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.

December 14, 2006

The Honorable Jim McCrery
Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.  20515

Dear Mr. McCrery:

I am pleased to provide you with the enclosed report addressing your April 7, 2006 letter, requesting information related to the employee verification programs administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  This report contains information related to the experience of employers who have used the Social Security Number Verification Service and the Basic Pilot program.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.  My office is committed to combating fraud, waste, and abuse in SSA’s operations and programs.  To ensure DHS is aware of the information provided to your office, we are forwarding a copy of this report to the Inspector General for DHS.

If you have any questions or would like to be briefed on this issue, please call me or have your staff contact H. Douglas Cunningham, Assistant Inspector General for Congressional and Intra-Governmental Liaison, at (202) 358-6319.

Sincerely,
Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr.
Inspector General

Enclosure

cc: 
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
 

OBJECTIVE

Our objective is to assess employers’ satisfaction with the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) verification programs.

BACKGROUND

To assist employers with accurate wage reporting, in June 2005 SSA implemented the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS), which is an on-line program that allows employers to validate the names and Social Security numbers (SSN) of employees.   The purpose of SSNVS is to ensure employees’ names and SSNs match SSA records prior to the submission of their Wage and Tax Statements (Form W-2) to SSA.  After applying to use SSNVS, employers can either verify up to 10 names and SSNs (per screen) on-line and receive immediate results or upload batch files of up to 250,000 names and SSNs and usually receive results the next Government business day.  SSNVS allows employers to have multiple users registered to use the service on their behalf.  As of Calendar Year (CY) 2005, there were approximately 21,000 registered users of SSNVS representing about 19,600 employers.  In CY 2005, SSNVS processed over 25.7 million verifications for about 12,000 employers.  See Appendix B for more information on SSNVS.

SSA also participates with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the Basic Pilot program, a verification service that validates newly‑hired employees’ employment-authorization.  Participating employers register on-line with DHS to use the automated system.  The information the employer submits to DHS is sent to SSA to verify that the SSN, name, and date of birth (DoB) match SSA’s records.  SSA also provides DHS with U.S. citizenship information, as recorded in SSA records.  When SSA records indicate U.S. citizenship and the employee has alleged U.S. citizenship, employment authorization is confirmed.  DHS confirms the current employment-authorization for noncitizens.  As of Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, there were about 14,000 registered users of the Basic Pilot representing about 8,000 employers.  In FY 2005, the Basic Pilot processed about 980,000 verifications for approximately 3,700 employers.  See Appendix C for more information on the Basic Pilot.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE EMPLOYERS

We interviewed program users at 100 employers—50 each from SSNVS and the Basic Pilot—to assess their satisfaction with the 2 programs.   We concentrated on those employers that submitted a large volume of verification requests during 2004 and 2005.   The 100 employers were in industries such as temporary employment, service, food, retail, and government.  See Tables 1 and 2 for a complete listing of the industries.

Social Security Number Verification Service

During CYs 2004 and 2005, the 50 sample SSNVS employers submitted verification requests ranging from about 65,000 to 5.3 million.   In total, these employers submitted approximately 18.3 million of the 33 million verification requests, or 55 percent, during the 2-year period.  Of the 18.3 million verification requests, about 1.8 million items could not be verified, and the employers received responses such as “SSN is not in file” or “Name does Not Match.”  Furthermore, the 50 employers had 1 to 12 users registered to use SSNVS on their behalf.  We attempted to interview the registered user that submitted the largest volume of verification requests at each of the 50 employers.
 
Table 1: Verification Statistics for 50 Sample SSNVS Employers
(Calendar Years 2004 and 2005)

 Note:   Total Verifications do not equal the sum of Total Verified Items and Total Unverified Items since (a) death indicator responses are treated differently in the batch process versus the online process (only the batch process treats a death indicator as an unverified item) and (b) resubmissions are not included in the Total Verifications but are included in the other two totals.

Basic Pilot Program

During FYs 2004 and 2005, the 50 sample Basic Pilot employers submitted verification requests ranging from about 2,800 to 65,000.  As shown in Table 2, these employers submitted approximately 485,000 of the 1.7 million verification requests, or 28 percent, during the 2-year period.   Of the 485,000 verification requests submitted by the 50 employers, SSA verified 384,000 individuals, or 79 percent, as authorized to work.  SSA provided tentative nonconfirmation responses for about 70,000 individuals, or 15 percent.  For these cases, the reported information did not match SSA records due to (1) invalid SSNs, (2) unmatched names and/or DoBs, (3) dates of death on file, or (4) citizenship status could not be confirmed.  The remaining 31,000 items (6 percent) were referred to DHS for employment authorization.  In these remaining cases, the names and SSNs matched SSA records, but DHS had to verify the noncitizens’ current work authorization.  Further, the 50 employers had more than one user registered under the Basic Pilot on their behalf.  We found the number of registered users ranged from 3 to 2,433.   We attempted to interview the registered user that submitted the largest volume of verification requests at each of the 50 employers.

Table 2: Verification Statistics for 50 Sample Basic Pilot Employers
(Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005)

Note:    SSA Tentative Nonconfirmation Responses relate to SSA data only.  If an SSA Tentative Nonconfirmation Response is later resolved by the employee and the work authorization is still in question, the employee’s information is referred to DHS for further verification.  We provide more information on the overall verification process in Appendix C.  We discussed the employers’ responses to SSA and DHS nonconfirmation responses in the body of the report.

Overall, a majority of the SSNVS and Basic Pilot users we interviewed rated their satisfaction with the programs as “Excellent,” “Very Good,” or “Good.”  In addition, many of the SSNVS employers verified their entire payroll, which SSA encourages to ensure accurate wage reporting.  However, we found that approximately 42 percent of the Basic Pilot users we interviewed were not using the program as intended.  While the Basic Pilot requires employers to verify the employment authorization of newly-hired employees within 3 days after they are hired, some users indicated their employers conducted the verifications before hiring individuals.  Most of the users in our review stated their employers took the appropriate actions when they received unverified responses from SSNVS and nonconfirmation responses from the Basic Pilot, such as notifying affected employees about unverified results and terminating employees when they declined to contest tentative nonconfirmation responses or received final nonconfirmation responses from the Basic Pilot.  However, a number of users reported problems in using each of the programs.  Finally, at least 40 percent of the users interviewed under each program indicated their employers used multiple programs or services to verify the names and SSNs of their employees.

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE PROGRAM

We found that 92 percent of the SSNVS users and 100 percent of the Basic Pilot users interviewed rated the programs as “Excellent,” “Very Good,” or “Good.”  In addition, at least 98 percent of the users from both programs indicated their employers were very likely to continue using the programs. 

Social Security Number Verification Service

Of the 50 SSNVS users we interviewed, about 92 percent (46 users) rated the application, verification, and feedback phases of SSNVS as “Excellent,” “Very Good,” or “Good.”   The users believed SSNVS was an effective and reliable tool for verifying employees’ names and SSNs.  For example, one user stated, “SSNVS was easy to use and it met their needs.”  The remaining 8 percent (4 users) rated the application or verification phases of SSNVS as “Fair.”  One user representing an employer in the retail industry explained that SSNVS would have been more beneficial to his company if it allowed batch submissions because his company employed over 100,000 employees.  This user appeared to be unaware that SSNVS allowed employers to upload files containing up to 250,000 employee names and SSNs at a time for verification.

Furthermore, 49 of 50 users indicated they were very likely to continue using SSNVS.  Only the user who was unaware that SSNVS accepted batch files indicated his employer might discontinue use of the program.  We informed this user that SSA accepted batch files and he stated he would investigate the matter.   

Although a majority of the users were satisfied with SSNVS, a few users suggested changes to the program.  One user in the retail industry stated his company would like to be informed when a transposed SSN is submitted for verification.  According to SSA staff, the Agency decided not to provide corrected SSNs through SSNVS because of the concern with disclosing a valid name/SSN combination on-line.

Another user from a government agency commented that he would like to conduct a mass correction of employee records related to unverified responses received from SSNVS.  The user explained his employer had received numerous unverified responses that could not be timely resolved because the employees were located overseas.  Due to the location of the employees, they were not able to seek SSA assistance in resolving the unverified responses.   The user stated it would be beneficial for his employer to meet with SSA officials so they could develop a process to resolve these types of discrepancies. 

Basic Pilot Program

All 50 Basic Pilot users we interviewed rated the application, verification, and feedback phases of the Basic Pilot as “Excellent,” “Very Good,” or “Good.”  One user commented the program was “great and it met their needs.”  While 98 percent (49 users) indicated they would continue using the program, only 1 user indicated his company had decided to stop using the Basic Pilot.  The user could not explain why the fast food restaurant had decided to discontinue using the Basic Pilot, and we did not find any evidence that the employer was registered to use other SSA verification programs or services.   

Furthermore, one user who had rated the Basic Pilot as “Excellent” indicated that a potential weakness of the Basic Pilot is the failure to detect identity fraud.  The user noted that he did not always have assurance the individuals who walked into his office were in fact the individuals issued the employment authorization documents.  The user suggested the Basic Pilot program provide employers with additional information, such as prior employment history, to assist employers in verifying that the person in front of them is actually the numberholder and is authorized to work.  

SSNVS EMPLOYER VERIFication Practices

We found 45 of the 50 SSNVS users we interviewed, or 90 percent, indicated that their employers verified the names and SSNs of their entire payroll.  About two thirds of these users (30 users) stated their employers conducted the verifications on a weekly, monthly, or quarterly basis.   SSA encourages employers to run their entire payroll to improve overall wage reporting.  Moreover, by verifying the entire payroll, it allows SSA to properly credit employees' earnings records, which will be important information in calculating their future Social Security benefits.  The remaining five users reported that their employers used SSNVS to verify the names and SSNs of new or existing employees, but not both.  However, several of these employers used other SSA programs or services for employer verification, as discussed later in the report.

USE OF THE BASIC PILOT PROGRAM

We learned that a significant number of the Basic Pilot employers in our sample verified individuals outside the scope of the signed agreement between the employer, SSA and DHS.  The agreement requires that employers use the program to verify the employment authorization of newly-hired employees within 3 days of being hired, but we found that 42 percent of users reported that their employers conducted verifications before hiring individuals, and 30 percent conducted verifications of existing employees.

Potential Pre-Employment Screening of Individuals

According to 21 of the 50 Basic Pilot users, or 42 percent, their employers were conducting verifications before hiring individuals, which is a form of pre-employment screening.  The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by employers, SSA and DHS when the employer agrees to participate in the Basic Pilot program, prohibits employers from using the Basic Pilot as a pre-screening tool.  Specifically, it states, “the employer agrees not to use the Basic Pilot procedures for pre-employment screening of job applicants” and “employers are prohibited from initiating verification procedures before the employee has been hired.”  Seven users from the temporary employment industry and one user from the food industry admitted their companies would not hire individuals when their employment authorization could not be confirmed through the Basic Pilot.  A similar finding was reported in a January 2002 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) evaluation of the Basic Pilot program.  The report noted that some employers were using the Basic Pilot to pre-screen job applicants.  The report stated that 28 percent of individuals who had received a tentative nonconfirmation from the Basic Pilot program did not receive a job offer from the employers.  

Verification of Existing Employees

About 30 percent (15 users) of the Basic Pilot users we interviewed admitted they had verified the employment authorization of existing employees.  Users in the temporary employment industry stated their companies’ policies were to re-verify the employment authorizations of existing employees after a certain period of time (6 months to 2 years).  A user in the service industry admitted his company verified the employment authorization of its clients’ existing employees as part of background investigations.  The MOU prohibits employers from verifying the employment authorization of existing employees.  Specifically, it states that “the employers agree not to use the Basic Pilot for re-verification or for employees hired before the date of the MOU is in effect.“ 

We could not determine whether these employers misunderstood the Basic Pilot requirements or just simply ignored the policy.  DHS tried to address employers’ confusion about the Basic Pilot requirements when they developed a web-based tutorial.  As employers register for the Basic Pilot, they must review the tutorial to help them become familiar with the program’s policies and procedures.  However, to ensure compliance with the Basic Pilot requirements, DHS would need to monitor employers’ use of the program.  If DHS determines this practice of verifying pre-employment individuals or existing employees should be allowable, DHS may need to seek legislative changes to include this practice.

UNVERIFIED RESPONSES

Many of the users we interviewed stated their employers took appropriate actions when they received unverified responses from SSNVS and nonconfirmation responses from the Basic Pilot.  We found 40 of the SSNVS users we interviewed, or 80 percent, indicated they verified unmatched data with employees, compared unmatched data with personnel records, or contacted SSA to resolve the unverified responses as instructed by SSA.   Additionally, 43 of the Basic Pilot users we interviewed, or 86 percent, asserted they notified employees about tentative nonconfirmation responses or contacted SSA to resolve tentative nonconfirmation responses.   In addition, the majority of the Basic Pilot users stated their employers terminated employees if the employees decided not to contest tentative nonconfirmation responses or if they received final nonconfirmation responses, as is allowed by law.   See Appendix E for a full explanation of employer steps under each program.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED WITH THE PROGRAMS

About 14 percent of the SSNVS users and 10 percent of the Basic Pilot users we interviewed reported they experienced minor problems using the two programs.   In most of these cases, the users reported that SSA and/or DHS staff were able to resolve their problems.   

SSNVS users reported: (1) difficulties uploading response data into the company’s system; (2) rejection of data files; and (3) erroneous expiration of passwords.  For example, an SSNVS user in the service industry stated that he had received a message from SSNVS that his password would expire in 2 weeks, but in fact the password expired within a couple days.  The user notified SSA about the problem and an SSA official informed him that this occurred because of a system glitch.  According to the user, SSA immediately provided him with a new password and he was able to access the system.

Basic Pilot users reported: (1) periodic lack of access to the Basic Pilot system;
(2) password problems; and (3) lack of a timely system response from DHS.  For example, a user in the food processing industry stated that DHS had taken more than 14 days to confirm the work authorization of an employee.  The user notified DHS about the delay and the issue was timely resolved.

EMPLOYERS USING OTHER VERIFICATION SERVICES

Many of the users stated their employers used more than one type of program or service to verify employee identity and/or employment authorization.  Of the 50 employers using SSNVS, 30 used SSNVS exclusively while the remaining 20 used 1 or more additional verification services (i.e. SSA’s EVS for Registered Users, telephone or fax service, and/or third-party providers for employee verification).  For example, an SSNVS user at a temporary employment agency located in Oklahoma indicated his company also used EVS for Registered Users, the Basic Pilot, and SSA’s telephone service for employee verification.  Of the 50 employers using the Basic Pilot, 30 used the Basic Pilot exclusively while the remaining 20 used 1 or more additional verification services.  The use of multiple verification services could increase the number of employees subject to verification.  Whereas the Basic Pilot is limited to the verification of new hires, SSNVS is able to verify all existing employees.

The vast majority of the users interviewed were very satisfied with the two on-line verification programs.  The users stated these two programs were reliable and effective tools to verify employees’ identity and employment authorization.  Furthermore, 90 percent of the SSNVS users stated their employers verified the entire company payroll, which should ensure improved accuracy of reported wages.  Nonetheless, we discovered that a significant number of Basic Pilot employers may not have been using the program in accordance with their agreements.  If DHS determines this practice of verifying pre-employment individuals or existing employees should be allowable, DHS may need to seek legislative changes.  In addition, most of the users indicated their employers were taking the appropriate actions when they received feedback from either program that an employee’s information could not be verified.  Finally, we learned that a considerable number of these employers were using multiple programs to conduct employee verifications, which may increase the verification coverage of all employees.

Appendices

APPENDIX A – Acronyms
APPENDIX B – Social Security Number Verification System
APPENDIC C – Basic Pilot Program
APPENDIX D – Scope and Methodology
APPENDIX E – Employer Handling of Unverified Employees

Appendix A -- Acronyms

Appendix B -- Social Security Number Verification Service

The Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) is a free, on-line program available to employers and third party submitters to verify employees’ names and Social Security numbers (SSN).  The purpose of SSNVS is to ensure employees’ names and SSNs match the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) records prior to the submission of their wage reports to SSA.   Employers and third parties must first register on-line at SSA’s Business Services Online (BSO) website to use this service.  Employers may allow multiple users to register to use SSNVS on their behalf.  Following registration, SSA will mail an activation code directly to the company’s address shown in SSA’s Employer Identification File (EIF).   Once the registered employers activate SSNVS using their Personal Identification Number (PIN) and the activation code, they can start submitting verifications.  Registered employers can:

• Submit up to 10 employee names and SSNs (per screen) via the on-line SSNVS and receive immediate results; and

• Upload files containing up to 250,000 employee names and SSNs and usually receive verification results the next Government business day.  This bulk procedure allows employers to verify an entire payroll database or verify in one submission the names and SSNs of a large number of newly-hired workers.

SSA will return a verification code to the employer for each employee whose information does not match SSA’s records.  In addition to the verification code, SSA provides a death indicator if the employee’s Numident record includes a date of death.   Table B-1 provides descriptions for the SSNVS verification codes. 

Table B-1: SSNVS Verification Codes Provided to Employers

Appendix C -- Basic Pilot Program

The Basic Pilot is an ongoing joint initiative between the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).   The purpose of the Basic Pilot is to assist employers in verifying the employment eligibility of newly-hired employees.  The President signed The Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003 (Public Law Number 108-156) into law on December 3, 2003.  This law extended the operation of the Basic Pilot for an additional 5 years (to a total of 11 years) and expanded the operation to all 50 States not later than December 1, 2004.

Employers and third parties must register on-line to gain access to the Basic Pilot program.  In addition, they must complete and sign a Memorandum of Understanding, which sets forth the points of agreement between SSA, DHS, and the employer regarding the employer's participation in the Basic Pilot.  Employers and third parties may have multiple users registered to use the Basic Pilot on their behalf.

As discussed with SSA and DHS staff, the Basic Pilot involves using the information in government databases (SSA databases and, if needed, DHS databases) to determine the employment eligibility of new hires.  The Social Security number (SSN) and Alien Registration Number (“A” Number) or I-94 Number (Admission Number) are used for these checks.  When verifying a new employee, the employer must complete the DHS-issued Employment Eligibility Verification Form (Form I-9) for each employee and then enter elements of this data into the Basic Pilot within 3 days of hiring, including the employee’s SSN, name, date of birth (DoB), and whether the new hire indicated he or she was a United States (U.S.) citizen and, if not, the “A” Number or I‑94 Number.

The system first checks the information entered against SSA’s database to verify the name, SSN, and DoB of newly-hired employees, regardless of citizenship.   When the Numident shows the U.S. as the place of birth for the newly-hired employee or a code indicating the number holder is a U.S. citizen and the new hire indicated that he/she is a U.S. citizen, the Basic Pilot confirms employment eligibility.  If the Basic Pilot system cannot confirm employment eligibility based on the information in SSA’s database or an “A” Number or I-94 Number was entered, the Basic Pilot system checks the data against DHS’ database.

The employer will receive notification of “SSA tentative nonconfirmation” of employment eligibility when the SSN, name, or DoB does not match the information in SSA’s database or if a death indicator is present.  Also, employers will receive an “SSA tentative nonconfirmation" if the new hire indicated he or she was a U.S. citizen and SSA’s records did not show that the person was a U.S. citizen.  The employer will receive notification of "DHS tentative nonconfirmation" of employment eligibility when DHS’ database does not show the newly-hired noncitizen as authorized for employment.  In these cases, the employer asks the employee whether he or she wishes to contest the tentative nonconfirmation.  If contested, the employee must contact SSA or DHS within 8 Government working days of the notification.  After the employee contacts SSA or DHS to correct the record, the employer resubmits the query through the Basic Pilot system.  If the system does not confirm employment eligibility after the employer resubmits the query, the employer may terminate the new hire’s employment.

Basic Pilot Verification Statistics

The Basic Pilot processed approximately 1.7 million verification requests during Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005.  The figure below shows the results of this verification process.

-- IMAGE OMITTED FROM THIS TEXT-ONLY VERSION --

Appendix D -- Scope and Methodology

To accomplish our objective, we:

• Reviewed pertinent sections of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) policies and procedures, as well as, other relevant Federal laws and regulations.

• Reviewed Office of the Inspector General, Government Accountability Office, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports, and other relevant documents.

• Established accounts with the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) and the Basic Pilot program to gain an understanding of the registration process.

• For SSNVS, we:
• Obtained a list of registered employers as of May 2006;
• Obtained employer feedback data;
• Identified the number of registered employers using the service in Calendar Years (CY) 2004 and 2005; and
• Identified the number of verifications submitted in CYs 2004 and 2005.

• For the Basic Pilot program, we:
• Obtained a list of registered employers as of July 2006;
• Obtained employer feedback data;
• Identified the number of registered employers using the service in Fiscal Years (FY) 2004 and 2005; and
• Identified the number of verifications submitted in FYs 2004 and 2005.

• For both SSNVS and the Basic Pilot, we selected a sample of 50 employers from each program to assess their satisfaction with the programs.  We concentrated on those employers that submitted a large volume of verification requests during 2004 and 2005.

• We obtained the following for the 100 sample employers:
• Data extract from SSA’s Nonwork Alien (NWALIEN) file for Tax Years (TY) 2003 and 2004;
• Data extract from SSA’s Earnings Suspense File for TY 2003; and
• Data extract of earnings reporting data for TYs 2003 and 2004.

• After reviewing the summary verification results and earnings data associated with each of the 100 employers, we interviewed 100 program users on issues related to their experiences with the application, submission, and feedback processes under the programs.  In addition, we asked questions related to (1) the employer component responsible for verification, (2) the type of employee documents reviewed, (3) experiences with resolving unverified employee information, and (4) use of other verification services.

We did not perform a full review of internal controls and data reliability due to the limited scope of our review.  The purpose of our review was to assess employers’ satisfaction with SSNVS and the Basic Pilot programs.  The entities audited were the Office of Earnings, Enumeration and Administrative Systems under the Deputy Commissioner for Systems; the Office of Central Operations under the Deputy Commissioner for Operations; and the Employer Wage Reporting and Relations Staff under the Deputy Commissioner for Budget, Finance, and Management.  We conducted the audit between April and November 2006 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix E -- Employer Handling of Unverified Employees

Based on our interviews with Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) and Basic Pilot users, we found that many of the employers appeared to have taken appropriate actions when they received indications of verification problems from SSNVS and the Basic Pilot.  We found 40 of the SSNVS users we interviewed indicated when they received the unverified response, they verified the unmatched data with employees, compared the unmatched data with personnel records, or contacted SSA to resolve the unverified responses as outlined in the SSNVS user manual.  Additionally, we found 43 Basic Pilot users we interviewed asserted they notified employees about tentative nonconfirmation responses or contacted SSA to help resolve tentative nonconfirmation responses.  In addition, as authorized by the Basic Pilot program, at least 26 users admitted their employers terminated employees if the employees decided not to contest the tentative nonconfirmation responses. 

SSNVS Unverified Responses

Table E-1 summarizes the actions taken by SSNVS employers, as explained to us by the 50 users, to resolve unverified responses.   As shown in the table, 40 employers stated that to resolve unverified responses, they (1) verified the unmatched data with the affected employees, (2) compared the unmatched data with information included in the employer’s personnel records, or (3) contacted a SSA field office for assistance.  These actions appeared consistent with SSA’s guidance to employers on what to do if a SSN fails to verify.  

While 12 users indicated their employers did not take any actions against affected employees if the unverified responses could not be resolved, 6 users asserted their company had terminated employees in certain instances.  SSA advises employers that an unverified response from SSNVS is not a basis, in and of itself, to take any adverse action against employees, such as termination.  Further, SSA cautions employers that if they use unverified responses to take inappropriate adverse actions against workers they may violate State or Federal law.

Table E-1: Actions Taken by SSNVS Employers
for Unverified Responses

Notes:  (1) These employers were third party providers that verify their clients’ payroll.
        (2) Three of the users did not respond to this question.

Basic Pilot Nonconfirmation Responses

Table E-2 summarizes the actions taken by Basic Pilot employers, as explained to us by the 50 users, when they received nonconfirmation responses.   Based on their responses, it appeared 42 employers were following the Basic Pilot requirements as they provided employees with the Tentative Nonconfirmation Notice, which informs employees of their rights under the program to contest the verification results.   Moreover, 26 of the users asserted their employers terminated employees if the employees decided not to contest the tentative nonconfirmation responses.   Furthermore, 28 of the users stated their employers terminated employees when they received the final nonconfirmation response from the program.  Under the Basic Pilot program, employers can terminate an employee if the employee elects not to contest the tentative nonconfirmation results or if they receive a final nonconfirmation response.  

Table E-2:  Actions Taken by Basic Pilot Employers
for Nonconfirmation Responses

 Notes:      (1) These employers were third party providers that verify their clients’ payroll.
               (2) The responses did not total 50 because some users did not answer all questions.
               (3) We discussed earlier in the report that using the Basic Pilot as a pre-screening tool is
               prohibited.

DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE

Commissioner of Social Security                                                                                                  
Office of Management and Budget, Income Maintenance Branch                                             
Chairman and Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means                                          
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means                                                                           
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security                          
Majority and Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security                                    
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Human Resources                    
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Budget, House of Representatives           
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight          
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs                      
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives         
Chairman and Ranking Minority, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,
   House of Representatives                                                                                                           
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate         
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate                                        
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance                                            
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy      
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging                    

Social Security Advisory Board

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 Resource Management (ORM).  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 Resource Management
ORM supports OIG by providing information resource management and systems security.  ORM also coordinates OIG’s budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human resources.  In addition, ORM 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.

-- FOOTNOTES FOLLOW --