While the Social Security Administration (SSA) continues to a major shift toward nationalized service delivery, the agency has again postponed implementing some of the technology tied to that shift.  

SSA has paused the nationwide rollout of its National Appointment Scheduling Calendar (NASC) and the related National Workload Management (NWLM) system. According to multiple news outlets, an internal email to SSA staff dated March 31, 2026 announced that an April 13 launch was being “pause[d] until further notice.” This followed an earlier postponement from early March. For now, the rollout is limited to Tennessee and Nevada only, per two Emergency Messages (EMs), EM-26017 and EM-26018, issued April 18, 2026. 

NASC is designed to replace locally managed appointment calendars in SSA field offices and to allow appointments to be scheduled and reassigned on a national basis, including through public self-scheduling for certain initial claims. NWLM is intended to complement that system by distributing work across offices nationally rather than by geographic catchment area. Work would be assigned to the next available technician based on their skillset. 

Federal News Network reports that SSA leadership cited operational concerns and the need for further testing, with the agency now considering a pilot-based approach in two states rather than immediate nationwide deployment. SSA also cited the need to ensure customer confidence. Union representatives have raised concerns about the loss of local discretion, whether state-specific rules – such as those involving a state supplemental payment (SSP) as is provided in New York – will be applied correctly, and the impact on claimants who rely on established relationships with local field offices.

The calendar and workload tools are part of a broader, ongoing effort to centralize customer service and workload distribution at SSA. In a separate decision last fall, SSA had instructed staff to schedule all initial claims by phone only and “zero-out” in-person visits; it later rescinded that directive.

Telephone service has already been centralized, with calls to local offices now being increasingly re-routed to other offices that are sometimes, but not always, in the same area. Under this model, a claimant may no longer interact primarily with their nearest SSA office, even when seeking in-person services. The agency’s public-facing tools also reflect this change. SSA’s online Field Office Locator no longer returns only a single assigned local field office for a given zip code, but instead will list several nearby offices, reinforcing the diminished role of a single home office for a claimant. 

Essential to this shift is the centralizing of SSA’s document management. Currently, documents faxed to published field office fax lines are routed directly into the agency’s WorkTrack system, where they become visible to field office staff. Previously, visibility was limited to select staff in the assigned field office. According to SSA, all field personnel, not just managers, can now view WorkTrack items nationwide through an SSN-based search once they are profiled. Unprofiled or unassigned faxes are visible only within the receiving office. 

Inc. magazine reports that SSA leadership has framed the upcoming transition as a way to improve efficiency and appointment availability amid severe staffing shortages. Others at SSA have described the changes as intended to “smooth over” staffing shortages, but it remains unclear how a reorganization can compensate for the loss of over 7,400 employees, about 13% of staff, in only a year. SSA has also “reshuffled” staff by reassigning over 2,000 employees  who normally process benefits to answer phone lines; some employees complained they received insufficient training.  

Other questions also remain about how national calendaring would function in practice, for example how appointments will be assigned to staff with the right technical expertise, and how appointments will be prioritized and allotted sufficient time. 

As these changes continue to unfold, Disability Law News will monitor developments, particularly for their impact on equitable access to SSA programs and services.  

Recent reporting has raised new alarm about the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) handling of sensitive claimant information, particularly where agency data may be used for immigration enforcement or other non-programmatic purposes. 

In February, WIRED reported that SSA employees at some field offices were instructed to share information about upcoming in‑person appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if requested by ICE agents. According to the reporting, this information could include appointment dates and times for individuals scheduled to appear at SSA offices. The reporting relied on accounts from SSA employees and former officials, and described the instructions as having been communicated verbally rather than through public guidance or written policy. 

Although SSA has not publicly acknowledged such a policy, the implications are significant. Advocates have long emphasized that SSA field offices (FOs) function as access points for essential benefits and services, including for U.S. citizen children and lawfully present noncitizens who may be accompanied by family members with more precarious immigration status. The prospect that appointment information could be used to facilitate ICE presence at SSA locations raises concerns about whether individuals may be deterred from accessing benefits or complying with agency requirements out of fear of enforcement activity.

Notably, the reported instructions, if accurate, would conflict with SSA’s existing policies, which are clear that FO staff are not independently authorized to disclose information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or ICE. Under the Privacy Act and SSA’s disclosure regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 401, any such request must be made in writing and routed to the Office of Privacy and Disclosure within SSA’s Office of General Counsel, not handled locally. See POMS GN 00313.001,  03313.095, 03312.080. Disclosure is permitted only in response to a valid, documented law-enforcement request that meets strict criteria and that is processed at administrative levels higher than the FO. 

The report is occurring in a broader landscape of expanded inter‑agency sharing that continues to draw increasing scrutiny. As discussed in the July 2025, October 2025, and January 2026 issues of Disability Law News, SSA has been engaged in expanded information-sharing  arrangements and the use of Systems of Records Notices (SORNs) to facilitate cross-agency sharing with systems including the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database – a system used by agencies to verify immigration status that now permits bulk queries of citizenship data for hundreds of millions of SSN holders – prompting concerns about secondary uses of program data for purposes such as immigration enforcement or voter eligibility verification. This use of SAVE is the subject of ongoing litigation.

Privacy concerns are further deepened by new details regarding the breach last year of SSA systems by affiliates of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Last month, the Washington Post reported that a new anonymous whistleblower has claimed that an ex-DOGE member told several co-workers that he had in his personal possession SSA’s entire Numident and Master Death File databases and “at least one thumb drive” for use at his new company, and that he retained “‘God-level’ security access to the agency’s systems.” A separate whistleblower complaint filed last year by SSA’s former chief data officer alleged that DOGE members had improperly uploaded sensitive data onto a digital cloud. 

SSA’s inspector general is investigating the new whistleblower complaint and alerted four Congressional committees of the disclosure. Minority members of the House Oversight Committee  and other Democrats, including Senator Ron Wyden, have called for briefings. 

Despite this revelation, as well as an admission by SSA to the lower court in January about the improper sharing of data with a political advocacy group, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion on April 10, 2026 vacating the  district court decision in American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration, 778 F. Supp.3d 685 (D.Md. Apr. 17, 2025) granting preliminary injunction, and limiting  DOGE access. The Circuit decision was based on the record before the district court at the time it issued the preliminary injunction, and deferred to the Supreme Court’s prior stay of the injunction pending a disposition of the appeal. In a footnote, the opinion stated that although it considered the new disclosures to be "alarming” and “rais[ing] serious questions about the [SSA’s] earlier conduct before the district court,” it was for the district court to consider the new facts. More details about the case are in the April 2025 issue of this newsletter. 

What does this mean for disability claimants? The expansive sharing of sensitive data risks is eroding public trust in the agency and in a claimant’s ability to safely access benefits and services. Advocates will be watching closely for further disclosures, guidance, or litigation that may shed light on the scope of these practices and their impact on the communities SSA exists to serve. 

On February 18, 2026, the Social Security Administration (SSA) announced in a Dear Colleague letter to advocates that it had launched a new Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Improvements Team dedicated to improving SSI. At the time of the announcement, Sean Brune had been named SSI Program Lead. But amid several other broader leadership changes, Brune has since been named the new Chief Financial Officer, and SSA has not announced who will serve as the next SSI lead or how the team will be staffed going forward.   

In announcing the new team, SSA said it was aimed at making SSI processing more efficient, reducing improper payments, speeding up automation, and making it easier for recipients to comply with reporting rules. The agency acknowledged that although SSI is a smaller share of total benefit payments, it consumes a significant share of administrative costs and represents a large portion of the agency’s improper payments.  

The new office reportedly reviewed more than 170 recommendations and identified policy changes it believes can be implemented quickly. SSA highlighted its implementation of the Payroll Information Exchange (PIE) to verify prior-month of wage reports for SSDI beneficiaries and SSI recipients (and deemors) who provide authorization. The agency also cited the expanded use of Access to Financial Information data to identify assets that may affect SSI eligibility, to aide early detection of excess resources and avoid large overpayments.

SSA also touted the Upload Documents feature in my Social Security, and a number of “clarifications” and instructions including those for SSI interviews that emphasize reporting responsibilities and penalties for late reporting. The agency also cited simplified guidance on in-kind support and maintenance in non-institutional care settings and the determination of current market value; as well as instructions for developing child support evidence.

Data exchanges can reduce reporting burdens and prevent improper payments. But they can also accelerate adverse actions when the underlying data is incomplete, mismatched, or difficult for recipients to correct quickly. This risk was highlighted in a report issued last year by the National Academy of Social Insurance’s (NASI) Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (AI) about the future of AI at SSA. With SSA increasing its data automation, advocates have urged SSA to guard against wrongful suspensions, terminations, and overpayments when new data sources and process “simplifications” do not match real-life circumstances.  

A dedicated team focusing on SSI could present an opportunity to reduce the administrative burden of this complex program for both SSA and SSI claimants. Whether the team delivers positive improvements will depend on careful implementation and strong safeguards to protect access to benefits and due process for claimants. Advocates will be watching closely for details on leadership, staffing, and priorities – as well as for adequate safeguards that any new processes will not result in improper benefits reductions or terminations.  

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has announced an update to its Appointed Representative Services (ARS): representatives can now electronically submit good-cause statements for untimely requests for a hearing directly through ARS at the time the late hearing request is filed. SSA announced this change in an April 15, 2026 “Dear Colleague” letter, characterizing the update as a response to feedback from the representative community and an effort to address good cause issues earlier in the adjudicatory process.  

According to SSA, ARS now includes “good cause statements for untimely hearing requests” as a selectable option within the existing representative drop down menu. When submitted: 

• the hearing office is automatically notified; 

• the statement is routed to the appropriate “B” section of the electronic record; and 

• the submission is explicitly labeled in the eFolder, making it easier for hearing offices to identify and address the issue before unnecessary scheduling or prolonged docketing occurs.  

SSA states that the change is intended to reduce situations in which cases are scheduled without a threshold good cause determination—or, conversely, linger on hearing dockets despite an unresolved timeliness issue.  

A claimant generally has 60 days (plus five days for mailing) from receipt of a reconsideration determination to request a hearing before an administrative law judge. When that deadline is missed, SSA may still accept the request only if good cause is established under the regulations and applicable policy guidance. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.911, 416.1411; HALLEX I‑2‑0‑60 (now POMS HA 01205.060).  

SSA must consider circumstances beyond the claimant’s control that may have prevented timely filing. Examples include serious illness or hospitalization; physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitations; or misleading or confusing SSA notices or actions. In practice, late hearing requests commonly arise in cases involving housing instability, health crises, mental illness, language access barriers, or notice problems —circumstances frequently present for low-income claimants and unrepresented individuals. Advocates may also encounter late filings when representation begins after the deadline has passed and counsel must reconstruct events supporting good cause. 

While this systems change does not alter the substantive good cause standard or shift the burden of proof, it is an improvement that could reduce unnecessary dismissals or delays. 

The Social Security Administration (SSA) issued an Emergency Message (EM) on March 16, 2026, addressing expedited handling of priority disability cases. EM-26011 responds in part to a 2024 Inspector General audit that found gaps in consistency, monitoring, and the absence of clear processing timeframes for priority claims, which contributed to delays for thousands of claimants. A more recent March 2026 Inspector General audit also raised concerns related critical payment processing, finding that SSA incorrectly processed nearly 40 percent of “critical” and other emergency payments, resulting in both overpayments and underpayments.  

The EM has two purposes: (1) to establish new timeframes for certain priority case types that previously lacked specific deadlines, and (2) to remind staff of existing, unchanged timeframes for other priority categories. EM-26011 reinforces that certain categories of claims—such as presumptive disability/blindness, unhoused claimants, delayed cases, inquiries from public officials, and fast-track cases like Quick Disability Determinations (QDD) and Compassionate Allowances (CAL)—must be identified early and handled on an expedited basis. The agency emphasizes that staff across field offices, Disability Determination Services (DDS), and hearing levels must follow specific internal timeframes for early case actions, including prompt assignment and initiation of development, while continuing to monitor cases throughout processing. Although later stages of development may depend on factors outside SSA control (such as obtaining medical evidence), the policy stresses that proactive follow-up and internal tracking are essential to prevent unnecessary delays. 

Importantly, the message does not create an entirely new system but clarifies expectations and introduces new internal timelines and follow-up procedures for newly receipted cases, while reminding staff to continue =applying existing priority-case policies. Under SSA’s Program Operations Manual System (POMS), “priority cases” (often called critical or expedited cases) are categories of disability claims that must be handled faster than the normal queue—but the key point is that the current POMS generally requires expedited handling without setting rigid, universal deadlines. See POMS DI 23020.001 and 23022.000. 

The EM signals that further updates for timeframes to the POMS are forthcoming, but offers the following guidelines until that time: 

Presumptive Disability or Blindness (PD/PB) 

The field office (FO) must add the PD/PB flag in the EDCS system before transferring the case to DDS. 

• FO/work support unit (WSU): Schedule appointment within 3 workdays of claimant contact or 800-number referral. 
• FO/WSU: Enter disability information and transfer to DDS within 2 workdays (certified electronic folders) or 7 workdays (non-certified). 
• DDS: Receipt case within 2 workdays (7 for non-certified) and assign to an adjudicator by the next workday. 

Delayed Cases 

A case is considered delayed when it has been at a workstation for more than 70 calendar days — measured against normal processing experience. The Aged Case flag does not apply at the Hearing or Appeals Council level. 

• FO/WSU: Flag the case for expedited processing and transfer within 2–3 workdays after receipt of all necessary information. 
• DDS: Assign within 2–3 workdays of receipt — whether it is an initial case, reconsideration, CDR, or a case returned by Central Operations or Risk and Quality that has been at the FO for 70+ days. 

Homeless Cases 

A claimant is homeless if they lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, or expect to lose current accommodations within 14 days with no fixed residence to follow. The FO/WSU flags the claim as Homeless whenever a claimant alleges or case information indicates homelessness. DDS may also add the flag in DCPS or eView systems. 

• FO/WSU: Complete all required forms during the initial interview without curtailment. Transfer no later than the next workday. 
• DDS: Assign no later than the next workday after receipt. 

QDD and CAL Cases 

• FO/WSU: Complete all required development, including a full application and all non-medical factors. 
• FO/WSU: If a deferred application was taken and the case is later identified as QDD or CAL, re-contact the claimant within 1 workday to complete a full application and non-medical development. 
• FO/WSU: When notified that a case has been manually added for CAL processing, add a 20-day tickle date to the MCS DW01 or CCE Development Worksheet and initiate full non-medical development. 
• DDS: Assign and initiate development within 1 workday of receipt. 

Inquiries from Public Officials 

Important distinction: for public official inquiries, priority means a timely response to the official — not expediting the underlying disability case unless it independently qualifies (e.g., CAL, QDD, Terminal Illness (TERI), dire need). 

• FO/WSU (Congressional and Non-Congressional): Reply within 20 workdays. If unresolved, send an interim reply and set a 30-day diary for follow-up until case processing is complete. 
• DDS (Congressional): Respond within 7 calendar days. Final reply due within 20 calendar days of acknowledgement; if not possible, send interim reply with subsequent communication every 30 calendar days. 
• DDS (Non-Congressional): Respond within 14 calendar days. Same interim/final reply framework as Congressional inquiries. 
• DDS (White House referrals): Substantive or final reply within 9 working days. 

Timeframes are unchanged for TERI, Military Casualty/Wounded Warrior (MC/WW) and VAPT, and dire need.

For advocates, EM-26011 highlights the ongoing importance of identifying priority case criteria early—such as dire need, terminal illness, or unhoused— and ensuring those flags are clearly documented and tracked. While EM-26011's timeframes apply to cases receipted on or after March 16, 2026, for cases already in the pipeline, advocates should push for compliance as a matter of policy spirit, even if the specific deadlines technically apply to new receipts. The policy underscores that expedited processing is not discretionary; it is a structured requirement designed to reduce the financial and medical hardship caused by delays in disability adjudication.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has issued Social Security Ruling (SSR) 26-1p, a new ruling that clarifies how adjudicators evaluate continuing disability reviews (CDRs) for children receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. This is timely considering the push by the agency to fund more CDRs in 2026. While the ruling does not change the underlying legal standard, it represents an effort to simplify and standardize how the Medical Improvement Review Standard (MIRS) is applied in these cases. 

At its core, SSR 26-1p streamlines the three-step evaluation process used in childhood CDRs. The ruling confirms that adjudicators must determine: (1) whether there has been medical improvement in the impairments identified at the comparison point decision (CPD); (2) whether those impairments still meet or medically equal the listing considered at the time of the CPD; and (3) whether the child’s current impairments—considered as a whole—meet, medically equal, or functionally equal the listings. Importantly, the ruling eliminates prior redundancies in the analysis, particularly by removing the requirement to evaluate “functional equivalence” at multiple steps in the process. 

SSR 26-1p also formally rescinds earlier guidance (SSR 05-3p), which had become outdated due to changes in the regulatory framework and the passage of time. The agency explained that older instructions, particularly those tied to pre-2001 comparison point decisions, are no longer relevant, allowing SSA to consolidate and simplify its subregulatory guidance. 

For advocates, the practical impact of SSR 26-1p is twofold. First, it reinforces that medical improvement remains the central question in any childhood CDR, and that adjudicators must clearly compare prior and current evidence. Second, by simplifying the evaluation structure, the ruling may reduce analytical errors, but it also places greater emphasis on clear articulation at each step, particularly when SSA finds that disability has ceased. 

Although limited to childhood SSI cases, SSR 26-1p reflects a broader trend within SSA toward streamlining adjudication and standardizing decision-making in post-entitlement reviews. This also potentially overlaps with trends to make changes to how the CDRs are being performed, which is also discussed in a different article in this quarter’s Disability Law News. Advocates should be prepared to use the ruling both as a guide to the proper sequence of analysis and as a tool for challenging decisions that fail to follow the clarified MIRS framework. 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has finalized a sweeping new rule reshaping key aspects of the federal civil service, signaling a significant shift in how certain government employees are classified, protected, and removed. Published on February 6, 2026, the rule—titled “Improving Performance, Accountability, and Responsiveness in the Civil Service”—creates a new category of federal workers known as “Schedule Policy/Career” (Schedule P/C) positions. This final rule implements Executive Order 14171, which directed OPM to modernize how policy-influencing positions are designated and managed across the federal government to ensure that employees holding these crucially important positions can be held accountable for poor performance or misconduct. Notably, OPM received more than 40,500 public comments on the proposal and acknowledged that roughly 94% opposed it. 

While these positions remain part of the career civil service and must be filled through merit-based processes, they are now treated as at-will employment, meaning they are exempt from traditional civil service protections, including adverse action procedures and appeals. The rule also makes clear that Schedule Policy/Career may not be used for workforce reshaping or mass layoffs or to circumvent existing reduction-in-force (RIF) laws and procedures. 

However, proponents of the regulation worry it threatens longstanding merit-based protections, increases political pressure on career staff, weakens collective bargaining, and risks weakening the government’s ability to serve the public. 

OPM justified the change as a response to longstanding concerns about accountability within the federal workforce. By removing procedural barriers, the rule aims to allow agencies to act more quickly when employees in influential roles fail to meet expectations or resist executive policy direction. 

OPM has issued implementation guidance and model agency policies (including a template policy protecting Schedule Policy/Career employees against whistleblower retaliation, political discrimination, and other prohibited personnel practices) to support agencies as they adopt the new framework. 

Critically, the authority to designate positions as Schedule P/C ultimately rests with the President, based on agency recommendations reviewed by OPM. This centralization has raised concerns among critics about potential politicization and reduced job security, while supporters argue it enhances democratic accountability by ensuring that senior career officials are responsive to elected leadership. 

Democracy Forward is already challenging Schedule P/C in federal district court.  For claimant representatives, the takeaway is practical: monitor how the rule is implemented at SSA, track policy changes) and be prepared to respond when policy shifts affect adjudication standards or case development. 

Claimants and advocates are painfully aware of the worsening trends in customer service at the Social Security Administration (SSA). Recently, two new reports have documented how recent administrative changes at SSA over the past year have sharply increased delays, errors, and barriers to human assistance, with particularly severe consequences for the most marginalized claimants. 

"In the last Year, It's Gotten a Lot Worse"

In March 2026, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), in partnership with the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), released “In the Last Year, It’s Gotten a Lot Worse”: Barriers to Disability Benefits in 2025. The report is based on interviews conducted in summer 2025 with 52 attorney and non‑attorney disability benefits advocates from 32 organizations nationwide, collectively serving more than 8,000 SSI and SSDI claimants. 

The authors found that recent SSA administrative changes have produced widespread access barriers, including longer delays in processing and payment, increased errors and seemingly erroneous denials, reduced access to trained human assistance, and the erosion of effective escalation and accountability mechanisms. Advocates consistently described being unable to reach knowledgeable SSA staff or obtain reliable information about case status, even in time‑sensitive or life‑threatening situations. 

The harms of these changes were not evenly distributed. According to interviewees, people with unstable housing, limited internet access, or cognitive or psychiatric disabilities were disproportionately harmed by SSA’s increased reliance on online portals, automated phone systems, and AI‑driven tools. Advocates reported that clients unable to navigate these systems were more likely to experience benefit interruptions, overpayments without adequate notice, loss of housing or food assistance, and serious health consequences. 

The report also highlights how these barriers affect advocates themselves. Providers described spending extraordinary amounts of time performing clerical and follow‑up tasks simply to ensure that documents were received, calls returned, or errors corrected—reducing organizational capacity and limiting the number of clients they could competently represent. Several advocates noted that longstanding informal problem‑solving channels within SSA have largely disappeared, leaving few options when routine processes fail. 

Based on these findings, the report offers ten recommendations. They include staffing the agency to meet service needs; providing meaningful alternatives to online‑only and AI‑driven service models; clearly defining and resourcing escalation pathways; strengthening internal accountability mechanisms; protecting the privacy and benefit access of immigrants and mixed‑status families; and committing to ongoing  communication with advocates and beneficiaries before implementing changes that affect customer service or benefit delivery. 

The DREDF/AAPD report was recently discussed in a webinar hosted by Justice in Aging, Navigating the Social Security Administration: Options for Advocates on April 15, 2026. A panel highlighted strategies for navigating SSA amid diminished responsiveness. 

One‑Year Report of the Senate Minority’s Social Security War Room 

A second report was released by the Office of Senator Elizabeth Warren to mark the first anniversary of the Senate minority’s Social Security War Room initiative. The report echoes many of the same operational failures described by legal services providers in the DREDF/AAPD study. 

The War Room report attributes worsening customer service—including extreme phone wait times, reduced field office accessibility, and delayed claims processing—to significant staffing cuts and internal reassignments at SSA. It characterizes these changes as “back‑door cuts” to Social Security benefits by making lawful access to benefits far more difficult in practice. 

The report also summarizes congressional oversight efforts that, according to its authors, forced SSA to retreat from or modify certain policies, including proposals that would have limited disability benefit eligibility or obscured service‑level metrics. It underscores ongoing concerns about transparency, data handling, and the cumulative impact of administrative decisions on older adults and people with disabilities. 

Given SSA’s recent decisions to withhold or narrow the scope of publicly available customer service data, understanding the practical effects of changes at the agency has become more difficult. Against that backdrop, these reports are useful in documenting patterns that are not reliably captured in SSA’s official metrics, particularly where the agency has emphasized selective indicators such as call answer rates over more comprehensive measures of service performance, as reported by Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, news media, and in prior issues of Disability Law News.