The Electronic Newsletter of the National Council of Social Security Management Associations

Welcome to the March edition of FrontLine. We hope that you’re able to pull out of the end of winter blahs long enough to read our offerings here.

Sneak peek at what's in this Issue:

Last year, the NCSSMA conducted a comprehensive survey of field office management throughout the country to provide more quantifiable data to complement the findings of the Social Security Advisory Board. Management in every field office in the country was sent a copy of the survey and responses were received from more than half. Equally impressive were the comments we received supporting the answers, over 64 combined pages worth. The results of this report were so revealing that, in addition to sharing the results with SSA executives, we have chosen to distribute the results, in the form of a report, to all 535 members of Congress as well as other key advocacy and policy groups on the Hill. Copies of the report are also available at NCSSMA’s website, www.ncssma.org.

SSA field managers overwhelmingly identified three areas in which field offices are failing to deliver adequate levels of service: the answering of incoming telephone calls from the public, the quality of our work products, and the sufficiency of training provided to our employees. In addition, the survey identified declining levels of service in regards to how long customers have to wait in our lobbies before being served. Managers cited two major factors contributing to all of the above problems: 1) lack of adequate front-line staff, and, 2) lack of a sufficient number of front-line management. This latter cause was cited as the number one reason behind the decline in the quality of our work products.

Based on the results of the survey, NCSSMA developed three recommendations that we believe are necessary to restore service to adequate levels. First, SSA’s administrative budget needs to be removed from discretionary spending caps along with SSA’s program budget. This would allow Congress to allocate sufficient funds to SSA based on the merits of the agency’s and the public’s demonstrated service needs without having to fit under an arbitrary spending ceiling. Second, SSA needs to significantly increase front-line staffing in SSA’s network of field offices by approximately 5000 FTE’s. This was the minimum number that managers believed were necessary to address these serious service problems. Third, field office and teleservice management should be allowed the flexibility to fill front-line supervisory positions based on the need to maintain adequate levels of quality, training and customer service within overall staffing levels.

Why A Lobbyist?
By Ron Niesing
     Immediate Past President, NCSSMA

Why does the National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NC for short) have a lobbyist in Washington, DC? This is by far the biggest expense in the NC’s budget. What do we, as members, receive for our money?

The NC has many roles, including: (1) To work with Agency management in the delivery of service to the public, (2) To advance issues that are important to our membership and to all employees in our offices, and (3) To encourage the adoption of policies that enhance the mission of SSA. While much of the work in accomplishing these tasks is done within the Agency, we must also work effectively with outside parties.

For almost 32 years, the NC has served as the independent voice of field office and teleservice management. The NC is not part of a larger umbrella organization. On the other hand, the field council representing most employees is but one part of AFGE. The Federal Manager’s Association is the parent organization that houses the association representing program service center management. Both of these groups have Washington representation, but they represent the entire organization, not just the SSA segment. Because it is not part of any other organization, the NC can take more proactive and independent stands on the concerns of members.

Many of the decisions that impact on us as SSA and federal employees are made in Washington. To influence the direction of the dialogue and the ultimate decision, we must have a constant presence in the halls of Congress. Over the years, the NC has been active in meeting with Members of Congress, congressional staff, and select committees in pursuing our legislative and Agency objectives. The Social Security Advisory Board, GAO and OPM solicit our input. Our lobbyist is an active player in the Coalition for Effective Change, a consortium of groups that further the interests of the federal manager and employee.

We need someone who can meet with other interested parties and opinion-makers to make sure our voice is heard. Our lobbyist knows the ins and outs of the Washington scene and how to most effectively get our concerns aired. It would be impossible for even the NC President to carry out all of these functions and still fulfill his or her regular duties.

Due to the efforts of our lobbyist, the NC President regularly provides testimony before Congress. Many groups and individuals are vying for the chance to provide input at hearings. These opportunities will continue for us because of the presence of our lobbyist. The NC President has also addressed briefings at GAO and other bodies that are arranged by our lobbyist. The Washington media plays an important role in focusing on Federal issues; our lobbyist represents our interests and calls attention to particular concerns.

Washington Watch
By Sara Garland
     NCSSMA Washington Representative
     

As Washington settles in with a new Administration and a Congress of the same party, the questions on most Washington minds are: How will this work? Will there be gridlock or will it be productive? How will this session of Congress affect the 2002 elections? Just how long will the Republicans hold the majority? Given that we are only six weeks into this new era it is, frankly, too early to tell. But it is never too early for speculation; after all, this is America!

There seem to be at least a handful of "givens" in this new era. Tax relief and education reform will likely be approved by Congress and signed into law; defense and education funding will increase; there will be major disputes about the budget and long discussions about campaign finance reform; and the Senate will continue to struggle with the complications of its 50-50 split.

With regard to issues of importance to NCSSMA members, there is at least one major topic that is beginning to receive attention from the policy makers—the crisis of "human capital" in the federal government. At last there seems to be some recognition that the imminent retirement of federally-employed Baby Boomers will have a powerful impact on the federal workforce and, thus, the ability of government to operate efficiently. NCSSMA’s challenge is to convince Congress and the Administration that SSA faces a serious "double whammy" resulting from retirements within the agency and the added workload from their retiring Baby Boom brethren outside the SSA. To address this situation, NCSSMA is requesting that Congress increase the SSA field office FTEs by at least 5000 in 2002.

We have heard little from the new Administration about the federal workforce, other than President Bush’s speech last summer in which he said he wanted to reduce the federal managers’ ranks by 40,000. NCSSMA will be working in Congress to exempt field office and teleservice center managers from this reduction, not as a call for special treatment, but because SSA front line management has already "been there, done that."

The new Administration’s call to flatten the Federal hierarchy by redistributing positions and resources from high level managerial positions to front-line service delivery jobs sets a clear tone. In line with that, NCSSMA sees front line managerial jobs as service deliverers, not high level overseers. As critical as this distinction is, it was quickly lost in the managerial reductions of the last several years. NCSSMA will remind everyone, in Washington and elsewhere, of this distinction.

Social Security reform will be high on the Washington agenda. Although NCSSMA does not intend to engage in the policy issues surrounding the reform effort, it does provide us with an important opportunity to keep our issues on the front burner. We intend to remind Congress that whatever policy decisions are made, the program, to be effective, must be administered efficiently and skillfully. In order to achieve those ends, the field offices and teleservice centers need appropriate staffing levels, and vast improvements in retention, recruitment and training.

Editor’s Corner
By Phil Walton
     FrontLine Editor

Refreshing Candor

In the last FrontLine we wrote about some concerns that had come up early on in the formulation of the Talking & Listening to Customers (TLC) system. Those concerns were very fundamental 
and we thought should be borne in mind as the TLC proceeded to roll out. By way of update, a report on the first three months of the pilot was recently issued. Based on the tone and tenor of this report, it looks like the TLC leadership is keeping a true heading on the original course they set.

The report is refreshingly candid in relaying public and employee comments. Like any large organization, SSA reports are not known for their unvarnished rendition of the plain, simple facts. But this report stands out in laying out the TLC findings in clear, concise and unbiased fashion. Kudos to the TLC project team.

You may recall it was 1997 when the General Accounting Office (GAO) designated the SSI program high risk. In January 2001 the GAO issued an updated, progress report on the "Major Management Challenges and Program Risks" at SSA. In this latest report the GAO finds that some progress has been made in computer matching programs and like initiatives, but that more actions are needed "including revising SSA’s work credit and measurement system, which has historically rewarded staff for claims processed rather than for fully verifying applicant eligibility and preventing overpayments." So while we are trying mightily to clear the SSI overpayment workload as quickly as possible, the GAO is calling for a much more fundamental paradigm shift. The object under the GAO view would be a SSI program that is designed and managed to minimize the overpayments that occur, not vaunt how quickly they can be cleared once created.

That’s a very big change in mindset. But there’s nothing unique in our situation. All enterprises public or private, have the ongoing push and pull between quantity of production and quality of the end product. At SSA our dilemma’s a little more convoluted. From the perspective of the GAO, overpayments flowing from the SSI program constitute rework. In private enterprise, rework or re-handling is a cost item, a liability. Under the construct of our current work measurement system SSI overpayments (rework) are an asset as they provide additional work credit for staffing purposes. As you can see the GAO has gotten to the heart of the matter in its call for SSA to modify its current work measurement system to reward quality instead of quantity. The trouble is it is much easier to quantify the efforts needed to clean up than it is to measure the many intangibles involved in prevention. At the front lines the systemic change the GAO is calling for will not be an easy thing to get our hands around.

This charge from the GAO will be among the biggest jobs SSA has ever faced up to. It challenges the most basic assumptions about what we do and how we do it. Focusing on process instead of outputs runs contrary to our organizational mindset. But it’s a change we all need to see coming down the pike and adjust our own way of thinking if we are to contribute.

A View from Academia

SSA was featured in a recent article in the Public Administration Review (November/December 2000 edition) entitled "Reinvention as Reform: Assessing the National Performance Review". The author, James Thompson, is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Thompson interviewed numerous SSA managers and executives in field and regional offices as well as headquarters.

The article examines whether National Performance Review objectives were met and uses the Social Security Administration as a detailed example. It is an extremely interesting read. Obviously I’m not alone in that assessment as the article has been selected as the best of the year 2000 to appear in the Public Administration Review and the author receives his award this month.

Guessing there are any number of people who would like to take me up on the offer, I hesitate to use this title for this piece. But it’s really not an invitation for abuse. It describes a feeling common among a group of managers within SSA. It relays their dismay and confusion. Here’s what’s behind it.

Back in October at the NCSSMA Annual Meeting in Seattle, WA, then Commissioner Apfel had the following to say about the lack of upgrade actions for the former Class I offices:

How did the former Class I managers react to these thoughts? Surprise would be too weak a word. Flabbergasted would be too strong. Decades of federal service makes one immune to being flabbergasted by anything, don’t you know. But these managers who have been only spectators, not participants, in a very active upgrade program stretching over four years now were and remain, quite certainly chagrined. Most of their fellow managers have been upgraded for several years now. A fair number of those fellow managers had been upgraded twice while the former Class I managers still wait for their first consideration. They remain the .1% of SSA field employees who have been excluded. The thousands of dollars lost to their families by this delay puts a real face on the issue.

Yet, according to our former Commissioner, the upgrade sought by the largest urban offices across the country is inevitable and the right thing to do to correct glaring inequities? We couldn’t agree more. So when is this going to occur?

Phil Walton, FrontLine Editor
Four SeaGate, Suite 1000
Toledo, OH 43604
Phone: 419-259-7300
Fax: 419-259-2056