Date: September 30, 2005

To: The Commissioner

From: Inspector General

Subject: Usefulness of Decentralized Correspondence in Focusing Employer-Assistance Activities (A-03-05-25007)

The attached final report presents the results of our audit. Our objective was to determine whether employee addresses within the Social Security Administration's Decentralized Correspondence file can provide useful information to strengthen the Agency's employer-assistance activities.

Please provide within 60 days a corrective action plan that addresses each recommendation. If you wish to discuss the final report, please call me or have your staff contact Steven L. Schaeffer, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at
(410) 965-9700.

Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr.

OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

USEFULNESS OF DECENTRALIZED
CORRESPONDENCE IN FOCUSING
EMPLOYER-ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES

September 2005

A-03-05-25007

AUDIT REPORT

Mission

We improve SSA programs and operations and protect them against fraud, waste, and abuse by conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations, and investigations. We provide timely, useful, and reliable information and advice to Administration officials, the Congress, and the public.

Authority

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

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

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

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

Vision

By conducting independent and objective audits, investigations, and evaluations, we are agents of positive change striving for continuous improvement in the Social Security Administration's programs, operations, and management and in our own office.

Executive Summary
OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to determine whether employee addresses within the Social Security Administration's (SSA) Decentralized Correspondence (DECOR) file can provide useful information to strengthen the Agency's employer-assistance activities.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the DECOR process is to contact employees and employers to resolve Social Security number (SSN) and/or name discrepancies on reported earnings. Such earnings are posted to the Agency's Earnings Suspense File (ESF) until the discrepancies can be resolved. The DECOR letter provides the wage earner with information about the reported name/SSN and wage amount, and requests that the reported information be reviewed, verified or corrected where possible, and returned. While SSA sends most of the DECOR letters to employees, SSA also sends a letter to the employer when an employee's address is unavailable. SSA uses the replies to resolve the earnings discrepancies. For Tax Year (TY) 2002, SSA mailed approximately 9.5 million DECOR letters, relating to approximately $60.4 billion in wages, to employees and employers. Approximately 7.6 million of these letters were sent directly to employees.

RESULTS OF REVIEW

Our review of the TY 2002 DECOR employee file indicates that employees living in 10 States represent 72 percent of the items in the file, even though these States represent about 48 percent of the national workforce. We also found inconsistencies in the volume of suspended wage items for particular States when compared to those States' share of the national workforce. For example, while the State of California has 11 percent of the Nation's workforce, it represents about 30 percent of the suspended items in the file.

Our audit also indicates that SSA's strategy for assisting employers with wage reporting problems may not sufficiently account for the diffusion of reporting problems throughout the country. The Agency aligns its Employer Service Liaison Officer (ESLO) activities on a regional basis, and identifies the employers located in each region by using the payroll address of each employer. However, an employer operating in multiple States may have its most significant problems in another part of the country. For example, we identified an employer with a payroll address in Texas being assisted by the Dallas-based ESLO, and yet the majority of the employees with suspended wage items resided in California under the jurisdiction of a different ESLO.

Finally, we found problematic national trends, including valid SSNs being misused hundreds of times in multiple States and the same employee address being used by thousands of individuals. In 11 cases, a valid SSN was used more than 400 times by various individuals during TY 2002. For instance, we found 1 case where a valid SSN belonging to a child was used to report 742 wage items by individuals residing in 42 different States. These trends should be of interest to SSA in its efforts to reduce the size of the ESF as well as protect the integrity of the SSN.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The DECOR employee file provides a useful profile of the employers submitting wage reports with name/SSN mismatches. By using the address information, the Agency's ESLOs can learn more about the specific problems of employers within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, by knowing specifically where DECOR letters are mailed, the Agency can better target its employer outreach efforts. Finally, potential SSN misuse and other trends can be proactively monitored by the Agency as it attempts to protect the integrity of the SSN.

To improve the focus of the Agency's employer-assistance activities and protect the integrity of the SSN and associated earnings postings, we recommend SSA:

Consider using addresses in the DECOR employee file to enhance coordination among ESLOs when the employer wage reporting problems relate to multiple regions around the country.

Consider using addresses in the DECOR employee file to identify relevant trends among employees with suspended wages and focus ESLO efforts.

Review and correct the earnings record of the child noted in this report, as well as the earnings records related to the remaining 10 valid SSNs misused more than 400 times.

AGENCY COMMENTS

SSA agreed with our recommendations. The full text of SSA's comments is included in Appendix G.

Table of Contents
Page

INTRODUCTION 1
RESULTS OF REVIEW 3
Suspended Wage Items by Employee Address 3
Employer Service Liaison Officer's Coverage 5
Other Trends Among the Suspended Wage Items 7
Frequently Misused Social Security Numbers 7
Frequent Addresses 8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Acronyms
APPENDIX B - Decentralized Correspondence Flowchart
APPENDIX C - Scope and Methodology
APPENDIX D - Ranking of States by Suspended Wage Items and State Workforce
APPENDIX E - Prior OIG Report Ranking of States by Total Suspended Wage Items
APPENDIX F - Additional Analysis on the Decentralized Correspondence Employer File
APPENDIX G - Agency Comments
APPENDIX H - OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Introduction

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to determine whether employee addresses within the Social Security Administration's (SSA) Decentralized Correspondence (DECOR) file can provide useful information to strengthen the Agency's employer-assistance activities.

BACKGROUND

Title II of the Social Security Act requires that SSA maintain the reported earnings records of individuals. SSA uses these reported earnings to determine whether an individual is entitled to receive retirement, survivors, disability and health insurance benefits and to calculate benefits. SSA validates the names and Social Security numbers (SSN) on the Wage and Tax Statement (Form W-2) against information in its records. Earnings containing names and/or SSNs that do not match SSA's records cannot be posted to an individual's earnings record in SSA's Master Earnings File (MEF). Instead, these wages are placed in SSA's Earnings Suspense File (ESF)-a repository for unmatched wages. As of October 2004, the ESF had accumulated about $463 billion in wages and 246 million wage items for Tax Years (TY) 1937 through 2002 that could not be posted to individuals' earnings records. Accumulation over TYs 1993 through 2002 accounts for $322 billion of the $463 billion in suspended wages, or 70 percent.

The purpose of the DECOR process is to contact employees and employers to resolve SSN and/or name discrepancies on wage items stored in the ESF. The letter provides the wage earner with information about the reported name/SSN and wage amount, and requests that the reported information be reviewed, verified or corrected where possible, and returned. While SSA sends most of the DECOR letters to employees, SSA sends a letter to the employer when an employee's address is incomplete or incorrect. SSA uses the responses to resolve the earnings discrepancies. For TY 2002, SSA mailed approximately 9.5 million DECOR letters, relating to approximately $60.4 billion in wages, to employees and employers. See appendices B and F for more background on the DECOR letters. Approximately 7.6 million DECOR letters were sent to employees and another 1.9 million letters were sent to employers (see Table 1). Furthermore, our analysis of the entire TY 2002 DECOR file showed there were about 884,000 specific employers in this file.

Table 1: Breakout of the Tax Year 2002 DECOR File

File Contents
Wage Items
Wages Percent of Items
Per File
Employee File 7.6 million $49.8 billion 80
Employer File 1.9 million $10.6 billion 20
Total 9.5 million $60.4 billion 100

We analyzed the 9.5 million wage items contained in the TY 2002 DECOR file and determined that approximately 9 million (94 percent) of these wage items were related to TY 2002, while the remainder related to prior TYs. For example, approximately 264,000 wage items related to TY 2001 (see Table 2).

Table 2: Reported Tax Years in the Entire DECOR File
Tax Year Number of Wage Items Volume of Wages
2002 8,992,179 $57.6 billion
2001 264,477 $1.4 billion
2000 130,689 $.8 billion
1978-1999 142,266 $.6 billion
Blank 278 $.004 billion
Total 9,529,889 $60.4 billion
Note: Blank indicates that there was no tax year associated with these wage items.

Results of Review

Our review of the TY 2002 DECOR employee file indicates that employees living in 10 States represent 72 percent of the items in the file, even though these States represent about 48 percent of the national workforce. We also found inconsistencies in the volume of suspended wage items for particular States when compared to those States' share of the national workforce. For example, while the State of California has 11 percent of the Nation's workforce, it represents about 30 percent of the suspended items in the file. Our audit also indicates that SSA's strategy for assisting employers with wage reporting problems may not sufficiently account for the diffusion of reporting problems throughout the country. The Agency aligns its Employer Service Liaison Officer (ESLO) activities on a regional basis using the payroll address of an employer. However, an employer operating in multiple States may have its most significant problems in another part of the country. For example, we identified an employer with a payroll address in Texas being assisted by the Dallas-based ESLO, and yet the majority of the employees with suspended wage items resided in California under the jurisdiction of a different ESLO. Finally, we found problematic national trends, including valid SSNs being misused hundreds of times in multiple States and the same employee address being used by thousands of individuals. In 11 cases, a valid SSN was used more than 400 times by various individuals during TY 2002. For instance, we found 1 case where a valid SSN belonging to a child was used to report 742 wage items by individuals residing in 42 different States. These trends should be of interest to SSA in its efforts to reduce the size of the ESF as well as protect the integrity of the SSN.

SUSPENDED WAGE ITEMS BY EMPLOYEE ADDRESS

Our analysis identified the States with employees contributing the highest number of items to the DECOR employee file. The top 10 States accounted for 72 percent of the TY 2002 DECOR letters sent to employees even though they represent about 48 percent of the national workforce as shown in Table 3 (see Appendix D for a ranking of all 50 States and the District of Columbia). When we compared these 10 States to the top 10 States in terms of total workforce, we found inconsistencies in the volume of suspended wage items for particular States when compared to those States' share of the national workforce. For example, while the State of California has 11 percent of the Nation's workforce, it represents about 30 percent of the suspended items in the file. However, in the case of New York, the State had about half the expected proportion of suspended items when compared to its percent of the national workforce, and Georgia had the same suspended item and workforce percentages.

Table 3: Comparison of the Top Ten States Ranking of Suspended Wages Items and National Workforce
(Based on a Review of the Tax Year 2002 DECOR Employee File)

States (1) Ranking in Terms of Wage Items Percent of DECOR
Notices Ranking in Terms of State Workforce Percent of the National
Workforce (2)
California 1 29.7 1 11.0
Texas 2 9.6 2 7.0
Florida 3 6.8 4 5.7
Illinois 4 6.2 6 4.3
New Jersey 5 4.0 9 3.1
New York 6 3.4 3 6.6
Arizona 7 3.3 21 1.8
North Carolina 8 3.2 10 3.0
Washington 9 3.2 15 2.2
Georgia 10 3.0 11 3.0
Totals 72.4%
47.7%Notes: (1) Our analysis does not include DECOR letters sent to Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Marshall Islands, and overseas addresses related to the Armed Forces. A total of 4,397 letters related to these locations.
(2) State workforce statistics were taken from State Statistics, Office of Policy, SSA, December 2003, http://mwww.ba.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/state_stats/.

We also noticed differences in the State rankings in the DECOR employee file compared to the national workforce. These differences could be attributed to a number of factors, including the type of industries predominant in each State as well the level of unauthorized work and SSN misuse. As we have noted in our earlier review of this area, the three industries contributing the highest number of items to the ESF include agriculture, restaurants and services. SSA has previously stated that many suspended items involve the agricultural industry, which has transient employees who may not have work-authorization from the Department of Homeland Security. Other high turnover industries, such as fast food, restaurants and other service industries, have similar profiles. Frequent job and residential changes are not uncommon with members of these workforces. These actions complicate name/SSN correction efforts when recontacts are necessary.

EMPLOYER SERVICE LIAISON OFFICER'S COVERAGE

Some of the other trends we noticed in the DECOR employee file, such as the distribution of an employer's workers across multiple States, should be of interest to SSA in terms of understanding the source of wage items going into the ESF. SSA provides assistance to employers through ESLOs located in 10 regions throughout the United States. The ESLOs (1) answer employers' questions on wage reporting submissions; (2) encourage employers to use SSA's various programs, such as the Employee Verification Service; (3) conduct wage-reporting seminars, in partnership with the IRS; and (4) contact employers with significant suspended wage items in their regions.

Since 1996, SSA's Office of Public Service and Operations Support has developed a national listing of employers, who submit 100 or more suspended wage items. The listing uses the employer's address related to the EIN to determine the relevant region. These lists are sent to regional ESLOs for follow-up contacts with the employers. SSA does not direct the ESLOs to contact specific employers or follow up with the ESLOs regarding what contacts were made and the results of the contacts.

We reviewed the DECOR employer letters sent to five Texas-based employers highlighted in an earlier audit for having a large number of suspended wages items. We determined that three of the five employers had more than half of their employee problems fall outside Region VI, thereby falling under the jurisdiction of another ESLO (see Table 4). SSA sent 2,082 DECOR letters to employees of one these companies, of which 1,959 (or 90.1 percent) were sent to employees who resided outside of Region VI. Again, this distribution of an employer's workforce problems may call for greater coordination between the ESLO in Region VI and other relevant ESLOs.

Table 4: Review of Five Employers in Texas1
(Comparison of Payroll Address and Tax Year 2002 DECOR Employee File Address)

Employer Industry Total Items in DECOR Employee File2
Total Items in Region VI
Total Items in Other Regions Percent in
Other
Regions
1 Services 27,225 5,785 21,440 78.8
2 Services 13,327 5,458 7,869 59.1
3 Services 3,646 3,646 0 0
4 Restaurant 3,171 2,876 295 9.3
5 Services 2,082 206 1,876 90.1
Note: (1) These Texas-based employers were among the Top 100 employers in the United States during TYs 1997-2001. See SSA OIG, Employers with the Most Suspended Wage Items in the
5-Year Period 1997 through 2001 (A-03-03-13048), October 2004.
(2) Our comparison is based on the suspended wage items in the DECOR employee file, where employee addresses were available. Each employer above had at least 83 percent of their overall suspended wage items in the employee file.

The above comparison indicates that an ESLO with a full understanding of the wage item distribution throughout the country could be in a better position to assist an employer and pinpoint potential weaknesses in its payroll process. For instance, employer #5 in Table 4 above with 90.1 percent of the letters mailed to employees who reside outside Region VI may want to know which States in particular have employees with mismatched names and SSNs. If the ESLO had the same information we used as part of this audit, he or she could share with this employer the fact that most of the problems relate to California-based employees (see Figure 1). We spoke to the Dallas Region ESLO about our findings and she stated that this employee information could assist her in her discussions with employers and/or other ESLOs around the country.

By using the employee address information, SSA can learn more about the suspended wage items than simply the employer's payroll address and determine those regions experiencing the highest volume of wage reporting problems. As a result, we believe that this DECOR information can assist ESLOs in targeting areas of the country in need of additional education or special programs/pilots. For example, SSA may want to schedule seminars on the Social Security Number Verification System (SSNVS) in those areas of the country where employee mismatches are most frequent.

OTHER TRENDS AMONG THE SUSPENDED WAGE ITEMS

We also reviewed the DECOR employee file for potential SSN misuse trends across the Nation. We reviewed both multiple uses of the same SSN by different individuals and duplicate addresses. These trends should be of interest to SSA in its efforts to ensure employees receive notice of wage reporting problems and protect the integrity of the SSN.

Frequently Misused Social Security Numbers

In our analysis of the top 100 SSNs appearing most frequently within the DECOR employee file for the entire Nation we determined that 74 of these 100 SSNs were valid SSNs issued by SSA and used during TY 2002 by various individuals throughout the country to report over 21,000 wage items. Of these valid SSNs, 11 numbers were used more than 400 times.

We profiled 1 of these 11 valid SSNs that appeared in the DECOR employee file and determined that there were 742 uses of this particular SSN reported by 716 employers for individuals residing in 42 different States. We reviewed SSA's systems and determined that the owner of this SSN is a child who was born in Mexico in September 1991. Of the 742 wage items reported under this SSN, the State of California accounted for 450 wage items, or 61 percent. A further review of the ESF for TYs 1998 through 2001 showed that the child's SSN was used over 3,900 times.

We reviewed the child's earnings record to determine how many of the reported wage items may have been posted to his record in the MEF. We determined that for TYs 1998 through 2003 (when the child was 7 through 12 years of age), there were 15 wage postings related to employers in the restaurant and manufacturing industries, with approximately $126,247 of total earnings posted to the child's record (see Table 5). A review of the W-2s used to report these TY 1998 through 2003 posted wages indicate the earners lived in at least five different addresses within California during this period.

Table 5: Questionable Postings to Child's Earnings Record

Tax Year Age at Time of Posting Number of Wage Postings
Total Annual Wages Posted
1998 7 3 $30,331
1999 8 3 $25,728
2000 9 3 $24,677
2001 10 2 $31,140
2002 11 3 $10,438
2003 12 1 $3,933
Totals 15 $126,247

The above case, as well as the other SSNs used multiple times, represents ongoing SSN misuse within the economy that not only leads to an increase in the size of the ESF, but can also lead to erroneous postings within SSA's records and deterioration in the quality of information in SSA's MEF. In this case, the child's earnings record appears to have postings that will need to be corrected. We referred the above case to SSA staff for additional review to determine if some of the wages need to be removed and placed into the ESF.

Frequent Addresses

We reviewed trends related to the most frequently used addresses within the TY 2002 DECOR employee file and determined that 6 of the top 10 most frequently used addresses were located in the State of Florida (see Table 6). In addition, all six of these Florida addresses related primarily to agricultural employers. The remaining four addresses represented the services industry. Of the 15,133 suspended wage items listed below, the State of Florida accounted for 11,122 wage items (or 73.5 percent), with corresponding wages totaling about $19.2 million. The address receiving the highest volume of DECOR letters (Address #1 in Table 6) was a "general delivery" address located in a Florida city known for its farmlands and high population of farmworkers.

Table 6: Frequency of Addresses in TY 2002 DECOR Employee File

Address
Location of Address
Industry Wage Items in ESF (Per Address)
ESF
Wages Number
of Employers
Type of Location
1 Florida Agriculture 3,748 $2.9 million 33 General Delivery
2 Florida Agriculture 2,521 $5.9 million 11 Post Office Box
3 Florida Agriculture 2,261 $3.3 million 107 Post Office Box
4 Florida Agriculture 920 $2.7 million 8 Post Office Box
5 Florida Agriculture 851 $2.4 million 4 Employer Address
6 Florida Agriculture 821 $1.9 million 7 Street Address
7 California Services 1,353 $6.8 million 8 Employer Address
8 Georgia Services 933 $1.8 million 16 Street Address
9 Tennessee Services 914 $4.7 million 254 Employer Address
10 Kansas Services 811 $4.4 million 208 Apartment Building
Total 15,133 $36.8 million 656

These frequently used addresses indicate that employees may not learn about their suspended earnings since the DECOR letters are being sent to (1) incomplete addresses (i.e. an address missing an apartment unit number), (2) employer addresses, and/or (3) general addresses. For example, it is possible that some transient workers are using a "general delivery" address while working for a short time in a particular region of the country.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The DECOR employee file provides a useful profile of the employers submitting wage reports with name/SSN mismatches. By using the address information, the Agency's ESLOs can learn more about the specific problems of employers within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, by knowing specifically where DECOR letters are mailed, the Agency can better target its employer outreach efforts. Finally, potential SSN misuse and other trends can be proactively monitored by the Agency as it attempts to protect the integrity of the SSN.

To improve the focus of the Agency's employer-assistance activities and protect the integrity of the SSN and associated earnings postings, we recommend SSA:

1. Consider using addresses in the DECOR employee file to enhance coordination among ESLOs when the employer wage reporting problems relate to multiple regions around the country.

2. Consider using addresses in the DECOR employee file to identify relevant trends among employees with suspended wages and focus ESLO efforts.

3. Review and correct the earnings record of the child noted in this report, as well as the earnings records related to the remaining 10 valid SSNs misused more than 400 times.

AGENCY COMMENTS

SSA agreed with our recommendations. The full text of SSA's comments is included in Appendix G.

Appendices

Appendix A
Acronyms

CY Calendar Year
DECOR Decentralized Correspondence
EDCOR Educational Correspondence
EIN Employer Identification Number
ESF Earnings Suspense File
ESLO Employer Service Liaison Officer
IRS Internal Revenue Service
MEF Master Earnings File
OIG Office of the Inspector General
SSA Social Security Administration
SSN Social Security Number
SSNVS Social Security Number Verification System
TY Tax Year
U.S.C. United States Code
WRPS Wage Reporting Problem Service
Forms
Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement

Appendix B
Decentralized Correspondence Flowchart

Appendix C
Scope and Methodology

To meet our objective, we performed the following steps:

Reviewed prior Social Security Administration (SSA) Office of the Inspector General reports related to the Earnings Suspense File (ESF) and inaccurate wage reporting.

Reviewed applicable Federal laws and regulations, as well as SSA policies and procedures for maintaining individual earnings records and contacting employers with suspended wages.

Visited the Wilkes-Barre Data Operations Center to perform a walk-through of the Decentralized Correspondence (DECOR) process and review available workload data to determine the overall effectiveness of the DECOR process. We also interviewed SSA staff during the walk-through process to gain a further understanding of the DECOR process.

Obtained a copy of the DECOR mailer file from SSA related to wage reports submitted during the Tax Year (TY) 2002 reporting period. This file contained 9,529,889 wage items, with a corresponding value of $60.4 billion dollars.

Analyzed the DECOR file to understand the trends among letters going to employees and employers. For example, we reviewed the employee file to (1) rank the States in terms of the volume of items in the file, (2) identify duplicate addresses and multiple uses of the same SSNs, and (3) determine where employees for specific employers actually resided.

We obtained State workforce data from SSA's website, compared this workforce data with other sources, and discussed the reliability of these numbers with SSA staff.

Obtained copies of Wage and Tax Statements (Form W-2) from SSA's Office of Central Operations to determine employee addresses for wage items that were not part of our TY 2002 DECOR employee file.

We found that DECOR data was sufficiently reliable to meet the objectives of our review. Our work was conducted at SSA's Data Operations Center in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and at SSA Headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland. The fieldwork was conducted between July 2004 and April 2005. The SSA entity responsible for the maintenance of the ESF is the Office of Central Operations within the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Operations. Our review was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix D
Ranking of States by Suspended Wage Items and State Workforce

Table D-1: Comparison of States Ranking of Suspended Wages Items and National Workforce
(Based on a Review of the Tax Year 2002 DECOR Employee File)

States and District of Columbia(1)
Ranking in Terms of Wage Items
Percent of DECOR
Notices Ranking in Terms of State Workforce (2)
Percent of the National Workforce
CALIFORNIA 1 29.66 1 11.01
TEXAS 2 9.64 2 6.97
FLORIDA 3 6.80 4 5.68
ILLINOIS 4 6.18 6 4.33
NEW JERSEY 5 3.99 9 3.14
NEW YORK 6 3.40 3 6.55
ARIZONA 7 3.35 21 1.77
NORTH CAROLINA 8 3.24 10 2.96
WASHINGTON 9 3.19 15 2.17
GEORGIA 10 3.00 11 2.95
COLORADO 11 2.45 22 1.59
OREGON 12 1.92 28 1.25
MASSACHUSETTS 13 1.85 13 2.27
VIRGINIA 14 1.73 12 2.73
NEVADA 15 1.40 35 0.73
INDIANA 16 1.25 14 2.30
TENNESSEE 17 1.21 17 2.07
MICHIGAN 18 1.19 8 3.65
MINNESOTA 19 1.13 20 1.99
MARYLAND 20 1.04 19 2.05
UTAH 21 1.00 34 0.80
SOUTH CAROLINA 22 0.99 24 1.43
WISCONSIN 23 0.94 16 2.12
PENNSYLVANIA 24 0.90 5 4.44
OHIO 25 0.87 7 3.95
CONNECTICUT 26 0.83 27 1.29
OKLAHOMA 27 0.82 29 1.20
KANSAS 28 0.72 31 1.03
ALABAMA 29 0.66 23 1.49
MISSOURI 30 0.57 18 2.04
KENTUCKY 31 0.51 25 1.41

States (1)
Ranking in Terms of Wage Items
Percent of
DECOR
Notices Ranking in Terms of State Workforce (2)
Percent of the National Workforce
NEW MEXICO 32 0.47 37 0.60
IDAHO 33 0.45 41 0.47
ARKANSAS 34 0.36 32 0.92
RHODE ISLAND 35 0.34 43 0.40
MISSISSIPPI 36 0.30 33 0.92
IOWA 37 0.28 30 1.12
NEBRASKA 38 0.27 36 0.67
LOUISIANA 39 0.27 26 1.40
DELAWARE 40 0.18 45 0.32
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
41
0.16
49
0.24
NEW HAMPSHIRE 42 0.14 39 0.51
WYOMING 43 0.07 51 0.20
WEST VIRGINIA 44 0.05 38 0.58
HAWAII 45 0.05 42 0.45
MAINE 46 0.04 40 0.48
ALASKA 47 0.04 50 0.24
MONTANA 48 0.04 44 0.34
SOUTH DAKOTA 49 0.03 46 0.30
VERMONT 50 0.02 47 0.25
NORTH DAKOTA 51 0.02 48 0.24
Totals(3) 100.0% 100.0%
Notes: (1) Our analysis does not include DECOR letters sent to Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Marshall Islands, and overseas addresses related to the Armed Forces. A total of 4,397 letters related to these locations.
(2) State workforce statistics were taken from State Statistics, Office of Policy, SSA,
December 2003, http://mwww.ba.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/state_stats/.
(3) Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Appendix E
Prior OIG Report Ranking of States by Total Suspended Wage Items

In prior Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reports we identified the 100 employers responsible for sending the most wage items to the Earnings Suspense File (ESF) during specific Tax Years (TY). We also identified the States represented by these employers, noting that this State address may relate more to payroll issues than the physical location where an employer does most of its business (see Table E-1). For example, in our October 2004 audit covering TYs 1997 to 2001, we stated that 54 of the 100 employers had registered addresses in 3 States - California, Texas, and Illinois - representing almost 1.5 million wage items and over $4.8 billion in wages during TYs 1997 to 2001. California, with 25 employers, had the highest number of Top 100 employers.

Table E-1: Ranking of States in Terms of Top 100 Employers and Total Suspended Wage Items

State
Employers
Per State
Ranking
By Items Total Suspended
Wage Items
Total Suspended Wages
CALIFORNIA 25 1 682,506 $1,992,526,035
TEXAS 15 2 401,167 $1,693,153,169
ILLINOIS 14 3 376,731 $1,177,333,106
FLORIDA 4 4 165,594 $420,648,214
NEW YORK 2 5 102,601 $536,922,065
KENTUCKY 3 6 100,452 $360,311,159
OHIO 4 7 90,780 $323,966,821
GEORGIA 3 8 84,025 $352,544,591
MINNESOTA 3 9 83,835 $362,464,910
MICHIGAN 2 10 81,439 $286,958,774
NEW JERSEY 3 11 77,993 $169,914,341
SOUTH CAROLINA 2 12 68,731 $285,456,146
OKLAHOMA 1 13 43,375 $117,983,189
TENNESSEE 2 14 41,282 $176,646,164
NEW MEXICO 1 15 36,455 $147,551,907

State
Employers
Per State
Ranking
By Items Total Suspended
Wage Items
Total Suspended Wages
KANSAS 2 16 35,130 $161,259,665
WISCONSIN 2 17 34,575 $118,018,390
WASHINGTON 2 18 31,651 $92,689,767
ARIZONA 2 19 29,867 $47,460,216
LOUISIANA 1 20 25,175 $92,689,698
UTAH 1 21 24,827 $67,498,582
ARKANSAS 1 22 24,780 $92,649,911
NEBRASKA 1 23 18,852 $197,524,222
IOWA 1 24 18,311 $112,317,486
OREGON 1 25 18,228 $68,088,754
COLORADO 1 26 15,162 $65,223,596
NORTH CAROLNA 1 27 14,838 $51,128,279
TOTALS 100 2,728,362 $9,570,929,156

Appendix F
Additional Analysis on the Decentralized Correspondence Employer File

We performed further analysis of the Decentralized Correspondence (DECOR) employer file to identify any problematic trends among the employers. In particular, we wanted to determine the volume of DECOR letters going to individual employers.

VOLUME OF NOTICES MAILED TO INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYERS

We reviewed 5,164 employers listed in the DECOR employer file that had 200 or more items combined in both the Employer and Employee DECOR files. Our review indicates that some employers have a significant volume of wage items with an incomplete/incorrect address. As a result, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has mailed individual employers thousands of pieces of mail. For example, SSA mailed 95 employers more than 1,000 letters each (see Table F-1). One employer, a staffing company with a payroll address in the State of New York, received 13,954 letters from SSA.

Table F-1: Volume of DECOR Letters Mailed to Employers (Among Employers with 200 or More Items in Suspense and
at Least 1 Item in the DECOR Employer File)

Number of DECOR Letters Per Employer
Number of Employers Total Number of DECOR Letters Mailed Associated Wages
Greater than 1,001 95 184,876 $770 million
501 up to 1,000 204 138,357 510 million
101 up to 500 1,411 300,664 1,150 million
1 to 100 3,454 153,322 797 million
Total 5,164 777,219 $3,227 million

While the percent of employers receiving a large volume of letters is small, these employers represent a large number of the letters being mailed. Furthermore, these incorrect addresses also represent a missed opportunity to contact wage earners.

DOUBLE NOTIFICATION OF SUSPENDED WAGE ITEMS

In addition to the DECOR letters, SSA also sends educational correspondence (EDCOR) to employers who submit W-2s containing name and/or Social Security number (SSN) information that does not agree with SSA's records. EDCOR notices list up to 500 SSNs but do not provide names. SSA requests that employers file corrected W-2(s) to correct the error(s). As a result, employers may receive both DECOR and EDCOR letters from SSA. Criteria for sending these notices are shown in Table F-2.

Table F-2: SSA's Criteria for Sending EDCOR Notices 2003 and later years (Tax Year 2002 and later)
Notices were sent to employers who submitted a wage report containing more than 10 W-2s that SSA could not process, and the mismatched forms represented more than .5 percent of the total W 2s in the report.

2002
(Tax Year 2001)
Notices were sent to employers who submitted a wage report where the name and/or SSN on even one W-2 did not agree with SSA's records. (The decision to send a letter to every employer with even one "no match" was made in May 2000.)

2001
and prior years
(Tax Year 2000 and prior)
Notices were sent to employers who submitted a wage report containing more than 10 W-2s that SSA could not process, and the mismatched forms represented more than 10 percent of the total W 2s in the report.

We identified the 10 employers who received the highest volume of notices related to the entire TY 2002 DECOR file and found that all 10 would have also received an EDCOR notice from SSA. As a result, the staffing company we mentioned earlier would receive 13,955 letters from SSA - 13,954 DECOR notices and 1 EDCOR notice. Our July 2002 audit of the DECOR process recommended that SSA review methods for eliminating this duplication. We made this recommendation at a time when SSA was sending EDCOR notices to every employer, regardless of the number of wage items in suspense. SSA has since restricted its EDCOR notices to a specific threshold (as shown in Table F-2). Nonetheless, our current review still indicates that an opportunity may exist to reduce some of the duplication.

Appendix G
Agency Comments

MEMORANDUM

Date: September 23, 2005

To: Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr.
Inspector General

From: Larry W. Dye
Chief of Staff

Subject: Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report, "Usefulness of Decentralized Correspondence in Focusing Employer-Assistance Activities" Revised Agency Response (A-03-05-25007)--INFORMATION

We appreciate OIG's concern related to our previous comments to the subject report. We have reevaluated our response and have attached our revised comments on the draft report's recommendations. Please disregard our previous response.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Staff inquiries may be directed to
Candace Skurnik, Director, Audit Management and Liaison Staff, at extension 54636.

Attachment:
SSA Response

COMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S (OIG) DRAFT REPORT, "USEFULNESS OF DECENTRALIZED CORRESPONDENCE (DECOR) IN FOCUSING EMPLOYER-ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES" (A-03-05-25007)

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on this draft report. The Social Security Administration (SSA) shares OIG's concern about wage reports with name/Social Security number (SSN) mismatches. The SSA Employer Services Liaison Officers (ESLO) perform an important service educating the employer community to improve the wage reporting process.

While SSA has the ESLOs contact employers who have 100 items or more in suspense each tax year, SSA does not have any enforcement or sanction authority to apply against those employers. This authority resides with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We defer to the IRS with regard to the effectiveness of employer sanctions.

Additionally, concerning the finding of incomplete or outdated addresses for employees, the report should note that the Agency only has the ability to send DECOR notices to the address that is provided by the employer via the wage and tax statement (Form W-2).

Recommendation 1

Consider using addresses in the DECOR employee file to enhance coordination among ESLOs when the employer wage reporting problems relate to multiple regions around the country.

Comment

We agree to consider using addresses in the DECOR employee file as a means to enhance coordination among ESLOs when employer wage reporting problems relate to multiple regions around the country. While the DECOR addresses point to common geographic areas that are a work source for those mismatched individuals, the wage reporting problem, and the employer's responsibility set by IRS for accurate wage reporting, rests at the location that administers employee intake procedures and payroll, regardless of where the employee resides. Coordination among ESLOs has been in place to provide support in determining the wage reporting administrative location of an employer.

To assist the ESLOs in coordinating employer wage reporting problems, SSA implemented the Wage Reporting Problem Service (WRPS) nationally in 2003. The WRPS coordinates the efforts of ESLOs in reporting and resolving wage reporting problems throughout the country. If an employer in a particular State has a wage reporting problem for a given year, that information is captured on the WRPS and is available for ESLOs in all SSA regions to view for status. ESLOs also have the ability of transferring employer wage problems to another ESLO whose region has jurisdiction of that employer. The WRPS accepts referrals of potential wage reporting problems from SSA employees in the SSA field offices, teleservice centers, processing service centers, and regional offices. WRPS sends the referral to the ESLO in the regional office that services the postal zip code of that employer.

DECOR is a national effort rather than a geographically-based effort. Employers are advised to contact the ESLO parallel to their payroll/tax or human resource office(s) for assistance with DECOR and, in addition, to learn how to verify employee taxpayer identification information (name and SSN) to prevent suspense items. The example cited on page 3 of the draft report of the Dallas contact where the employees worked in California but the employer is headquartered in Texas, occurs commonly in all regions. Large corporations do not confine themselves to SSA's regional boundaries; however, the place where the employee worked is not material when mailing DECOR notices.

Recommendation 2

Consider using addresses in the DECOR employee file to identify relevant trends among employees with suspended wages and focus ESLO efforts.

Comment

We agree to consider using addresses in the DECOR employee file as means to identify trends among employees and employers. Employee address information in itself will not help focus ESLO outreach efforts since the appropriate contact is with the employer who submits the wage reports. A more effective approach is ESLO review of the Earnings Suspense File to identify employers who have reporting problems that need to be addressed. ESLO experience has been that educational outreach is not a strong motivator for change with employers who have found their current wage reporting methods meet their needs without fear of any retribution.

Additionally, the DECOR file currently does not provide the functionality required to support the recommended analysis. Implementation of this recommendation will likely require the development of data mining and analytical tools to provide trend analyses to the ESLOs. This would require a new initiative to be considered in conjunction with other wage-related software development initiatives and prioritized for submission to the Agency's Information Advisory Board accordingly.

In the meantime, the ESLOs will continue to work with problem reporters, promoting the use of existing tools including Electronic Wage Reporting, AccuWage and Social Security Number Verification Service to facilitate improved reporting.

Recommendation 3

Review and correct the earnings record of the child noted in this report, as well as the earnings records related to the remaining 10 valid SSNs misused more than 400 times.

Comment

We agree. We are taking the necessary corrective actions on the records with problems identified by OIG.

[SSA also provided a technical comment which has been addressed, where appropriate, in this report.]

Appendix H

OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
OIG Contacts
Walter Bayer, Director, Philadelphia Audit Division, (215) 597-4080
Cylinda McCloud-Keal, Audit Manager, (215) 597-0572

Acknowledgments
In addition to those named above:
Frank Trzaska, Auditor-in-Charge
Rich Devers, Information Technology Specialist
Annette DeRito, Writer/Editor

For additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at www.socialsecurity.gov/oig or contact the Office of the Inspector General's Public Affairs Specialist at (410) 965-3218. Refer to Common Identification Number
A-03-05-25007.

Overview of the Office of the Inspector General

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of our Office of Investigations (OI), Office of Audit (OA), Office of the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General (OCCIG), and Office of Executive Operations (OEO). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures, internal controls, and professional standards, we also have a comprehensive Professional Responsibility and Quality Assurance program.

Office of Audit

OA conducts and/or supervises financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) programs and operations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently. Financial audits assess whether SSA's financial statements fairly present SSA's financial position, results of operations, and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA's programs and operations. OA also conducts short-term management and program evaluations and projects on issues of concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.

Office of Investigations

OI conducts and coordinates investigative activity related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in SSA programs and operations. This includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing their official duties. This office serves as OIG liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the investigations of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

Office of the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General

OCCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including statutes, regulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCCIG also advises the IG on investigative procedures and techniques, as well as on legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material. Finally, OCCIG administers the Civil Monetary Penalty program.

Office of Executive Operations

OEO supports OIG by providing information resource management and systems security. OEO also coordinates OIG's budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human resources. In addition, OEO is the focal point for OIG's strategic planning function and the development and implementation of performance measures required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.