|
FrontLine |
|||||||||
The Online Newsletter of the National Council of Social Security Management Associations, Inc. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| February 2002 - Issue 7 | |||||||||
|
Sneak peek at what's in this issue:
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
President’s
Message By Tony Pezza NCSSMA President SSA at the Crossroads I think 2002 will prove to be watershed year for the Social Security Administration. Years from now we will look back and see that decisions made in 2002 determined the course of events for this agency for a very long time. My prediction is rooted in three simple facts. First, we have a new Commissioner who comes to the job with more knowledge about the Agency, its strengths and weaknesses, than any commissioner in memory. This Commissioner can plan to serve for the better part of the next 5 plus years and consequently can undertake both short term and relatively long term initiatives that will bear fruit during her tenure. Second, we have a new Deputy Commissioner for Operations who is experienced and well versed in the challenges and issues inherent in SSA's field operation. Finally, the urgency of some of the major issues makes 2002 a pivotal year. All this makes for interesting times. With this in mind, here are some of the challenges facing SSA at this crossroads. First, and from our perspective foremost, there are the issues and questions arising from our recently completed Management Survey. From coast to coast and from border to border the almost 2200 Field Office and Teleservice management people who responded agree overwhelmingly that quality, training and service to the public have been on a downward slide and need to be improved. They also agree that the main cause of these problems is the lack of management and supervisory staff. We know that this doesn’t come as a great revelation, and we don't expect miracles; but something must be done to reverse this trend. We do hope that this issue will be addressed with an ultimate view toward improving public service. Closely related is the issue of our current service. A citizen contacting SSA today, whether in person, by phone or via the Internet may only have that one opportunity to be served by our agency. If we fail to provide an appropriate level of service for that citizen, we have failed possibly forever. My point here speaks to the use of our current resources. Limited though they may be, they are not inconsiderable. We need to make sure that direct service components have every FTE possible. Given the burgeoning workloads it may be prudent to move more FTE's to the frontlines. We have heard that Operations believes field offices are "underfunded" by 3000 FTE's and PSC's by 300. We feel that this is a compelling argument in favor of moving resources to where the action is. The disability program looms as perhaps the greatest and most difficult problem facing SSA. The fact that we have been revisiting, rethinking, reengineering, and reworking this program for some 10 years with no appreciable change from the claimant's perspective is disheartening to say the least. It would be nice to be able to start all over again and build a national disability program from the ground up. It probably would look nothing like what we have. The problem with this approach is that it will take legislation and time. Given the political difficulties in achieving suitable legislation and the demographic imperative of the burgeoning disability workload, it is unrealistic to rely on such an approach. This does not mean that long range a new program or major legislative changes to the current program may not be the way to go. What it does mean however, is that we need to look to quick and meaningful improvements in the current process if we are to avert a meltdown in service delivery. There are a myriad of other problems and challenges facing our agency:
Collectively the issues, problems and challenges confronting SSA at this crossroads are daunting. NCSSMA is encouraged, however, by the caliber and knowledge of SSA's new leadership. The National Council of Social Security Management Associations pledges to continue to work cooperatively and collaboratively to improve service to the American people. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
Current
TSC Management Issues By Kay Rhodes and Brenn Davis TSC Committee Representatives Many of the concerns of Teleservice Center management are those we share with SSA management in our local community-based field offices---adequate staffing, sufficient resources, and reasonable, attainable goals, for example. However, there are some concerns that are specific to TSC management due to the inherent structure of our 800# system. With nation-wide service delivery, higher supervisory ratios, and integrated telephone systems, there are concerns that require our Agency’s attention. First and foremost is the immediate need to upgrade the Supervisors and Management Support Specialists in the TSCs. The issue of comparable compensation for comparable work is one that deserves swift attention and correction. It is difficult to explain to a supervisor who manages a unit of 25 to 40 employees that they would be paid a higher grade if they only worked in a field office. They might have far fewer employees under their supervision, but they would be paid a higher salary. It is equally difficult to explain to Management Support Specialists who work in a TSC that their peers in the field office are paid at a higher rate. Although the span of supervision and the requirements of these positions are at least comparable to the FO positions, unfortunately the pay is not. Additionally, this disparity in pay creates a lack of clear career paths for these TSC management employees. Often vacancies are advertised at a lower grade than they really are so that these employees can qualify for the vacant positions. Another major, long-term concern of TSC management is the service observations of TSRs. The lack of a clear and consistent policy seriously impedes management’s ability to address a very basic issue, courtesy. Through the years, the service observation policy has prevented us from adequately addressing TSR performance in this critical area of service delivery. By limiting supervisors in their right to listen to public calls without first informing the TSR, we weaken their authority and deny them an essential management tool. In addition, the fact that the Aspect telephone system does not randomly select agent calls has further degraded our ability to perform Tier II service observations. Although there are still some limited methods to address TSR discourtesy, they are more onerous for managers. In a nutshell, the current policy places limitations on TSC management that undermines the service afforded our calling public. Other items of concern for TSC management include expansion of hours of service, off-phone time to process SSI overpayments, the prohibition on training during the peak period (January through March), and problems with valid management information from the new telephone system. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
Editor’s
Corner Much has been said about the decline of quality in the processing of SSA workloads. Some say we push so hard to achieve a quantitative objective, that the qualitative aspect doesn’t take a back seat, it’s not even in the vehicle. Since we do few formal reviews these days, most of these rumblings are, of necessity, anecdotal. So when we come face to face with the recent findings from the review of the Special Disability Workloads (SDW), we move past the feeling that something is not quite right and find conviction. The results should serve as a five-alarm wake-up call on this subject. The SDW error rate was shocking. It’s a given these cases are complex. But the issues are not new ones. Protective filings, work after onset, etc. have been around for years. Admittedly they were concentrated in these cases, but considerable guidance did accompany these cases. The error rate on the SDW cases should be taken as an opportunity to take a hard look at some issues and how they impact such quality issues. Have we become so enamored of meeting such and such clearance percentages by the end of each quarter that we have, as an organization, relegated payment accuracy to the optional category? We do not believe that for a minute but do find frustration in our natural tendency to define what needs to be tracked by relative ease of tracking, not by its relative impact on the customer. Has our view of quality been skewed permanently by de-layering? Without sufficient numbers of management personnel, substantive workload reviews are replaced by streamlined processes and appraisal systems that simply represent what is possible with dramatic cuts in management, and hence stewardship. The SDW cases are somewhat unique in the amount of adjudicative time each requires for appropriate consideration and handling. Staffing being what it is in the field, substantial chunks of "quality time" are rare in the face of swiftly mounting priorities elsewhere. The tandem issues of management and staff insufficiency in field offices are, we believe, displayed in marked relief by our current efforts to come up with a special approach toward this workload. Remember the old saw, "Do you want it fast or do you want it right?" The American public wants and deserves both. But first balance has to be restored and our observation of many locations within SSA is that will require a 180-degree turn. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Phil Walton, FrontLine
Editor |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
