SSA Does Not Need a Lamborghini. It Needs Service.

 

While controversial, I applaud SSA’s shift toward frontline service. The agency serves more than 300 million Social Security number holders. It also serves more than 75 million beneficiaries through online services, telephone service, and more than 1,200 field offices. The scale of that mission supports placing a large share of the workforce in direct service and the operations that complete the work. SSA performance data SSA organization

That principle is also found in private industry. Banks employ more than 317,000 tellers and 153,000 customer-service representatives. They also employ more than 350,000 loan officers and loan-processing staff. Insurance companies employ hundreds of thousands of agents, claims staff, and policy-processing employees. These industries combine public contact with processing, technology, compliance, and management. BLS banking workforce data BLS insurance workforce data

The comparison has limits. Social Security cases can involve earnings, marriage, disability, medical evidence, and payment rules. The work is governed by statutes and regulations. It is also governed by court decisions and agency instructions. SSA needs speed, but it also needs judgment and accuracy.

The Lamborghini image is useful because it exposes the wrong goal. The public does not need a system built to look fast in a press release. It needs a system that starts every day and reaches the destination. Business research reaches a similar conclusion. Customers judge the full journey more closely than they judge one contact with an organization. McKinsey research on customer journeys

Answering the telephone is only the start of that journey. The caller needs someone who understands the question and knows what must happen next. A fast answer that leads to another call does not resolve the problem. Harvard Business Review research found that the need to call back is a major source of customer effort. That research recommends solving related issues before they create another contact. Harvard Business Review

The Case for Moving Employees to the Frontline

There are reasons to move regional and headquarters employees onto the phones. During a service crisis, SSA should use available staff to answer the public. These employees can handle basic questions and schedule appointments. They can also provide claim status or explain notices. This may allow claims specialists to focus on harder work.

SSA has a public contact mission. Frontline assignments can reconnect employees with that mission. Most Lamborghinis sit in a garage unused, untouched, and isolated as a collector item. We need presence. Research on public administration shows that frontline employees do more than deliver policy. They also exercise judgment when rules meet the facts of a person’s life. Regional and headquarters employees may understand policy differently after seeing how it works during public contact. That experience can improve policy and management. Systematic review of street-level bureaucracy

National workload distribution also offers benefits. One office may face a backlog while another has available capacity. Central operations can build expertise in defined areas. Business research shows that shared services can improve standardization and provide access to a larger pool of talent. It also warns that these models need customer service and talent development in addition to cost reduction. McKinsey on global business services

SSA has been moving toward this type of national workload model. The agency developed systems for national appointment scheduling and workload management. The broader rollout was delayed and later narrowed. That pause suggests the agency recognized a need for more testing before full deployment. Federal News Network on the initial plan Federal News Network on the delay

These are valid reasons to change the operating model. Not every employee must understand every part of Social Security policy. Routine work can be separated from work that requires more judgment. Shared-services research supports centralizing work that is repeatable and based on defined rules. The same research supports retaining expertise for work that requires knowledge and judgment. Deloitte on retained and shared services

The Case Against It

Answering a call is not the same as resolving a problem. An employee who has never processed a claim may not understand the journey behind the question. The caller may not know which facts matter. The caller may also ask about one issue when another issue poses the greater risk. Research from the National Academies shows that experts recognize patterns that novices often do not see. National Academies on experts and novices

Claims specialists and customer-service representatives do more than search policy. They understand how one action affects the next step. They know where a case is likely to become stuck. They can identify facts that require more development. Public-administration research explains that frontline work depends on professional knowledge and discretion within a system of rules. Street-level bureaucracy literature review

An unprepared employee can create more work. The employee may provide an incomplete answer or send the caller to another office. The caller then contacts SSA again. The first call may count as answered even though the problem remains. Customer-service research warns that standard first-contact measures can miss later calls caused by the original issue. Harvard Business Review research

Regional and headquarters employees also have other work. They support policy, training, technology, security, budget, and oversight. Moving them to the phones does not remove those responsibilities. Moving processing staff creates an even clearer tradeoff because those employees complete claims and payment actions. Reporting in 2026 found that SSA moved employees from processing centers and support units to telephone work. Government Executive

The agency’s own watchdog has identified the effect of shifting resources between service channels. SSA reassigned field-office employees to help with national telephone calls. According to regional executives, this affected service in the offices that supplied those employees. One executive reported that waits in some offices grew from 30 minutes to several hours. The example shows why performance must be measured across the agency. SSA Office of the Inspector General

Is the Field Office Becoming an Intake Center?

Central processing is not new at SSA. Program service centers have long handled payment and post-entitlement work. Workload Support Units have also existed for years. Field offices have never completed every action on every case. SSA’s own plans define field offices, teleservice centers, processing centers, and support units as parts of its direct-service network. SSA Annual Performance Plan

The scale of centralization now appears to be changing. SSA recently placed all eight processing centers under a Central Processing organization. That organization also manages Earnings, Workload Support Units, and Field Office Support Units. SSA describes those units as backend support for field offices and the National 800 Number. These are documented changes even if the final operating model has not been explained. SSA processing-center announcement

These changes raise a question about the future role of field offices. Is SSA turning them into intake centers that collect information for decisions made elsewhere? The current evidence does not prove that this is the final design. It does show more central control and more movement of work across organizational lines. That makes the question fair and worth answering.

There is a business case for such a structure. SSA could use technicians for routine intake and reserve specialists for decisions. It could direct work to offices with available capacity. Central teams could also develop expertise in defined workloads. Deloitte reports that shared-services organizations seek standardization, cost reduction, and better ownership of work from beginning to end. Deloitte 2025 Global Business Services Survey

The same business research also identifies the risk. Centralized services can reproduce the silos they were meant to remove. McKinsey warns that limited ownership and the absence of an end-to-end view can prevent meaningful improvement. Centralization is therefore not enough by itself. Someone must remain accountable for the complete process. McKinsey on global business services

Social Security is not a data-entry business. People do not always present their lives in the order required by an SSA screen. They may not know which program applies or which fact changes the result. An experienced employee can recognize patterns that a new employee may miss. The National Academies’ research on expertise supports this difference between access to information and the ability to interpret it. National Academies

A divided process creates more handoffs. One employee collects the information and another develops the evidence. A third employee may make the decision. Research in other high-risk service settings shows that handoffs can omit key information or transfer incorrect information. The direct evidence comes from health care, but the operating lesson applies to any process that divides responsibility across people. Peer-reviewed handoff research AHRQ handoff guidance

Narrow roles are not always bad. A card replacement may not require a claims specialist. Routine work should be handled through the least costly channel that can complete it correctly. The risk begins when the same model is applied to work that requires investigation. Shared-services best practice distinguishes repeatable transactions from work that depends on knowledge and judgment. Deloitte shared-services guidance

The agency may save money at intake. It may also create more calls, corrections, and appeals. Those costs may appear in another component or reporting period. Business research therefore recommends end-to-end ownership and measurement. Cost per intake is not the same as cost per completed case. McKinsey on end-to-end customer journeys

Can AI Close the Knowledge Gap?

SSA is expanding its use of artificial intelligence. The agency maintains an inventory of current and planned AI uses. It has also created an AI Governance Board and designated a chief AI officer. Those are sound governance steps. They establish responsibility, but they do not show how each tool performs. SSA AI inventory SSA AI strategy

AI may help employees locate policy and related instructions. That could reduce search time and support employees during public contact. It may also help identify cases that need review. These are valid uses if the tool is tested against the work it will perform. GAO’s AI framework calls for governance, sound data, performance testing, and continued monitoring. GAO AI Accountability Framework

Finding an instruction is not the same as understanding it. POMS is a main source of instructions used by SSA employees. One provision may state a rule while another provides an exception. Employees may also need to consider regulations or court decisions. An AI system must identify the controlling authority instead of selecting the passage that appears most relevant. SSA’s description of POMS

AI also creates risks of false answers and misplaced confidence. NIST identifies confabulation as a risk of generative AI. It also identifies automation bias and overreliance as risks in the relationship between people and AI systems. These risks become more important when the user lacks enough experience to recognize an error. NIST Generative AI Profile

When instructions appear to conflict, the AI should not choose one without warning. It should display the relevant instructions and identify the conflict. It should send the issue to someone with more experience. The policy component should then review the conflict. This approach follows the NIST model of measuring risk and managing it through human oversight. NIST AI Risk Management Framework

SSA should publish evidence about how its tools perform. Testing should cover retirement, disability, SSI, Medicare, and post-entitlement work. It should examine errors and missed instructions. It should also examine performance across claimant groups and types of cases. GAO recommends testing performance and monitoring AI systems after deployment. GAO AI framework

Current federal policy also requires more than adoption. OMB directs agencies to monitor AI systems and conduct periodic human review. It requires training for the people who use AI. It also calls for human oversight and a process for review or appeal when AI affects important decisions. These requirements provide a baseline for judging SSA’s approach. OMB Memorandum M-25-21

Employee adoption is not proof of success. Faster searches are not proof of better service. A tool works only if it improves the result. SSA should measure whether AI reduces errors and repeat contacts. It should also report how often employees reject or correct the tool’s answer. GAO AI performance and monitoring principles

AI can help employees find knowledge. It cannot create experience by itself. Research shows that experts recognize patterns that novices do not see. Current federal guidance also requires training and human oversight for AI use. Staff, tools, policy, and experience must work together. National Academies OMB M-25-21

Measure the Whole Journey

SSA will organize its workforce around the measures selected by leadership. If leaders measure calls answered, employees will answer more calls. If they measure completed intake tasks, employees will complete more intake tasks. Those measures do not show whether the person’s problem was resolved. Research on customer service recommends measuring effort and repeat contact instead of speed alone. Harvard Business Review

SSA should track first-contact resolution and repeat calls. It should track office visits caused by failed telephone contacts. It should measure work returned for missing development. It should also track errors and the time from first contact to final resolution. GAO recommends that federal customer-service goals include targets and performance measures. GAO on federal customer experience

The agency should compare results before and after centralization. It should determine whether telephone gains caused delays elsewhere. It should examine complex cases separately from routine transactions. It should also review outcomes for people who cannot use online services. McKinsey recommends designing service around the complete digital and live-contact journey. McKinsey on omnichannel service

The agency should measure the full cost of resolution. A lower-paid technician may reduce the cost of intake. Incomplete intake can create work for field offices and processing centers. It can also lead to notices and appeals. Shared-services research recommends measuring results across the full process instead of focusing only on one unit. Deloitte Global Business Services Survey McKinsey on end-to-end ownership

A person may start online and then call the National 800 Number. That person may next visit a field office before the case reaches a processing center. The public experiences one agency throughout that journey. Federal customer-experience guidance seeks service that is simple across channels. SSA should measure the journey in the same way. Federal customer-experience program GAO federal customer-experience review

A Better Approach

Regional and headquarters employees should spend time serving the public. That experience can improve policy and management. It should not be confused with technical expertise. Employees should receive work that matches their training. Research on expertise supports the value of experience in recognizing patterns and exceptions. National Academies

Routine calls can be handled by technicians or support staff. Claims and payment problems should go to employees trained for that work. Complex cases need a path to someone with authority. Shared-services practice supports tiered service when escalation is clear and expertise remains available. It also supports retaining knowledge-based work outside the basic transaction tier. Deloitte retained-organization guidance

Employees should shadow experienced representatives before answering calls. AI should support training instead of replacing it. Supervisors should measure accuracy and resolution. SSA’s own action plan called for more live interaction with trainers and mentors during field-office and WSU training. It also called for refresher training for experienced technicians. SSA 2024 Action Plan

Experienced employees must remain available in every public-contact channel. A technician needs help when facts conflict or another program may apply. Escalation cannot mean placing a request into another queue without ownership. Research on service organizations stresses the need for end-to-end ownership. Federal AI rules also require human oversight when AI supports high-impact work. McKinsey on global business services OMB M-25-21

SSA should use rotations between its components. Employees should see how work moves from intake to decision and payment. They should identify where information is lost. The lessons should lead to changes in policy and systems. Research on customer journeys supports organizing improvement around the full process instead of separate touchpoints. McKinsey customer-journey research

Online service, telephone service, and field-office service are not competing missions. Each channel serves a different need. Processing centers and support units must complete the work those channels create. Moving delays between components does not improve service. SSA’s inspector general has already documented how improving one channel can affect another. SSA Office of the Inspector General

Centralization, specialization, technicians, and AI may help SSA. The evidence supports testing these approaches. It does not support assuming that they work. SSA should explain the model and publish the results. The test is whether people receive faster and more accurate resolutions across the complete journey.

SSA does not need Lamborghini's. It needs a system that works every day. More employees on the frontline may help. Good tools may also help them. Neither can replace staff, training, judgment, ownership, and experience.

References

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.). Handoffs. Patient Safety Network. Retrieved July 30, 2026, from https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer/handoffs

Alms, N., & Katz, E. (2026, February 6). Social Security is directing employees who normally process benefits to answer phones instead. Government Executive. https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2026/02/social-security-directing-employees-who-normally-process-benefits-answer-phones-instead/411253/

Amar, J., Raabe, J., & Roggenhofer, S. (2019). Customer first: Personalizing the customer-care journey. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/operations/our%20insights/customer%20first%20personalizing%20the%20customer%20care%20journey/customer-first-personalizing-the-customer-care.pdf

Autio, C., Schwartz, R., Dunietz, J., Jain, S., Stanley, M., Tabassi, E., Hall, P., & Roberts, K. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1

Chang, A., & Brewer, G. A. (2022). Street-level bureaucracy in public administration: A systematic literature review. Public Management Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2065517

Daub, M., Ess, A., Silver, J., & Singh, S. (2017). Does the global business services model still matter? McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.de/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/McKinsey%20Digital/Our%20Insights/Does%20the%20global%20business%20services%20model%20still%20matter/Does-the-global-business-services-model-still-matter.pdf

Deloitte. (2010). Getting the retained organization right: The other half of the shared services equation. https://www.cdfifund.gov/system/files/documents/us_css_getting-the-retained-organization-right.pdf

Deloitte. (2025). 2025 global business services survey. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/services/consulting/services/shared-services-survey.html

Dixon, M., Freeman, K., & Toman, N. (2010). Stop trying to delight your customers. Harvard Business Review, 88(7–8), 116–122. https://hbr.org/2010/07/stop-trying-to-delight-your-customers

Federal News Network. (2026, January 8). Social Security seeks nationwide system to manage caseload for smaller workforce. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/management/2026/01/social-security-seeks-nationwide-system-to-manage-caseload-for-smaller-workforce/

Federal News Network. (2026, April 2). Social Security postpones rollout of nationwide systems to manage its workload. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/management/2026/04/social-security-postpones-rollout-of-nationwide-systems-to-manage-its-workload/

McKinsey & Company. (2016). Customer experience: Creating value through transforming customer journeys. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Public%20and%20Social%20Sector/Our%20Insights/Customer%20Experience/Creating%20value%20through%20transforming%20customer%20journeys.pdf

McKinsey & Company. (2024, March 4). The value of innovation in global business services. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/operations-blog/the-value-of-innovation-in-global-business-services

Maechler, N., Neher, K., & Park, R. (2016). From touchpoints to journeys: Seeing the world as customers do. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.de/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Marketing%20and%20Sales/Our%20Insights/From%20touchpoints%20to%20journeys%20Seeing%20the%20world%20as%20customers%20do/From_touchpoints_to_journeys_Seeing_the_world_as_customers_do.pdf

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2000). How experts differ from novices. In How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

Office of Management and Budget. (2025, April 3). Accelerating federal use of AI through innovation, governance, and public trust (Memorandum M-25-21). Executive Office of the President. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/M-25-21-Accelerating-Federal-Use-of-AI-through-Innovation-Governance-and-Public-Trust.pdf

Performance.gov. (n.d.). Federal customer experience. Retrieved July 30, 2026, from https://www.performance.gov/cx/

Social Security Administration. (n.d.). Organizational structure of the Social Security Administration. Retrieved July 30, 2026, from https://www.ssa.gov/org/

Social Security Administration. (n.d.). SSA’s policy information site: Program Operations Manual System. Retrieved July 30, 2026, from https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/home?readform=

Social Security Administration. (2024). Downloadable action plan 2024. https://www.ssa.gov/agency/materials/ssa-action-plan-2024.pdf

Social Security Administration. (2025). Annual performance plan for fiscal years 2025–2026. https://www.ssa.gov/agency/performance/materials/2026/SSA_FYs2025-2026_APP.pdf

Social Security Administration. (2025). Enterprise artificial intelligence strategy report. https://www.ssa.gov/ai/policy/SSA%20Enterprise%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Strategy%20Report.pdf

Social Security Administration. (2026). Artificial intelligence at Social Security. https://www.ssa.gov/ai

Social Security Administration. (2026, June 9). Social Security performance. https://www.ssa.gov/ssa-performance

Social Security Administration. (2026, July 8). Recent enhancements in processing centers. https://www.ssa.gov/news/en/advocates/2026-07-08.html

Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General. (2025). The Social Security Administration’s major management and performance challenges during fiscal year 2025. https://www.ssa.gov/finance/2025/The%20Social%20Security%20Administration%27s%20Major%20Management%20and%20Performance%20Challenges%20During%20Fiscal%20Year%202025.pdf

Sule, A. A., Caputo, D., Gohal, J., & Dascenzo, D. (2020). Desirable features of an interdisciplinary handoff. JMIR Nursing, 3(1), Article e18914. https://doi.org/10.2196/18914

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.-a). Credit intermediation and related activities: NAICS 522. Retrieved July 30, 2026, from https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag522.htm

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.-b). Insurance carriers and related activities: NAICS 524. Retrieved July 30, 2026, from https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag524.htm

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2021). Artificial intelligence: An accountability framework for federal agencies and other entities (GAO-21-519SP). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-519sp

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2024). Federal customer experience: OMB has taken actions to implement selected leading practices but could do more (GAO-24-106632). https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106632.pdf

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2025). Federal customer experience: OMB can better assess the improvement efforts of high-impact service providers (GAO-25-107652). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107652

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (n.d.). Artificial intelligence. Retrieved July 30, 2026, from https://www.gao.gov/artificial-intelligence