NYC-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > NYC-ROOTS > 2001-06 > 0993601594


From: "Cheryl Lanore" <>
Subject: RE: [NYC] Fw: Fee increase for S.S. applications.
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:26:34 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010626142430.00d8f100@pop-server>



Say I want a computer extract of an SSN application.

A computer extract costs $16.00.

The average hourly fee for a GS-1 through GS-8 is $16.00.

Does that mean it now takes an SSA employee using a computer 1 hour to
handle one request?

OR . . .

Say I want a copy of the original SS-5.

Let's assume that the grade level of the employee handling the request is a
GS-1 through GS-8 (if a higher graded employee is handling the request, it
may be time to do a desk audit and downgrade him/her).

The SSA says that the average hourly fee for a GS-1 through GS-8 is $16.00.
Therefore, if the cost is $27.00, the employee is taking nearly 1 3/4 hours
to handle one request.

And, instead of a computer print-out, I would get a copy of the original
application. Does that mean it costs $11 to make a copy of the application?
($27 minus $16)?

I work for the Government. I could knock out a LOT more than one request in
a 1 3/4 hour time period.

I don't care how long it has been since the SSA has increased rates --
$16.00 (for computer print-out) or $27 (for copy of original SS-5) per
request is too high of a cost. There is just no way that it could cost that
much.

I suggest that those concerned write (or e-mail) their Senators and
Congresspersons asking how SSA can justify this huge rate increase. The
more people that write, the better.

Cheryl

-----Original Message-----

I just thought I would spread the word that the fees for getting a copy of a
Social Security Application are going up drastically on 1 July 2001. If you
apply before then you will be charged the old amount which is now $7 if you
know the number, and $16.50 if you do not.

The new fees are posted at:
http://www.ssa.gov/foia/foia_guide.htm

It appears that the increases are more than substantial, they are gigantic.

This thread: