OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
REGIONAL REVIEWS MAY DISCLOSE
STATE DISABILITY DETERMINATION
SERVICES’ USAGE OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FOR NON-
PROGRAM COMPUTER PURPOSES
July
2002
A-15-00-20050
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY REPORT
MissionWe 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.
SOCIAL SECURITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 30, 2002
To: The Commissioner
From: Inspector General
Subject: Management Advisory Report – Regional Reviews May Disclose State Disability Determination Services’ Usage of Social Security Administration Computer Equipment for Non-Program Purposes (A-15-00-20050)
OBJECTIVE
Our objectives were to present information to the Social Security Administration (SSA) on the need to enforce existing policies and procedures regarding State Disability Determination Services’ (DDS) non-SSA program computer usage costs and on the need to develop specific policies and procedures for the calculation and reimbursement of such costs.
BACKGROUND
SSA provides funds to each DDS for the necessary costs of making disability determinations. In addition, some DDSs receive requests from various other State agencies to make disability determinations for claims not related to SSA benefits, claims commonly known as "Non-SSA Program" claims. SSA’s Program Operations Manual System (POMS) procedures require a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the State and the SSA Regional Commissioner (RC) to outline the specifics of the non-SSA work. The MOU should specify that SSA will not be charged for the costs of the DDS’ non-SSA program work. Costs of DDS staff and other resources should be shared and allocated between SSA and non-SSA programs.
In the past, as part of their fiscal year appropriations, DDSs were provided funds to purchase computer equipment. However, from May 1997 through September 2000, SSA purchased and distributed—to 48 of the 54 DDSs—computer equipment for the Intelligent Work Station/Local Area Network (IWS/LAN). Further, SSA plans to replace IWS/LAN computer equipment every 3 years in all SSA components, including DDSs. Examination of policies and procedures provide sufficient information to warrant management attention. Our work was conducted at OD and OS at SSA Headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland, from June 2000 through November 2001.
RESULTS OF REVIEW
We found that SSA had funded and distributed over $18.3 million in computer equipment to 17 DDSs identified as performing non-SSA work. However, the Agency did not attempt to ensure that States share the cost of using SSA computer equipment for non-SSA work. In addition, SSA’s MOUs and POMS need to be updated and clarified.
SSA Had Not Taken Action To Assess Impact
During our interviews, we found OD had recognized the possibility that DDSs may be using IWS/LAN equipment for non-SSA program purposes. After our discussions, OD did a survey to determine whether equipment was actually used to process non-SSA workloads. OD found that 14 of the 17 States listed in Appendix A answered "yes" to the question, "Are SSA IWS/LAN personal computers being used to process non-SSA work?" The three States that replied "no" to the questions were Arkansas, California, and New York. The survey did not involve on-site review of non-SSA work activities in the DDSs. OD further informed us that it plans to ask SSA Regional Offices to do the formal on-site review, as we requested, after this report is issued in final.
Also, OD had not attempted either to identify costs associated with the equipment or pass along the necessary information for DDSs to identify such costs. Therefore, we contacted the Office of Telecommunications and Systems Operations, which supplied us with the cost information. For the period May 1997 through September 2000, SSA funded and distributed $44.7 million in hardware, software installation, support, training, etc., to 48 of the 54 DDSs for IWS-LAN purposes. Based on information obtained from OD, we also determined that, during this same time period, SSA funded $18.3 million for computer equipment and the associated costs for 17 of the 21 DDSs with MOUs (see Appendix A). Because SSA does not perform on-site reviews, the potential exists for a number of these DDSs to not report and share the cost of using SSA computer equipment for non-SSA work.
MOUs and POMS Need Updating and Clarification
We determined that MOUs between SSA and the States, as well as POMS procedures, had not been updated to reflect the potential current or future use of computer equipment for non-SSA program purposes. We examined 21 MOUs maintained by OD to determine whether they contained provisions to share the costs of SSA-funded and distributed computer equipment.
According to OD officials, the establishment of most MOUs preceded SSA’s furnishing of computer equipment. OD officials agreed that the MOUs should be reviewed and amended to reflect current policy and procedures.
We found POMS describes that DDSs may perform disability determination work for claims not related to SSA benefits and that all costs for non-SSA program work are borne by the State. However, POMS does not specifically address costs associated with the potential for SSA furnishing computer equipment for non-SSA program purposes. Therefore, we believe SSA should provide DDSs with guidance specifically describing the requirements and accounting methodology for DDSs to adjust claimed costs for non-SSA program use of SSA computer equipment. OD has begun to work on revisions to the POMS that address non-SSA computer work activities in the DDSs.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We believe the conditions we have identified through our data analysis and current examination of policies and procedures provide sufficient information to warrant regional on-site reviews of SSA computer equipment usage by DDSs for non-SSA program purposes. Our review disclosed that SSA had neither conducted such reviews nor updated MOUs between the RCs and the States to include issues related to the use of SSA's funded and furnished computer equipment. Also, POMS guidance needs to be updated to specifically address costs associated with sharing SSA computer equipment used for non-SSA program purposes.
At the conclusion of our review, SSA conducted preliminary work to identify States using computer equipment for non-SSA work and to revise policies and procedures. In future engagements, we will review DDS’ usage of computer equipment for non-program purposes as part of our administrative cost audits to determine whether such costs have been allocated to non-SSA programs.
We recommend SSA:
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG RESPONSE
SSA generally agreed with our recommendations. Regarding recommendation 3, SSA commented that different DDSs will require different allocation methods. SSA’s position is not inconsistent with our recommendation. Our recommendation was intended to incorporate an appropriate allocation method for each DDS taking into consideration variances in operations.
In complying with our recommendations, SSA will develop and release an RC/DDS Administrator's Letter to the regions by September 30, 2002. This letter will detail the protocol for obtaining the necessary information for the study, detail the computer cost information to all DDSs, and request the allocation of non-SSA costs. Also, by September 30, 2002, SSA will update the POMS relating to the use of computer equipment for non-SSA program work. As SSA renegotiates the MOUs, it will ensure the proper allocation method for each State’s share of the computer equipment costs is documented and agreed upon. SSA will also review the current MOUs to determine whether there is a basis for SSA to obtain cost reimbursement from the States. We believe SSA’s response to this report provides an effective action plan for identifying computer usage costs of non-SSA programs and ensures such use is excluded from State DDS administrative costs claimed. (See Appendix B for the full text of SSA’s comments.)
James G. Huse, Jr.
Appendices
APPENDIX A – Disability Determination Services with Memoranda of Understanding, Doing Non-Social Security Administration Work and Using Social Security Administration Distributed Computer Equipment|
State |
Effective Date of Memorandum of Understanding |
Equipment Installation Date |
Total Costs* |
|
Alaska |
July 1982 |
October 1998 |
$ 102,181 |
|
Arizona |
August 1988 |
February 1998 – April 1999 |
730,834 |
|
Arkansas |
October 1992 |
February 1998 – March 1998 |
305,842 |
|
California |
February 1997 |
August 1998 – April 1999 |
4,271,589 |
|
Iowa |
July 1989 |
December 1998 – January 1999 |
397,594 |
|
Kansas |
July 1974 |
March 1998 – November 1998 |
386,951 |
|
Kentucky |
October 1989 |
October 1998 – July 1999 |
1,402,953 |
|
Michigan |
September 1999 |
November 1998 – October 1999 |
29,180 |
|
Mississippi |
July 1998 |
August 1998 – April 1999 |
803,164 |
|
New Mexico |
July 1994 |
September 1998 – October 1998 |
315,607 |
|
New York |
January 1994 |
July 1997 – May 2000 |
3,153,379 |
|
North Carolina |
July 1998 |
January 2000 – February 2000 |
1,943,918 |
|
South Carolina |
January 1987 |
December 1998 – April 1999 |
1,148,908 |
|
Tennessee |
September 1993 |
February 1999 – May 2000 |
1,394,690 |
|
Vermont |
June 1981 |
April 2000 |
174,451 |
|
Washington |
November 1974 |
January 1998 – April 1999 |
846,422 |
|
Wisconsin |
October 1992 |
August 1997 – February 1998 |
847,598 |
|
Total |
$18,255,261 |
*Costs
include hardware, software, installation, support training, etc.
Appendix
B
Agency Comments
SOCIAL SECURITY
|
MEMORANDUM 32078-24-883 |
|
Date: |
May 31, 2002 Refer |
Refer To: S1J-3 |
|
To: |
James
G. Huse, Jr. |
|
From: |
Larry
Dye |
|
Subject: |
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Draft Management Advisory Report, "Regional Reviews May Disclose State Disability Services Usage of Social Security Administration Computer Equipment for Non-Program Purposes" (A-15-00-20050)—INFORMATION |
We appreciate the OIG’s efforts in conducting this review. Our comments on the report content and recommendations are attached.
Please let us know if we may be of further assistance. Staff questions may be referred to Janet Carbonara on extension 53568.
SSA Response
COMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) DRAFT MANAGEMENT ADVISORY REPORT, "REGIONAL REVIEWS MAY DISCLOSE STATE DISABILITY SERVICES USAGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA) COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FOR NON-PROGRAM PURPOSES" (A-15-00-20050)
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report. Following are our comments on the recommendations.
Recommendation 1
Coordinate a formal on-site study of all Disability Determination Services’ (DDS) usage of SSA Intelligent Work Station/Local Area Network (IWS/LAN) funded and distributed computer equipment to identify the extent to which DDSs have used SSA computer equipment for non-SSA program purposes.
Comment
We agree. SSA will develop and release a Regional Commissioner/DDS Administrator's Letter to the Regions by September 30, 2002, which will detail the protocol for obtaining the necessary information for the study.
Recommendation 2
Provide computer cost information to all DDSs so the States can quantify the allocation of non-SSA costs.
Comment
We agree. The Regional Commissioner/DDS Administrator's Letter to all DDSs described above will detail the computer cost information and request the allocation of non-SSA costs.
Recommendation 3
Amend the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the States and provide additional guidance in Program Operations Manual System (POMS) Section DI 39563.210 to address potential current and future use of SSA computer equipment when it is used for non-SSA programs and to incorporate an appropriate allocation method to assure DDSs share the costs of such computer equipment.
Comment
We agree with the first part of this recommendation. By September 30, 2002, SSA will update the POMS section that details non-SSA program work to address current and future use of equipment supplied directly to the DDSs by SSA. However, we do not agree that any one allocation method would be appropriate to assure equitable distribution of the costs between SSA and non-SSA program work. As with all aspects of DDS operations, different DDSs will require different allocation methods to equitably allocate the costs. As SSA proceeds with State renegotiations of the MOUs, SSA will ensure that the proper allocation method for each State is documented and agreed upon.
Recommendation 4
Explore cost reimbursement in accordance with applicable policies and procedures for those States which had significant usage of SSA funded computer equipment for non-SSA program purposes.
Comment
We agree. We will review the current MOUs to see if there is a basis for SSA to obtain cost reimbursement.
Appendix C
OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
OIG Contacts
Frederick C. Nordhoff, Director, Financial Management and Performance Monitoring
Audit Division, (410) 966-6676
Carl Markowitz, Audit Manager, (410) 965-9742
Acknowledgments
In addition to those named above:
Steven
Sachs, Auditor-in-Charge
Sigmund
Wisowaty, Auditor
Annette
DeRito, Writer-Editor
Cheryl
Robinson, Writer-Editor
Kimberly
Beauchamp, 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) 966-1375. Refer to Common Identification Number A-13-98-12041.
Overview of the Office of the Inspector General
Office of Audit
The Office of Audit (OA) conducts comprehensive financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) programs and makes recommendations to ensure that program objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently. Financial audits, required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, assess whether SSA’s financial statements fairly present the Agency’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA’s programs. OA also conducts short-term management and program evaluations focused on issues of concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public. Evaluations often focus on identifying and recommending ways to prevent and minimize program fraud and inefficiency.
Office of Executive Operations
The Office of Executive Operations (OEO) supports the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) by providing information resource management; systems security; and the coordination of budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities and equipment, and human resources. In addition, this office is the focal point for the OIG’s strategic planning function and the development and implementation of performance measures required by the Government Performance and Results Act. OEO is also responsible for performing internal reviews to ensure that OIG offices nationwide hold themselves to the same rigorous standards that we expect from the Agency, as well as conducting employee investigations within OIG. Finally, OEO administers OIG’s public affairs, media, and interagency activities and also communicates OIG’s planned and current activities and their results to the Commissioner and Congress.
Office of Investigations
The Office of Investigations (OI) conducts and coordinates investigative activity related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement of SSA programs and operations. This includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, physicians, interpreters, representative payees, third parties, and by SSA employees in the performance of their duties. OI also conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
Counsel to the Inspector General
The Counsel to the Inspector General provides legal advice and counsel to the Inspector General on various matters, including: 1) statutes, regulations, legislation, and policy directives governing the administration of SSA’s programs; 2) investigative procedures and techniques; and 3) legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material produced by the OIG. The Counsel’s office also administers the civil monetary penalty program