Performance Details

Department of Administration - Office of Administrative Hearings

• Return to Departments
• Department of Administration website

Mission

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is an independent statewide hearing office housed within the Department of Administration. The OAH’s mission is to deliver high-quality adjudication services, which ensure that fair hearings are conducted in a timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner, and to provide effective, efficient alternative dispute resolution services.

Core Services

• Conduct hearings and alternative dispute resolution processes to resolve administrative cases (appeals and original actions).
• Guaranteeing protection of all parties` due process rights in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, other enabling fair hearing statutes, and the Alaska State Constitution.
• Provide training for Administrative Adjudicators within the OAH and other State agencies.
• Review and comment on regulations proposed by State agencies to govern administrative hearings and other fair hearing processes.

Mission Results

Core Services

A: Provide High-Quality Adjudication Services Details >

A1: Conduct hearings and alternative dispute resolution processes to resolve administrative cases (appeals and original actions). Details > TARGET #1: Achieve 85% or better satisfaction rate with adjudicative process. TARGET #2: Provide alternative dispute resolution services in at least 25% of active cases. TARGET #3: Close Cases within statutory and regulatory deadlines. A2: Guaranteeing protection of all parties` due process rights in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, other enabling fair hearing statutes, and the Alaska State Constitution. Details > A3: Provide training for Administrative Adjudicators within the OAH and other State agencies. Details > TARGET #1: Provide informal training through peer review in 20% of the cases in which a decision is issued. A4: Review and comment on regulations proposed by State agencies to govern administrative hearings and other fair hearing processes. Details >

Performance Detail

Target #1: Achieve 85% or better satisfaction rate with adjudicative process. Adjudicative Process Survey Results Year Satisfied Dissatisfied No Response 2024 93% 5% 2% 2023 92% 6% 2% 2022 86% 7% 7% 2021 89% 9% 2% 2020 95% 1% 4% 2019 90% 7% 3% Analysis of results and challenges: Analysis of results and challenges: Litigants responding to Office of Administrative Hearings` (OAH) post-hearing survey continue to overwhelmingly describe the process in positive terms, and OAH exceeded its target (85% satisfaction rate) in calendar year 2024. A previous challenge faced by OAH in measuring this component is the relatively low number of post-hearing surveys completed by litigants. OAH has responded by increasing efforts to encourage responses. A letter distributed to participants at the close of each case informs each litigant of the survey as an avenue to improve current processes. In addition to providing a link to the online survey, we also provide a hard copy of the survey, as well as information about how to access it online via the OAH website. Survey responses in the 2024 calendar year exceeded 2023 by 9 surveys. Out of the 62 litigants who responded to the survey, 55 marked they were “satisfied with the hearing process and felt it was a positive experience,” three indicated they were dissatisfied, and four did not respond to the question. Target Last Modified: 09/23/2025

Target #2: Provide alternative dispute resolution services in at least 25% of active cases. Percent of Cases Referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution Year YTD Total 2024 31% 2023 26% 2022 37% 2021 31% 2020 38% 2019 30% Analysis of results and challenges: When cases are diverted to mediation or other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes, litigants can often achieve a faster resolution of cases, typically at a lower overall cost to the State. OAH is committed to making voluntary alternative dispute resolution pathways available to litigants whenever it is practical to do so. In 2024, OAH diverted 356, or 31%, of its 1157 active cases, to formal alternative dispute resolution, usually mediation. OAH`s fast-track mediation program for Medicaid Services cases, implemented in 2016, continues to result in a significant portion of that docket being diverted to mediation, and, ultimately, to resolving successfully. In 2024, 316 Medicaid Services cases were entered into the fast-track mediation program. Of these, 93% went to mediation, with 82% of fast-track mediations then resolving through either a settlement agreement or a withdrawal by the participant. Outside of the fast-track mediation program, an additional 40 active cases were mediated by OAH"s Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), many of whom, in 2024, had formal training in mediation in addition to experience and training in adjudication. With the retirement of three judges in 2024 and the resignation of one in 2025, OAH will need to provide additional mediation training to the new class of administrative law judges. Target Last Modified: 09/23/2025

Target #3: Close Cases within statutory and regulatory deadlines. Percent of Cases Closed Within OAH Statutory Deadline Year % With Decision Issued % of All Cases Closed 2024 94% 98% 2023 95% 98% 2022 87% 98% 2021 91% 98% 2020 93% 98% 2019 96% 99% Analysis of results and challenges: Swift resolution is a key goal in administrative adjudication, and many OAH cases are governed by state or federal statutory or regulatory deadlines providing a case resolution time frame that is significantly shorter than the amount of time it takes for matters to be heard and resolved in the trial courts. The most notable is the decision deadline set out in OAH`s own statute, AS 44.64.060(d), which requires the Administrative Law Judge to issue a proposed decision within 120 days of the request for hearing. For OAH cases resolved through decision in 2024, the median time to resolution was 84 days from the date of the hearing request. A variety of factors influence how quickly a case can be resolved, however, including include the complexity of legal and factual issues; agency staffing levels; attorney, party, and witness schedules; party desires to mediate or hold a case in abeyance because of related matters; OAH ALJ staffing levels; and delays in an agency`s initial referral of a hearing request to OAH. In recognition of these factors, AS 44.64.060(d) allows the Chief Administrative Law Judge to extend the proposed decision deadline with the parties` consent. The AS 44.64.060(d) decision deadline was met or was not applicable in more than 98% of the total number of cases closed by OAH in 2024. This figure includes cases closed through mediation or voluntary dismissal prior to hearing. For the smaller number of cases resolved through a full decision, the AS 44.64.060(d) decision deadline was either met or did not apply in 94% of cases decided by OAH in 2024. A number of decision deadlines beyond OAH`s own statute can also apply to various OAH cases. Notably, Medicaid and public benefits cases under the Department of Health are subject to much shorter federal timelines in which the agency must reach its final decision. OAH must prepare its proposed decisions in even less time in order to meet those deadlines. Delays in agency case referral to OAH can make it difficult or impossible to meet these deadlines. In 2024, cases in OAH`s Medicaid and Child Support docket were able to be resolved on average, fewer than 50 days within the hearing request. Target Last Modified: 09/23/2025

Target #1: Provide informal training through peer review in 20% of the cases in which a decision is issued. Percent of Cases Given Formal Peer Review Assignments Year % of All New Cases* % With Decisions Issued* 2024 38% 25% 2023 17% 25% 2022 20% 29% 2021 26% 47% 2020 45% 50% 2019 50% 39% Analysis of results and challenges: OAH`s administrative law judges seek to promote excellency in the adjudication of disputes, including the preparation of proposed decisions. OAH employs a peer review process to assist newer ALJs as they become familiar with the range of the OAH caseload, and to assist all ALJs in improving their work product. Peer review at OAH serves two purposes: it promotes consistency in decision-making, and it provides informal training opportunities for both the reviewed and the reviewing ALJ. Formal peer review assignments are made with the goal of ensuring that an ALJ venturing into a new subject area receives the benefit of informal training from a peer who has already worked in the subject area. This type of peer review has been, and continues to be, a key part of the training process for new ALJs. OAH also employs peer review for ALJs handling particularly complex cases. All new cases: Of the total number of new cases referred to OAH in 2024, approximately 38% had formal peer review assignments. Decisions Issued: Of the 209 decisions issued in 2024, 25% had formal peer review assignments. Many other decisions issued received some level of informal peer review, which is not reflected in these figures. OAH exceeded its target of peer reviewing 20% of the decisions being issued in 2024. Target Last Modified: 09/23/2025

Last refreshed: 05/11/2026 12:00 pm