they did not use 
them, and where the cards were available, the results were not always 
systematically tabulated. 

Staff at some of the offices we visited indicated that they now have 
less time to spend with customers, potentially leading to mistakes and 
also limiting the ability of staff to ensure that customers fully 
understand their options and benefits. These factors may have 
contributed to a 3 percent drop in SSA's overall customer satisfaction 
rating from 84 percent in fiscal year 2005 to 81 percent in fiscal year 
2008. Work demands and staffing reductions have increased the pressure 
placed on the field office staff, resulting in higher stress and lower 
morale, according to field office staff. We asked 153 SSA employees at 
the 21 offices we visited to rate the stress they experienced in 
attempting to complete their work in a timely manner, and 65 percent 
reported feeling stress to a "great" or "very great" extent on a daily 
basis. The stress of expanding workloads and staffing constraints was 
felt most acutely by the office managers, with 74 percent of managers 
describing high levels of stress. At many offices, staff indicated that 
mounting workload pressures have led to cutbacks in the amount of time 
allocated for training and mentoring new staff, and SSA has reduced the 
number of continuing disability reviews (medical) and SSI 
redeterminations that it conducts to ensure that disability 
beneficiaries are paid the correct amounts. Further, managers and staff 
told us that they often do not have time to take their breaks, 
including lunch. Some staff told us that they feel they are letting 
down their colleagues and feel guilty about taking time off, regardless 
of whether they use credit hours or annual leave. While these responses 
may not be indicative of the opinions of the overall field office 
workforce, they do suggest that increasing demands placed on SSA staff 
may be diminishing their job satisfaction, potentially with long-term 
implications for employee retention. SSA officials acknowledged that 
growing workloads have seriously compromised agency morale, and they 
have tried to ease the stress on staff by authorizing the use of 
overtime. The officials also noted that, over time, the automated tools 
should reduce the burden on staff, as customers that use the tools will 
not have to visit a field office. 

Growth in Work Demands and an Employee Retirement Wave May Pose 
Difficult Challenges without a Detailed Plan for Service Delivery: 

Projected increases to SSA's workload from retirement and disability 
filings by the nation's approximately 80 million baby boomers and a 
wave of employee retirements may pose serious management challenges. 
Further, SSA has no detailed plan to ensure quality service is provided 
to the public in an environment characterized by growing work demands 
and limited resources. 

Projected Growth in Work Demands and Employee Retirement Wave Will Pose 
Challenges for SSA: 

SSA estimates a 13 percent rise in OASI, Disability, and SSI claims 
over the next 10 years, rising from a combined total of 9.4 million, in 
fiscal year 2008, to 10.7 million in fiscal year 2017 (see figure 5). 
SSA projected that its claims receipts would increase at a faster pace 
between fiscal years 2007 through 2010 than they did in fiscal years 
2005 and 2006. 

Figure 5: Growth in OASI, Disability, and SSI Claims, Fiscal Years 2005-
2007 (Actual) and Fiscal Years 2008-2017 (Projected): 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Number of claim receipts: 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
OASI: 3,742,700; 
DI: 2,507,700; 
SSI: 2,499,200; 
Total: 8,749,600. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
OASI: 3,755,300; 
DI: 2,501,000; 
SSI: 2,578,500; 
Total: 8,834,800. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
OASI: 3,776,400; 
DI: 2,631,900; 
SSI: 2,638,100; 
Total: 9,046,400; 
Projected: 12,000,000. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
OASI: 4,064,701; 
DI: 2,730,400; 
SSI: 2,627,000; 
Total: 9,422,101; 
Projected: 12,000,000. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
OASI: 4,284,100; 
DI: 2,752,700; 
SSI: 2,621,200; 
Total: 9,658,000; 
Projected: 12,000,000. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
OASI: 4,380,400; 
DI: 2,871,700; 
SSI: 2,631,800; 
Total: 9,883,900; 
Projected: 12,000,000. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
OASI: 4,390,200; 
DI: 2,780,300; 
SSI: 2,649,500; 
Total: 9,820,000; 
Projected: 12,000,000. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
OASI: 4,547,900; 	
DI: 2,802,600; 
SSI: 2,674,800; 
Total: 10,025,300; 
Projected: 12,000,000. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
OASI: 4,698,900; 
DI: 2,817,300; 
SSI: 2,693,700; 
Total: 10,209,900; 
Projected: 12,000,000. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
OASI: 4,768,100; 	
DI: 2,835,300; 
SSI: 2,709,500; 
Total: 10,312,900; 
Projected: 12,000,000. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
OASI: 4,838,000; 
DI: 2,855,500; 
SSI: 2,727,100; 
Total: 10,420,600; 
Projected: 12,000,000. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
OASI: 4,922,900; 	
DI: 2,874,300; 
SSI: 2,744,800; 
Total: 10,542,000; 
Projected: 12,000,000. 

Fiscal year: 2017; 
OASI: 5,005,900; 
DI: 2,890,100; 
SSI: 2,761,500; 
Total: 10,657,500. 
Projected: 12,000,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

Note: Data for fiscal years 2007-2017 are SSA's projected values. 

[End of figure] 

SSA projects a growth of 22 percent in the number of beneficiaries, 
from about 49.6 million in calendar year 2007 to about 60.5 million in 
calendar year 2015[Footnote 11] (see figure 6). By 2050, there will be 
an estimated total of 95.6 million OASI and Disability beneficiaries. 

Figure 6: Actual and Projected Number of OASI and Disability 
Beneficiaries, Calendar Years 2007-2050: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Calendar year: 2007; 
Actual Number of beneficiaries: 49.6 million. 

Calendar year: 2010; 
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 52.8 million. 

Calendar year: 2015; 
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 60.5 million. 

Calendar year: 2020; 
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 68.9 million. 

Calendar year: 2025; 
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 77.1 million. 

Calendar year: 2030; 
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 84.0 million. 

Calendar year: 2035; 
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 88.7 million. 

Calendar year: 2040; 
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 91.4 million. 

Calendar year: 2045; 
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 93.4 million. 

Calendar year: 2050; 
Projected Number of beneficiaries: 95.6 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data reported in “The 2008 Annual Report of 
the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds,” March 2008, Table IV.B2, 
“Intermediate” assumptions, p. 50. 

[End of figure] 

SSA's ability to meet its growing workload challenges will be more 
difficult as a result of the anticipated retirement of many of the 
agency's most experienced field office workers. Today, about 20 percent 
of all SSA employees are eligible for regular retirement, and that 
figure will grow to 39 percent in the next 5 years. Based on the 
agency's projections, 44 percent of SSA's current workforce will retire 
by 2016. The peak of these retirements began in 2007 and is expected to 
continue into 2009, and then start to decline gradually (see figure 7). 
SSA's projections suggest that the ranks of SSA's supervisors will be 
hit hard, with 71 percent eligible to retire in the next 10 years. 
These will be the agency's most experienced staff, which will mean a 
loss of decades of institutional knowledge. During fiscal years 2007 
and 2008, respectively, SSA lost 3,074 and 2,605 staff to retirements. 
Field office managers and staff at many of the locations we visited 
stated that it typically takes 2 to 3 years for new employees to become 
fully proficient. Also, new hires would benefit from mentoring by 
veteran employees before the latter retire. Using the approximately 
$150 million that SSA was appropriated above the President's fiscal 
year 2008 budget request, SSA planned to hire an additional 3,900 staff 
for operations, including 2,350 new hires for regional and field office 
operations. Although SSA hired 2,479 staff for its field offices, after 
transfers, retirements, and resignations, at the end of fiscal year 
2008, SSA had only 791 more staff in its field offices than it did at 
the end of fiscal year 2007. As a result, the end of fiscal year 2008 
SSA had 1,256 field staff fewer than it did at the end of fiscal year 
2005. 

Figure 7: Actual and Projected Retirements of SSA Staff, Fiscal Years 
2007-2016: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Actual Number of Retirements: 3,074. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Actual Number of Retirements: 2,665. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,948. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,919. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,869. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,789. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,695. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,578. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,462. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Projected Number of Retirements: 2,343. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

Note: Number of retirements for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 are actual; 
numbers for other years are projected. 

[End of figure] 

SSA has used a variety of strategies to maintain adequate staffing. SSA 
offers recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses to individuals 
with needed skills and may consider employees' prior nonfederal work 
experience when computing annual leave. SSA also offers workplace 
flexibilities to assist workers in balancing work and family. 
Additionally, SSA uses dual compensation (salary offset) waivers from 
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to respond to emergency 
conditions[Footnote 12] and to hire for certain hard-to-fill positions. 
For example, SSA was granted a waiver to re-employ federal annuitants 
who retired under an early-out authority to provide relief in areas 
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Further, SSA has developed 
recruiting efforts that reach out to a broader pool of candidates. For 
example, SSA began recruiting retired military and disabled veterans in 
2002 because of its commitment to helping veterans. 

SSA's Strategic Plan Is Ambitious, but It Is Not Clear How SSA Plans to 
Achieve Its Goals: 

SSA's new strategic plan, published in September 2008, calls for SSA to 
eliminate the backlog of disability hearings; improve the speed and 
quality of the disability process; and improve retiree services--such 
as achieving an online filing rate of 50 percent of retirement 
applications by 2012. This plan also stresses the workload increases 
that SSA will face in the coming years and recognizes SSA's limited 
resources. However, this plan does not explain what changes to field 
offices and what resources will be needed to eliminate backlogs and 
improve services. While discussing the strategic plan with us, SSA 
officials stated the strategic plan is not intended to be a service 
delivery plan that details how the agency will address the service 
needs of the retiring Baby Boom generation. 

As early as 1993[Footnote 13] and most recently in 2000,[Footnote 14] 
we recommended that SSA develop a service delivery plan to help focus 
its efforts on meeting future challenges. In 2000, we reported that SSA 
needed to better position itself for the future by altering the 
agency's network of facilities to more closely align it with projected 
customer needs and demographics. Since 2000, SSA has not developed a 
detailed plan for providing services to an expanding population of 
customers brought on by the baby boom population reaching retirement 
age. Instead, SSA officials told us that they use their strategic plan 
to provide a broad vision and goals, and the annual budget process to 
request resources for incremental changes. As this report and SSA's 
strategic plan show, SSA faces significant challenges in the future; 
however, SSA remains without a plan that describes how it will continue 
to do more work with fewer resources and achieve its new strategic 
goals. It is not clear how SSA's infrastructure, including the 
approximately 1,300 field offices with 27,000 field employees, can 
accommodate the growing workload and field office visitor volume while 
ensuring quality customer service. Further, while the plan includes 
strategies to significantly expand the use of electronic services, it 
is not clear how the increase of online services will mitigate the 
increasing workload. 

Conclusions: 

While SSA has taken action to manage its workload with fewer staff, the 
broader challenge of providing nationwide field office service remains. 
Although customers expect to be served in a reasonable amount of time 
and have their phone calls answered, field offices are deferring 
certain work, customers are waiting longer to be served, and staff feel 
stressed. Projected increases in claims for benefits from the nation's 
approximately 80 million baby boomers and a large retirement wave among 
SSA's most experienced staff will place even more pressure on field 
offices and could make these problems more severe. 

It is essential that SSA manage its increasing workload through strong 
planning efforts. SSA's strategic plan is a strong first step with its 
acknowledgment of growing work demands and budget constraints. 
Achieving the plan's goal of an online filing rate of 50 percent of 
retirement applications will surely relieve some service-demand growth 
at field offices. However, it is not clear how SSA plans to accommodate 
the growing workload and the goals of the strategic plan, while 
ensuring quality customer service at field offices. SSA has been 
deferring work and letting customer service decline. SSA's new 
strategic plan indeed seeks to address these problems, but it is not 
clear if SSA's plan for greater reliance on online retirement filings 
will, by itself, be sufficient. Whether SSA will need more resources or 
an altered field office infrastructure, or both, is unclear. A detailed 
service delivery plan should make this clear, and if additional 
resources are needed to achieve agencywide goals, SSA should identify 
the resources required to meet long-term service delivery needs. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To pursue high-quality field office service, we recommend that SSA 
develop a service delivery plan that describes, in detail, how it will 
deliver quality customer service in the future while managing growing 
work demands with constrained resources. This plan should identify the 
extent that new business processes will allow SSA to accommodate 
growing demand or whether additional resources are needed to achieve 
its strategic goals. Further, this plan should establish standards for 
field office customer waiting times and phone service to help identify 
and improve offices with poor service. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from the 
Commissioner of Social Security, which are reproduced in appendix IV. 
In addition, SSA provided technical comments, which we incorporated in 
the report where appropriate. 

In response to our draft report, SSA disagreed with our statement that 
they do not have a detailed plan to address future service delivery 
needs. Rather, it commented that it continually plans for the future 
and has been long aware that the Baby Boom generation would have a 
dramatic impact on internal staffing losses, as well as escalating 
disability and retirement claims workloads. SSA described its current 
efforts as being the Annual Strategic Plan and the agency's annual 
budget documents. However, in response to continuing concerns about a 
lack of a consolidated plan to address the disability and retirement 
wave of the Baby Boom generation, SSA commented that it is now 
developing a single document that describes the many planning efforts 
that it has in place. SSA commented that its consolidated document 
will, at minimum, include comprehensive plans for expanding electronic 
services for customers; increasing the centralization of receiving 
phone calls and working claims from customers while maintaining the 
network of local field offices; enhancing phone and video services in 
field offices (where applicable) and piloting self-service personal 
computers in the reception areas of those offices; and continuing to 
assess the efficiency of field offices. 

We welcome SSA's decision to develop a consolidated planning document. 
While SSA has a variety of planning efforts to improve its operations, 
it is still not clear how SSA plans to minimize the deferral of its 
workloads and its decline in customer service. The annual strategic 
plan is a strong vision for the future, and annual budget documents 
detail short-term resource requirements, but the budget documents do 
not identify resource requirements for more than the next year and the 
strategic plan does not identify resource requirements at all. It is 
not clear if SSA goals outlined in the strategic plan can be achieved 
using the current infrastructure, and we continue to recommend that SSA 
make clear to what extent additional resources or an altered field 
office infrastructure might be needed to accommodate the growth in 
disability and retirement filings. 

SSA did not agree with our recommendation to establish quantitative 
standards for field office customer wait times and phone service, 
stating that such standards would create problems by diverting staff 
already spread thin across field offices away from processing claims 
and postentitlement work. SSA stated that it tracks waiting times and 
makes adjustments as necessary to improve service, and that many of the 
recently hired field office staff went to offices with the highest 
waiting times. Still, over 3 million people waited over 1 hour for 
service last year and in 2 offices the average wait was over 1 hour. 
The majority of phone calls to field offices went unanswered, and the 
practice in some field offices of not answering the phone and not 
returning voices messages is unprofessional. While we understand that 
SSA field offices face many pressures, we believe that clear standards 
that establish a minimum level of quality customer service are an 
essential first step for organizations to measure success. Absent 
customer service standards, long field office waiting times and 
inadequate field office phone service are problems that risk becoming 
entrenched. 

In total, planning efforts should strive to establish that SSA's 
infrastructure is in the proper condition to manage its workload and 
provide quality customer service. However, it is still not clear what 
infrastructure changes and resources are needed for SSA to succeed. 

As agreed with your offices, 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 to the 
Commissioner of Social Security, appropriate congressional committees, 
and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available 
at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at 
(202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@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 who made key contributions to this 
report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Barbara D. Bovbjerg: 
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of our study were to determine (1) the effect that 
staffing reductions have had on field office operations and (2) the 
challenges the Social Security Administration (SSA) faces in meeting 
service delivery needs in the future and the agency's plans for 
addressing them. To assess our first objective, we: 

* Interviewed SSA headquarters officials responsible for overseeing 
field office operations. 

* Compared the overall number of field office staffing per year from 
fiscal years 2005 through 2008 to the amount of work produced overall 
by the field offices for the same fiscal years to understand changes in 
field office work productivity. 

* Condensed the 57 different types of work actions listed in the SSA's 
District Office Work Report into eight larger categories, and compared 
the work volumes completed between fiscal years 2005 and 2008. 

* Determined the level of field office staffing using end of year 
staffing data from SSA's Justification for Appropriations Committees 
annual documents as well as administrative data that SSA officials 
provided to us for fiscal years 2002 through 2008. 

* Compared the national average wait time data from SSA's Field Office 
Waiting Time Study from fiscal year 2002 through 2006, and reported 
data from SSA's Visitor Intake Program (VIP) data for fiscal years 2007 
and 2008. 

* Interviewed managers and staff in 21 field offices, 2 Social Security 
Card Centers, 2 regional offices, and 3 area offices to gain their 
perspectives on the effect of staffing reductions and strategies used 
to manage work. We selected the field offices based on the populations 
they served, their geographic location, number of staff, and customer 
wait times (see appendix II for a listing of the field offices we 
visited). 

We tested the reliability of SSA's work productivity and staffing data, 
and found that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 
review. Specifically, we obtained three relevant databases for fiscal 
years 2005 through 2008: (1) District Office Workload Report, (2) Work 
Unit Per Work Year, and (3) staffing data. Each database contained 
critical data for analysis of the workload handled by each SSA field 
office. SSA identified these files as containing the supporting data 
for reports that SSA had developed for internal uses. We tested the key 
variables in each file for completeness and accuracy of the values 
coded in the records. To determine the reliability of field office 
staffing data provided by SSA, we compared the SSA data against 
staffing data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) 
Central Personnel Data File. We compared the number of staff per field 
office from OPM's file with the number of staff per field office 
provided by SSA. While there were isolated differences for certain 
field offices, we found SSA's field office staffing data sufficiently 
reliable for the purpose of reporting field office staffing data by 
region and nationally. 

We also tested the validity of two sources of customer wait time data: 
(1) the annual national average wait time for fiscal years 2002 to 
2006, and (2) the national-and field-office-level wait time data from 
the VIP system that SSA first implemented nationwide for fiscal year 
2007. The fiscal year 2002 to 2006 data came from SSA's Field Office 
Waiting Time Study that was conducted annually through the end of 
fiscal year 2006. The data represented the national average of wait 
times that field offices collected. The sample of customer wait time at 
field offices was not large enough to allow SSA to calculate 
statistically representative wait times for any level of the SSA 
organization smaller than the national average. SSA conducted the study 
by having field employees sample customer wait times for each field 
office during a randomly selected 1-hour period each quarter of a 
fiscal year. SSA staff charged with implementing the sample at the 
field office level reported directly to field office management instead 
of an independent entity within SSA. In a method such as this, it is 
important for individual field offices to comply with the sampling 
regime. For the fiscal year 2002 through 2006 period, data for 14.9 
percent of the sample hours were missing. We also found unexpected data 
entries; for instance, we found wait times entered for weekend dates 
and negative wait times. 

We noted that from fiscal year 2002 through 2006, the average wait time 
reported by SSA increased from 15.2 to 21.0 minutes. We asked SSA 
officials whether confidence intervals surrounding the wait time 
estimates for each fiscal year had been calculated. They informed us 
that they did not believe these calculations had been made. To assess 
if the increase in wait times from fiscal year 2002 through 2006 was 
statistically significant, we determined that we had to estimate the 
sampling error and create confidence intervals surrounding the average 
wait times. The result was that for any year in the 2002 through 2006 
period, the margin of error was no larger than 0.84. This allowed us to 
conclude that while differences between one individual year and the 
next were only sometimes statistically significant, the difference 
between wait times for fiscal years 2002 and 2006, respectively, was 
statistically significant. The difference of 5.35 minutes (based on GAO 
calculations) yielded a p-value of less than .0001. Statistical 
analysis of this kind assumes independence between observations. 
However, we noted that this was not necessarily the case. If, for 
example, the first visit of the day took longer than scheduled, some 
visitors arriving for later appointments with SSA staff on the same day 
would presumably have to wait past their scheduled appointment time. 

The VIP system has several uses, one of which is to produce average 
wait time data for each field office, as well as averages for each 
successive level of SSA's field structure (e.g., area, region, and 
national). The VIP system replaced the Waiting Time Study at the start 
of fiscal year 2007. SSA now electronically collects data on wait time 
that represent the full cohort of SSA field office visitors (with few 
exceptions). However, there are no built-in edits to capture input 
errors; rather, errors would have to be identified by users of the 
data. We performed electronic testing of key data elements using all 
data for 21 field offices to which we had made a site visit. After 
determining that SSA's initial reports for GAO contained incorrect 
calculations, we worked with SSA staff to replicate the wait time for 
selected groups of visitors; once completed, we determined that our 
replicated database was comparable to the data that SSA had developed 
on the basis of our joint work, and therefore we concluded that we 
could use the VIP data as support for our conclusions and 
recommendations. 

To address our second objective, we: 

* Interviewed SSA headquarters officials responsible for operations, 
budget, and strategic and human capital planning, and obtained relevant 
documentation. 

* Obtained data from SSA headquarters officials on the actual and 
projected growth in the number of claims for fiscal years 2005 through 
2017. 

* Obtained the actual and projected number of Old-Age and Survivors 
Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (Disability) beneficiaries 
between calendar years 2007 and 2050 from the 2008 Annual Report of the 
Board of Trustees to identify the projected increase in the demand for 
SSA services. 

* Obtained the actual and projected number of retirements of SSA staff 
agency-wide from SSA's "retirement wave" analyses for fiscal years 2007 
through 2016 to assess future staffing needs. 

* Reviewed SSA's past strategic plans and budget documents and 
discussed the new strategic plan with SSA officials to determine SSA's 
plan for addressing future service delivery needs, and assessed the 
adequacy of SSA's internal controls in the context of customer service 
policies. 

In assessing the adequacy of SSA's internal controls, we used the 
criteria in GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1, dated November 1999. These standards, 
issued pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial 
Integrity Act of 1982, provide the overall framework for establishing 
and maintaining internal control in the federal government. Also 
pursuant to the same Act, the Office of Management and Budget issued 
Circular A-123, revised December 21, 2004, to provide the specific 
requirements for assessing the reporting on internal controls. Internal 
control standards and the definition of internal control in Circular A- 
123 are based on GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government. 

We conducted our work between July 2007 and January 2009 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence 
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 
based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Data on Beneficiaries, Staffing, Visitor Volume, and Wait 
Times in the 21 Offices GAO Visited: 

We used various data from SSA to select 21 field offices to visit. We 
wanted a variety of offices in terms of geographic location, size of 
the beneficiary population covered, the number of staff, the number of 
visitors, and waiting times. Our selection of field offices was based 
on data for the years indicated. 

Table 7: List of SSA Field Offices Visited and Their Beneficiary 
Populations: 

Field office: Washington Heights - New York, New York; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 6,584; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
14,075. 

Field office: Brooklyn Avenue X - New York; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 9,697; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
21,911. 

Field office: Anacostia - Washington, D.C.;
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 4,209; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
7,690. 

Field office: Fairfax, Virginia; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 3,871; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
2,225. 

Field office: Culpeper, Virginia; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 2,659; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
1,222. 

Field office: Wheaton, Maryland; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 4,664; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
3,491. 

Field office: Casa Grande, Arizona; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 4,852; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
2,902. 

Field office: Mesa, Arizona; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 16,383; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
6,438. 

Field office: Inglewood, California; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 7,987; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
12,475. 

Field office: Los Angeles Downtown - California; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 4,226; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
12,286. 

Field office: Orlando, Florida; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 20,892; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
17,325. 

Field office: Leesburg, Florida; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 12,584; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
5,255. 

Field office: Alice, Texas; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 3,018; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
3,350. 

Field office: San Antonio Northwest - Texas; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 15,481; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
13,429. 

Field office: McAllen, Texas; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 13,066; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
19,873. 

Field office: Devils Lake, North Dakota[A]; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 687; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 450. 

Field office: Grand Forks, North Dakota; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 4,318; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
1,999. 

Field office: Freeport, Illinois; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 2,090; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 969. 

Field office: Bloomingdale, Illinois; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 5,876; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 
1,875. 

Field office: Cayey, Puerto Rico; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 10,074; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 1. 

Field office: Arecibo, Puerto Rico; 
Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiary population as of 
9/30/06: 22,469; 
Supplemental Security Income beneficiary population as of 9/30/06: 4. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

[A] Devils Lake is a resident station under the Minot, North Dakota, 
field office. 

[End of table] 

Table 8: Staffing Levels for the Field Offices GAO Visited, Fiscal 
Years 2005-2007: 

Field office: Washington Heights - New York, New York; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 36; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 31; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 34; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -2. 

Field office: Brooklyn Avenue X - New York; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 56; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 53; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 46; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -10. 

Field office: Anacostia - Washington, D.C.; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 22; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 22; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 22; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 0. 

Field office: Fairfax, Virginia; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 24; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 21; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 21; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -3. 

Field office: Culpeper, Virginia; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 9; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 9; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 10; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 1. 

Field office: Wheaton, Maryland; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 27; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 23; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 25; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -2. 

Field office: Casa Grande, Arizona; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 11; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 11; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 11; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 0. 

Field office: Mesa, Arizona; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 69; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 54; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 49; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -20. 

Field office: Inglewood, California; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 42; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 39; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 37; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -5. 

Field office: Los Angeles Downtown - California; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 61; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 59; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 60; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -1. 

Field office: Orlando, Florida; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 77; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 69; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 67; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -10. 

Field office: Leesburg, Florida; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 35; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 33; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 30; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -5. 

Field office: Alice, Texas; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 14; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 12; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 12; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -2. 

Field office: San Antonio Northwest - Texas; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 55; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 53; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 53; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -2. 

Field office: McAllen, Texas; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 71; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 70; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 68; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -3. 

Field office: Devils Lake, North Dakota; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 2; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 2; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 2; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 0. 

Field office: Grand Forks, North Dakota; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 15; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 12; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 13; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -2. 

Field office: Freeport, Illinois; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 6; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 7; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 6; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 0. 

Field office: Bloomingdale, Illinois; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 24;
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 22; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 21; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -3. 

Field office: Cayey, Puerto Rico; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 8; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 6; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 10; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): 2. 

Field office: Arecibo, Puerto Rico; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2005: 19; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2006: 19; 
Number of staff: Fiscal year 2007: 18; 
Numerical change (from 2005 to 2007): -1. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: Visitor Volume, Staff, and Waiting Time Data for Offices GAO 
Visited, Fiscal Year 2007: 

Field office: Washington Heights - New York, New York; 
Number of visitors: 55,404;
Number of staff: 34; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 61.4; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 54.6. 

Field office: Brooklyn Avenue X - New York; 
Number of visitors: 35,369; 
Number of staff: 46; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 17.1; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 16.2. 

Field office: Anacostia - Washington, D.C; 
Number of visitors: 41,315; 
Number of staff: 22; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 13.1; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 39.2. 

Field office: Fairfax, Virginia; 
Number of visitors: 42,581; 
Number of staff: 21; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 41.6. 

Field office: Culpeper, Virginia; 
Number of visitors: 15,003; 
Number of staff: 10; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 10.8. 

Field office: Wheaton, Maryland; 
Number of visitors: 39,741; 
Number of staff: 25; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 12.8; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 62.1. 

Field office: Casa Grande, Arizona; 
Number of visitors: 23,135; 
Number of staff: 11; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0.1; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 18.7. 

Field office: Mesa, Arizona; 
Number of visitors: 67,125; 
Number of staff: 49; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 5.7; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 65.3. 

Field office: Inglewood, California; 
Number of visitors: 53,440; 
Number of staff: 37; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 1.2; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 53.1. 

Field office: Los Angeles Downtown - California; 
Number of visitors: 69,019; 
Number of staff: 59; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0.2; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 20.4. 

Field office: Orlando, Florida; 
Number of visitors: 89,319; 
Number of staff: 67; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 4.3; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 51.9. 

Field office: Leesburg, Florida; 
Number of visitors: 30,060; 
Number of staff: 30; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0.1; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 29.4. 

Field office: Alice, Texas; 
Number of visitors: 16,424; 
Number of staff: 12; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0;
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 16.3. 

Field office: San Antonio Northwest - Texas; 
Number of visitors: 64,459; 
Number of staff: 53; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 48.7. 

Field office: McAllen, Texas; 
Number of visitors: 93,682; 
Number of staff: 68; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 43.7. 

Field office: Devils Lake, North Dakota; 
Number of visitors: 4,587; 
Number of staff: 2; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 0.2. 

Field office: Grand Forks, North Dakota; 
Number of visitors: 12,089; 
Number of staff: 13; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 5.0; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 9.8. 

Field office: Freeport, Illinois;
Number of visitors: 10,490; 
Number of staff: 6; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0.1; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 8.5. 

Field office: Bloomingdale, Illinois; 
Number of visitors: 41,421; 
Number of staff: 21; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 6.6; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 28.6. 

Field office: Cayey, Puerto Rico; 
Number of visitors: 2,650; 
Number of staff: 10; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 14.6; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 128.5. 

Field office: Arecibo, Puerto Rico; 
Number of visitors: 28,404; 
Number of staff: 18; 
Waiting time in minutes: With an appointment: 0; 
Waiting time in minutes: Without an appointment: 72.8. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data. 

Note: Waiting times are measured from the time that customers sign into 
the Visitor Intake Process until the time of customers' first contact 
with an SSA staff person. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III Functions of Field Offices and Other Entities in Medical 
Disability Determinations for Disability and SSI Claims: 

Field offices rely on state Disability Determination Services (DDS) and 
various SSA entities to make medical disability determinations for 
claims filed under the Disability and SSI programs. Field offices begin 
the application process for these claims and determine if claimants 
meet basic requirements for the applications based on nonmedical 
factors of the programs. For example, for Disability claims, field 
offices determine if workers or their dependents qualify for benefits 
based on the worker's years of work. For SSI claims, field offices 
determine if claimants meet income requirements. If basic requirements 
are met, field offices forward the application to the state DDS to make 
initial determinations of disability based on medical and work-related 
factors. For claimants found to be eligible, field offices initiate 
action to begin payments. If claimants are not satisfied with the 
determination, they may request reconsideration with a different group 
within DDS. If claimants are not satisfied with the second 
determination by DDS, they may request further reconsideration with 
SSA's hearings office, and then SSA's Appeals Council (figure 8 
provides a visual depiction of this process). Over the years, backlogs 
of varying degrees have occurred at the DDS, Hearing Office, and 
Appeals Council levels, leaving some claimants waiting for years to 
have their claims decided. In recent years, SSA has taken actions to 
decrease these backlogs. 

Figure 8: SSA's Disability Determination Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of SSA's Disability Determination 
Process, as follows: 

Claimant contacts SSA field offices: 
Application process begins: 
SSA field office personnel: 
* Obtain information and store in electronic record; 
* Determine eligibility for nonmedical factors. 
If nonmedical eligibility factors are met, application is forwarded to 
DDS. 

Initial determination: 
State DDS personnel: 
* Gather, develop, and review medical and nonmedical evidence; 
* Decide eligibility on basis of medical and work-related factors. 
If determination is not favorable, claimant has 60 days to request
a reconsideration. 

Reconsideration: 
State DDS personnel (different group): 
* Re-examine prior and any new evidence; 
* Render a new, independent eligibility decision. 
If reconsideration is not favorable, claimant has 60 days to request a
hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). 

Administrative law judge hearing: 
SSA hearings office personnel: 
* Review for additional medical evidence; 
* Conduct a hearing and render a new decision by video conference
or in person. 
If ALJ decision is not favorable, claimant has 60 days to request an 
Appeals Council review. 

Appeals Council: 
SSA Appeals Council: 
* Decides whether to review the case and new evidence; 
* If case is reviewed, decides whether to reverse decision or return 
case to ALJ. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA data; Art Explosion (images). 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Social Security Administration: 

Social Security: 
The Commissioner: 
Social Security Administration: 
Baltimore Md. 21235-0001: 

December 12, 2008: 

Ms. Barbara D. Bovbjerg: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St., NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Bovbjerg: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
report, "Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan Needed 
to Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges" (GAO-09-24). 

Enclosed are our detailed comments to the draft report recommendation, 
along with suggested technical revisions. 

If you have any questions, please contact Candace Skurnik, Director, 
Audit Management and Liaison Staff, at (410) 965-4636. 

Sincerely, 

Michael J. Astrue: 

Enclosure: 

Comments On The Government Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report, 
"Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan Needed To 
Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges" (GAO-09-24): 

We disagree with GAO's statement that we do not have a detailed plan to 
address future service delivery needs. We continually plan for the 
future, as evidenced by the many initiatives we have successfully 
completed, including those that are underway, and those that are 
proposed for both the near and long term. 

We have long been aware that the Baby Boom generation would have a 
dramatic impact on our own internal staffing losses, as well as 
escalating our disability and retirement claims workloads. As a result, 
we have been working on many fronts to increase our productivity to 
enable us to process more work without increasing staffing levels. Many 
components within the agency contribute to this effort and there is a 
great deal of coordination between components as well as executive 
oversight. 

Central to our planning for the future is the Agency's Strategic Plan 
(ASP), which we published and serves as a living document. The ASP 
outlines the four main goals of the organization: 

1) Eliminate our hearing backlog and prevent its recurrence; 
2) Improve the speed and quality of our disability process; 
3) Improve our retiree and other core services; and; 
4) Preserve the public's trust in our programs. 

Flowing from the ASP are tactical plans aimed at supporting the larger 
agency initiatives. In the Office of Operations, workload goals are 
established for our field offices (FOs), teleservice centers, and 
processing centers. The Office of Disability Adjudication and Review 
established a plan to reduce the age and volume of the hearing 
disability backlogs, and we continue to make progress in these areas. 
We have an Information Technology (IT) Advisory Board that is 
responsible for long-range IT planning. In the face of dwindling 
resources and rising workloads, our IT investments are critical to 
keeping pace with an ever-growing demand for our services. 

At the very core of our planning is the annual budget which the 
Commissioner is required to submit to Congress and the President. The 
budget takes into account expected growth in all workloads, based on 
projections from our Office of the Chief Actuary. It also accounts for 
additional burdens placed on us, such as work mandated by new 
legislation and factors in estimated savings from our initiatives 
designed to increase efficiency, such as improved automation and 
streamlined policy, e.g., the electronic disability process and our 
recent changes in the Proof of Age policy. The budget reflects work we 
control, such as continuing disability reviews and Supplemental 
Security Income redeterminations, and specific agency objectives, such 
as working down the hearing disability backlogs. 

Our FO operations have been successful at doing more with less, 
demonstrated in the GAO report in Figure 2 (Page 13). The reduction in 
work units does not reflect less work in the major claims categories, 
but a reduction in time due to our efforts to increase efficiency 
through a variety of initiatives. Fiscal year (FY) 2008 was one of our 
most productive years due to changes in policy (such as the 
simplification of the Proof of Age policy), and automation enhancements 
to our claims workloads (such as increased use of electronic claims). 
Our FY 2010 budget includes funding for many additional enhancements 
and reflects productivity savings for these as well. 

Our Office of the Chief Actuary projects a 40 percent increase in 
retirement claims and a 10 percent increase in disability claims by FY 
2017. To prepare for this, our ASP sets goals for online filing of 50 
percent of retirement and 25 percent of disability insurance claims by
FY 2012. Online tiling provides work efficiency to offset the impact of 
a part of the increase in claims. 

Our comments on the report recommendation, along with technical 
revisions are as follows: 

Recommendation: 

Recommend that SSA develop a service delivery plan that describes, in 
detail, how it will deliver quality customer service in the future 
while managing growing work demands with constrained resources. This 
plan should identify the extent that new business processes will allow 
SSA to accommodate growing demand or whether additional resources are 
needed to achieve its strategic goals. Further, this plan should 
establish a quantitative standard for field office customer waiting 
times and phone service to help identify and improve offices with poor 
service. 

Comment: 

We partially agree. We have an intensive planning process, flowing from 
our ASP, which is reflected and updated annually in our budget 
submissions to OMB. However, due to the continuing concern about a lack 
of a consolidated plan to address service and staffing throughout the 
disability and retirement wave of the Baby Boom generation, we are 
developing a single document that describes all the efforts taking 
place. At minimum, this document will include our comprehensive plans 
for: 

* Expansion of electronic service; 

* Increased centralization of processing telephone and claims workloads 
while maintaining our network of local FOs to serve the public; 

* FO service enhancement including new phone systems, video services 
where applicable, and piloting self-service personal computers in 
reception areas; and; 

* Service delivery assessments of our FOs to ensure that we continue to 
provide efficient customer service. 

With staffing spread thin across our network of FOs, requiring office 
managers to meet waiting time and telephone standards would create 
other problems in mission-critical services. To achieve standards for 
waiting times and answering phone calls, managers would have to 
dedicate more staff to these areas at the expense of timely processing 
claims and post-entitlement workloads. 

We do not agree that FO telephone and wait time standards should be 
implemented. While Area Directors consider office visitor traffic and 
waiting times as a factor in staffing allocations, our national 
approach is to achieve a balance of the services that we provide. While 
we do not support establishing standards, we do track waiting times and 
make adjustments as necessary to improve service. Many of our FY 2008 
FO hires went to the offices with the highest waiting times as measured 
by our Visitor Intake Process (VIP). We are also working to alleviate 
longer wait times by providing alternate service channels. As noted in 
the report, we are piloting Video Service Delivery in seven States, 
benefiting both the customer and us, by removing the need for a FO 
visit. We are also piloting Internet access to our suite of online 
services in several FOs across the country, providing the public with 
an avenue of self-service, rather than having to wait to be seen by an 
agency representative. To address concerns for office telephone 
service, we are currently conducting a pilot in 200 offices, offering 
the option of having their calls forwarded to the agency 800-number 
when the local telephone is busy. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Director, (202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, key contributions to this 
report were made by Blake Ainsworth, Assistant Director; Mary A. 
Crenshaw, Analyst-In-Charge; Justin Fisher; Mitchell Karpman; Matthew 
Lee; Vanessa Taylor; Walter Vance; Charles Willson; Gregory Wilmouth; 
and Paul Wright. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Social Security Administration Field Offices: Reduced Workforce Faces 
Challenges as Baby Boomers Retire. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-737T]. Washington, D.C.: May 8, 
2008. 

Social Security Disability: Better Planning, Management, and Evaluation 
Could Help Address Backlogs. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-40]. Washington, D.C.: December 7, 
2007. 

Social Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed in Ongoing 
Efforts to Improve 800-Number Service. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-735]. Washington, D.C.: August 8, 
2005. 

SSA Customer Service: Broad Service Delivery Plan Needed to Address 
Future Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS/AIMD-00-75]. Washington, D.C.: 
February 10, 2000. 

SSA's Management Challenges: Strong Leadership Needed to Turn Plans 
Into Timely, Meaningful Action. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-98-113]. Washington, D.C.: March 
12, 1998. 

Social Security Administration: Significant Challenges Await New 
Commissioner. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-97-53]. 
Washington, D.C.: February 20, 1997. 

Social Security Administration: Effective Leadership Needed to Meet 
Daunting Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-96-196]. Washington, D.C.: 
September 12, 1996. 

Social Security: Sustained Effort Needed to Improve Management and 
Prepare for the Future. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-94-22]. Washington, D.C.: October 
27, 1993. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Social Security Administration Field Offices: Reduced 
Workforce Faces Challenges as Baby Boomers Retire, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-737T] (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 
2008). 

[2] SSA measures the amount of work produced by multiplying the volume 
of actions completed by the amount of time required to complete each 
type of action. The result is what SSA terms "work units." Because some 
types of actions take longer than others to complete, SSA views work 
units as a more precise measure than a simple count of the number of 
actions completed. 

[3] Postentitlement actions are those occurring after customers become 
eligible for benefits that affect the amount or continuation of 
payment. Such actions include changes of address, benefit 
recomputations, overpayments, and reviews of Disability and SSI 
beneficiaries' status to determine their continuing eligibility for 
benefits. 

[4] There are two types of reviews: (1) Continuing Disability Reviews, 
which are conducted periodically to ensure that Disability and SSI 
recipients continue to meet SSA's definition of disability, and (2) SSI 
redeterminations, which verify recipients' living arrangements, income; 
and other nonmedical factors related to SSI eligibility. 

[5] This organization represents SSA field office managers and 
Teleservice Center managers. 

[6] This work does not include disability backlogs at the DDS, Hearing 
Office, or Appeals Council levels. 

[7] In the wait time data for the fiscal year 2002 through 2006 period, 
data for 14.9 percent of the sample times were missing. Although data 
were missing, improvements in data collection and the fact that we were 
able to calculate sampling errors based on our knowledge of the study 
allowed us to conclude that the data were sufficiently reliable for our 
analytical purposes. A detailed discussion of our data validation 
efforts and the limitations of the data appears in appendix appendix I. 

[8] SSA can schedule appointments for customers that wish to apply for 
benefits, if customers call SSA's 1-800 number or a field office in 
advance. SSA generally does not schedule appointments for customers who 
have other types of tasks to do in field offices. 

[9] The survey was based on a random sample of 48 field offices and 
interviews with 862 callers. 

[10] In assessing the adequacy of SSA's internal controls, we used the 
criteria in GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1, dated November 1999. See appendix I for 
a detailed discussion of these standards. 

[11] The Board of Trustees' 2008 Report provided data on the number of 
actual OASI and Disability beneficiaries through 2007, and then made 
projections for 5-year spans in the future (e.g., 2010, 2015, etc.) No 
similar data are available for the SSI program. 

[12] This authority allows agencies to waive the dual compensation 
reduction (salary offset) otherwise required for re-employed federal 
civilian annuitants. OPM authorizes agencies to use this authority to 
respond to emergencies resulting from a war or natural disaster or to 
hire for hard to fill positions. 

[13] GAO, Social Security: Sustained Effort Needed to Improve 
Management and Prepare for the Future, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-94-22] (Washington, D.C: Oct. 27, 
1993). 

[14] GAO, SSA Customer Service: Broad Service Delivery Plan Needed to 
Address Future Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS/AIMD-00-75] (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 10, 2000). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: