SSA is required to administer its disability programs in a fair and unbiased manner. SSA’s Study of Racial Disparities Was Extensive, but Methodological Weaknesses in Available Documentation Preclude Conclusions

Following our report, SSA undertook an extensive effort to study racial disparities in ALJ decisions at the hearings level, but weaknesses in available documentation preclude conclusions from being drawn. SSA used descriptive statistics to show that overall application and allowance rates of African Americans differed from whites. In addition, SSA used multivariate analyses to examine the effect of race on ALJ decisions while controlling for other factors that influence decisions. Specifically, SSA officials told us that, by 1998, they found no evidence that race significantly affected ALJ decisions for any of the regions. SSA Has Taken Limited Steps to Address Possible Racial Bias in Its Hearings Level Decision-Making Process

Concurrent with SSA’s study of racial disparities, SSA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals took several steps to address possible racial bias in disability decision making at the hearings level. These steps included providing diversity training, increasing recruitment efforts for minority ALJs, and administering a new complaint process for the hearings level to help ensure fair and impartial hearings. OHA also increased its efforts to recruit minorities for ALJ and other legal positions, although the impact of these efforts on the racial/ethnic mix of SSA’s ALJ workforce has been limited. In addition to having information booths and distributing information on legal careers at OHA, OHA presented a workshop called “How to Become an Administrative Law Judge at OHA,” at each conference. In addition to these efforts, in 1993 SSA instituted a complaint process under the direction of OHA that provides claimants and their representatives with a new mechanism for voicing complaints specifically about bias or misconduct by ALJs. Recommendations

To address shortcomings in SSA’s ongoing quality assurance process for ALJs—which would improve SSA’s assessment of ALJ decision-making accuracy—we recommend the agency take the following steps:   conduct ongoing analyses to assess the representativeness of the sample used in its quality assurance review of ALJ decisions, including testing the statistical significance of differences in key characteristics of the cases included in the final sample with those that were not obtained; include the results of this analysis in SSA’s annual and biennial reports on ALJ decision making; and   use the results to make appropriate changes, if needed, to its data collection or sampling design to ensure a representative sample. Appendix I: Comments from the Social Security Administration

	GAO Comments

1.
What GAO Found

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is responsible for administering the Social Security Disability Insurance and the Supplemental Security Insurance programs--the nation's two largest disability programs. SSA is required to administer its disability programs in a fair and unbiased manner. Nevertheless, the proportion of African American applicants allowed benefits has been historically lower than the proportion of white applicants. These allowances rate differences have occurred with respect to disability determinations made by state Disability Determination Service offices and in decisions made at the hearings level by Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). In response to GAO's 1992 report, SSA initiated an extensive study of racial disparities in ALJ decisions, but methodological weaknesses preclude conclusions being drawn from it. The study--the results of which were not published--set out to analyze a representative sample of cases to determine whether race significantly influenced disability decisions, while simultaneously controlling for other factors. SSA officials told GAO that, by 1998, they found no evidence that race significantly influenced ALJ decisions. However, GAO was unable to draw these same conclusions due to weaknesses in sampling and statistical methods evident in the limited documentation still available for GAO's review. Concurrent with SSA's study of racial disparities, SSA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) took some limited steps at the hearings level to address possible racial bias in ALJ decision-making. OHA instituted a mandatory diversity sensitivity training course for ALJs. Additionally, OHA increased its efforts to recruit minorities for ALJ and other legal positions by attending conferences for minority bar associations, where SSA distributed information and gave seminars on how to become an ALJ. Finally, in keeping with its commitment to provide fair and impartial hearings, SSA established a new process under the direction of OHA for the review, investigation, and resolution of claimant complaints about alleged bias or misconduct by ALJs.