Managing For Results
Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies' Customer Service Efforts Gao ID: GAO-11-44 October 27, 2010The federal government has set a goal of providing service to the public that matches or exceeds that of the private sector. Executive Order 12862 (September 11, 1993) and a related 1995 memorandum require agencies to post customer service standards and report results to customers. As requested, this report (1) assesses the extent to which federal agencies are setting customer service standards and measuring related results, (2) assesses the extent to which agencies are reporting standards and results to customers and using the results to improve service, and (3) identifies some customer service management tools and practices used by various governments. The report also examines the steps the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is taking to facilitate agency use of tools and practices. GAO surveyed 13 federal services among those with the most contact with the public, reviewed literature and interviewed agency officials as well as knowledgeable individuals in the area of customer service.
All 13 government services GAO surveyed had established customer service standards, which varied in their form from quantitative standards based on hourly, daily, monthly or annual averages to general commitments to qualitative standards. All 13 services reported having measures of customer service, such as measures of wait times or accuracy of service and 11 services had measures of customer satisfaction. For example, the National Park Service surveys visitors at over 320 points of service through a survey card program. All services had methods to receive customer complaints, and all had methods of gathering ideas from front line employees to improve customer service. Although standards exist, GAO found that the surveyed services' standards were often made available in a way that would not be easy for customers to find and access or, in the case of two services, were not made available to the public at all. For example, five services made standards available in long, detailed documents mostly focused on other topics, such as annual performance plans, performance and accountability reports, and budget justifications. About half of the services reported customer service results in similar types of documents. All services reported comparing customer service results to the standards and using the results to improve internal processes. For example, Customs and Border Protection officials told GAO that after they studied wait times at land borders and airports, they made facility enhancements and staff assignment changes. At one port of entry, these changes reduced wait times by more than half. However, some services have not compared performance to the private sector, as required by the Executive Order. Most services reported considering customer service measures in employee performance appraisals. For example, according to IRS officials, the performance appraisals for all employees who provide taxpayer assistance are based in part on critical job elements related to customer satisfaction. GAO identified several customer service tools and practices government agencies have used to improve customer service, such as engaging customers through social media, providing self service options and offering redress for unmet standards. Additionally, OMB has begun an initiative to identify and share private sector best practices among federal agencies and to develop a dashboard where agencies can make customer service standards available. Building on the progress made under this initiative, OMB could evaluate the benefits and costs of applying these tools and practices on a more widespread basis and share those that are found to be beneficial. GAO recommends that OMB (1) direct agencies to consider options to make customer service standards and results more readily available and (2) collaborate with the President's Management Advisory Board and agencies to evaluate the benefits and costs of applying the tools and practices identified in this report, and include those found beneficial in its related initiative. OMB had no comments on the recommendations.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Bernice Steinhardt Team: Government Accountability Office: Strategic Issues Phone: (202) 512-6543GAO-11-44, Managing For Results: Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies' Customer Service Efforts
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-44
entitled 'Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies‘ Customer Service
Efforts: Managing for Results' which was released on October 27, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
Managing for Results:
Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies' Customer Service Efforts:
GAO-11-44:
GAO Highlights:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The federal government has set a goal of providing service to the
public that matches or exceeds that of the private sector. Executive
Order 12862 (September 11, 1993) and a related 1995 memorandum require
agencies to post customer service standards and report results to
customers. As requested, this report (1) assesses the extent to which
federal agencies are setting customer service standards and measuring
related results, (2) assesses the extent to which agencies are
reporting standards and results to customers and using the results to
improve service, and (3) identifies some customer service management
tools and practices used by various governments. The report also
examines the steps the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is taking
to facilitate agency use of tools and practices. GAO surveyed 13
federal services among those with the most contact with the public,
reviewed literature and interviewed agency officials as well as
knowledgeable individuals in the area of customer service.
What GAO Found:
All 13 government services GAO surveyed (see table below) had
established customer service standards, which varied in their form from
quantitative standards based on hourly, daily, monthly or annual
averages to general commitments to qualitative standards. All 13
services reported having measures of customer service, such as measures
of wait times or accuracy of service and 11 services had measures of
customer satisfaction. For example, the National Park Service surveys
visitors at over 320 points of service through a survey card program.
All services had methods to receive customer complaints, and all had
methods of gathering ideas from front line employees to improve
customer service.
Table: Thirteen Government Services GAO Surveyed:
Direct Student Loans;
Forest Recreation Services;
Park Visitor and Interpretive Services;
Medicare;
Indian Health Service Medical Care;
Border Inspections of Individuals;
Passenger and Baggage Screening;
Passport Services;
Social Security;
Tax Information and Advice;
Veteran Disability Compensation;
Veterans‘ Group Life Insurance
Veteran Medical Care.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Although standards exist, GAO found that the surveyed services‘
standards were often made available in a way that would not be easy for
customers to find and access or, in the case of two services, were not
made available to the public at all. For example, five services made
standards available in long, detailed documents mostly focused on other
topics, such as annual performance plans, performance and
accountability reports, and budget justifications. About half of the
services reported customer service results in similar types of
documents. All services reported comparing customer service results to
the standards and using the results to improve internal processes. For
example, Customs and Border Protection officials told GAO that after
they studied wait times at land borders and airports, they made
facility enhancements and staff assignment changes. At one port of
entry, these changes reduced wait times by more than half. However,
some services have not compared performance to the private sector, as
required by the Executive Order. Most services reported considering
customer service measures in employee performance appraisals. For
example, according to IRS officials, the performance appraisals for all
employees who provide taxpayer assistance are based in part on critical
job elements related to customer satisfaction.
GAO identified several customer service tools and practices government
agencies have used to improve customer service, such as engaging
customers through social media, providing self service options and
offering redress for unmet standards. Additionally, OMB has begun an
initiative to identify and share private sector best practices among
federal agencies and to develop a dashboard where agencies can make
customer service standards available. Building on the progress made
under this initiative, OMB could evaluate the benefits and costs of
applying these tools and practices on a more widespread basis and share
those that are found to be beneficial.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that OMB (1) direct agencies to consider options to make
customer service standards and results more readily available and (2)
collaborate with the President‘s Management Advisory Board and agencies
to evaluate the benefits and costs of applying the tools and practices
identified in this report, and include those found beneficial in its
related initiative. OMB had no comments on the recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44] or key
components. For more information, contact Bernice Steinhardt at (202)
512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
All Selected Services Have Customer Service Standards and Measure
Results of Service:
Most Selected Services Could Increase the Public Availability of
Customer Service Information, but All Use Results to Improve Service
Quality:
Several Additional Tools and Practices for Customer Service Management
Are Used by State, Local, and Non-U.S. National Governments:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: List of Services Contacted:
Appendix III: Examples of Standards from Surveyed Services:
Appendix IV: High-Priority Performance Goals Related to Customer
Service:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Customs and Border Protection's Pledge to Travelers:
Figure 2: The Department of Veterans Affairs' Life Insurance Customer
Service Web Site:
Figure 3: Customs and Border Protection's Border Wait Times Web Site:
Figure 4: IRS Critical Job Elements for Taxpayer Assistance Related to
Customer Satisfaction:
Figure 5: Govbenefits.gov Web Site:
Figure 6: Example of Medicare Hospital Comparison Web Page:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 27, 2010:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Diane E. Watson:
Chairwoman:
Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform House of Representatives:
The Honorable Henry Cuellar:
House of Representatives:
The federal government has set a goal of providing service to the
public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the
private sector. It is therefore critical for agencies to gauge how
their customer services are meeting the needs of their customers to
sustain and focus agency efforts in continuing improvements. Federal
agencies interact with the public in a vast number of individual
transactions between federal employees and an individual. The
circumstances and expectations for service vary based on the particular
transaction as government services include diverse functions such as
providing information, benefits, regulation, and enforcement.
Both Congress and the executive branch have taken actions to increase
the value of these transactions to those the government serves. In 1993
Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
which was intended, in part, to improve federal program effectiveness
by promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer
satisfaction.[Footnote 1] The same year, in order to carry out the
principles of the National Performance Review,[Footnote 2] President
Clinton issued Executive Order 12862, which required agencies to post
customer service standards and measure results against them.[Footnote
3] In 1995, President Clinton issued a presidential memorandum to the
heads of executive departments and agencies on improving customer
service which instructed agencies to treat the requirements of the
Executive Order as continuing requirements. This memorandum is still in
effect. More recently, legislation titled the "Federal Customer Service
Enhancement Act" has been introduced in Congress that would, among
other things, require the establishment of customer service standards
and performance measures for federal agencies.[Footnote 4]
In light of your interest in determining how federal agencies are
currently using customer service standards and measures, you asked us
to (1) assess the extent to which federal agencies are setting customer
service standards and measuring results against these standards, (2)
assess the extent to which federal agencies are reporting standards and
results to customers and using the results to improve service, and (3)
identify some customer service management tools and practices used by
local, state, federal, and other national governments. In addition, we
examined the steps the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is taking
to facilitate federal agency use of tools and practices to improve
customer service.
To assess whether and how federal agencies are setting customer service
standards, measuring results, reporting those results and using them to
improve service, we conducted a survey, based on the requirements of
the Executive Order and the related memorandum, of 13 services provided
by federal agencies that are among those with the most widespread
contact with the public.[Footnote 5] Services were chosen for the
survey based on a list of agencies with the most contact with the
public developed by the National Performance Review in the late 1990s,
input from subject matter experts, and available public data. Services
included in the survey were:
* Recreational facilities and services provided by the Forest Service:
* Student loans under the Direct Loan Program provided by Federal
Student Aid:
* Visitor and interpretive services provided by the National Park
Service:
* Health insurance under Medicare provided by the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services:
* Medical care provided by the Indian Health Service:
* Border security inspection of individuals provided by Customs and
Border Protection:
* Passenger and baggage screening provided by the Transportation
Security Administration:
* Passport services provided by the Bureau of Consular Affairs:
* Provision of tax information and advice to individuals provided by
the Internal Revenue Service:
* Disability compensation provided by the Veterans Benefits
Administration:
* Life insurance provided by the Veterans Benefits Administration:
* Medical care provided by the Veterans Health Administration:
* Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance and Supplemental
Security Income provided by the Social Security Administration:
To gain a fuller understanding of the survey responses, we selected
five of the services with varying answers to key questions on the
survey for follow-up interviews to discuss their responses.
We did not evaluate the overall effectiveness of or level of customer
service provided by any of the services reviewed.
To obtain input from services with a lower volume of contact with the
public, services with different missions or goals than those that were
surveyed, and services that serve government customers and are not
subject to the requirements of the Executive Order, we selected an
additional five services for interview. These five services were:
* Regulation of power plants and other uses of nuclear materials by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
* Health and safety information provided by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention:
* Research and education grants provided by the National Science
Foundation:
* Procurement of goods and services for the government provided by the
Federal Acquisition Service:
* Federal agency property management services provided by Public
Building Services:
To assess significant customer service management practices used by
local, state, federal and other national governments that may be
considered for application by federal agencies, we conducted a review
of relevant literature, such as industry, academic, and management
journals dealing with customer service practices and an annual
evaluation of customer service provided by national governments
published each year since 2000. In addition, we interviewed
knowledgeable current and former researchers and practitioners with
experience managing or designing government performance improvement
initiatives, such as the National Performance Review and the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) at the federal level or similar
initiatives at the state and local level, experience implementing, in a
government setting, one or more of the customer service management
tools and practices we identified in our literature review, or had been
identified in our literature review as contributing to the field of
public sector customer service. We also gathered information from seven
local, state, or non-U.S. national governments and incorporated
information received from federal agencies through survey and
interviews.[Footnote 6]
We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 to October 2010 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. For a more detailed
description of our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
Background:
GPRA was intended to address several broad purposes, including
promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer
satisfaction. GPRA requires executive agencies to develop strategic
plans, prepare annual performance plans, measure performance toward the
achievement of goals in the annual plans and report annually on their
progress.
Building on GPRA and in carrying out the principles of the National
Performance Review (NPR), on September 11, 1993, President Clinton
issued Executive Order 12862, which remains in effect. The order
created several requirements for agencies related to customer service.
Specifically, the order stated that all executive departments and
agencies that provide significant services directly to the public shall
provide customer service equal to the best in business and shall take
the following actions:[Footnote 7]
* identify the customers who are, or should be, served by the agency:
* survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they
want and their level of satisfaction with existing services:
* post service standards and measure results against them:
* benchmark customer service performance against the best in business:
* survey frontline employees on barriers to, and ideas for, matching
the best in business:
* provide customers with choices in both the sources of service and the
means of delivery:
* make information, services, and complaint systems easily accessible
and:
* provide means to address customer complaints:
On March 23, 1995, President Clinton issued a presidential memorandum
on improving customer service, which stated that the standards agencies
had begun issuing in response to Executive Order 12862 had told the
federal government's customers for the first time what they had a right
to expect when they asked for services. The memorandum instructed
agencies to treat the requirements of Executive Order 12862 as
continuing requirements and stated that the actions the order
prescribes, including surveying customers and employees and
benchmarking, shall be continuing agency activities. The memorandum
further provided that standards should be published in a form readily
available to customers, and that services that are delivered in
partnership with state and local governments, services delivered by
small agencies and regulatory agencies, and customer services of
enforcement agencies are covered by the requirement to set and publish
customer service standards. It further stated that agencies shall, on
an ongoing basis, measure results achieved against the customer service
standards and report those results to customers at least annually in
terms readily understood by individual customers, and that measurement
systems should include objective measures wherever possible, but should
also include customer satisfaction as a measure. Finally, the
memorandum stated that agencies should publish replacement customer
service standards if needed to reflect customer views on what matters
most to them.
According to the last NPR report on customer service in 1997, 570
federal departments, agencies, organizations, and programs issued a
total of 4,000 customer services standards. The NPR report was
accompanied by a database through which customers could search for
standards of interest or browse standards by customer group, such as
beneficiaries, veterans, and businesses. For example, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service issued a standard that it would complete
action on naturalization applications within 6 months, and the
Department of Health and Human Services issued a standard for Medicare
and Medicaid that 80 percent of callers would be on hold for less than
2 minutes. In addition, the report stated that for 2,800 of the 4,000
standards, results of performance against the standards had been
identified and were the basis for changes and improvements in the
delivery of service.
All Selected Services Have Customer Service Standards and Measure
Results of Service:
All Surveyed Services Established and Reviewed Standards:
All 13 services we surveyed had established customer service standards.
Officials from the Indian Health Service (IHS), which provides medical
care for American Indians and Alaska Natives, told us their customer
service standards are established by their area offices and
facilities.[Footnote 8] The other services had standards that applied
service-wide.
The services' standards varied in their form. Some standards were
general commitments to qualitative standards, often stating commitments
to meet certain identified customer rights. Other standards were
structured quantitatively and based on daily, monthly, or annual
averages. The Bureau of Consular Affairs, for example, had standards
that include general commitments to qualitative standards for Passport
Services, such as "We will provide service in a courteous, professional
manner," as well as commitments to meet customer rights, such as "You
have the right to speak with management if you are not satisfied with
the service you have received." Some of the standards from IHS area
offices and facilities also stated general commitments to qualified
standards such as, "have pride in our appearance, and provide a
pleasant greeting," while other IHS area offices and facilities had
individual level quantitative standards, which included, "answering
phone calls within three rings." The Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA) has established several quantitative standards for customer
service related to their Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) program,
including averages such as the speed of answer for their call center,
which is set at 20 seconds, as well as call abandonment rates, which
they set at 2 percent. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has similar
quantitative standards for their Medical Care program, such as a
standard for the number of new patient appointments completed within 30
days of the appointment create date.
All services reported that they had reviewed their standards within the
last year.[Footnote 9] For example, VGLI told us that they review
standards annually, and 2 years ago changed the standard for e-mail
response time from 48 to 24 hours based on this review. Similarly,
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials told us that standards for
taxpayer assistance are reviewed to see if they need updating three
times per year by executives, directors, and managers, and the Forest
Service told us that they review standards for recreational facilities
and services as part of their annual performance reporting required by
GPRA.
Nearly All Surveyed Services Have Measures of Customer Service and
Customer Satisfaction:
All 13 of the surveyed services reported having measures of customer
service, and 11 of the services reported having measures of
satisfaction.[Footnote 10] Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has
methods of gathering input from customers, such as through their
comment card program and the online question and comment section of
their CBP Info Center Web page, and is planning to measure customer
satisfaction through a customer satisfaction survey in 2011. CBP
submitted the planned survey for review and approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on September 1, 2010.[Footnote 11] The
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has methods of gathering
input from customers by phone or e-mail through their Customer Contact
Center, through the "TSA Blog" and "Talk to TSA" feedback Web site, or
through speaking with a TSA manager at the airport; however, they do
not have measures of satisfaction.
All the services reported they measure customer service at least
annually, and all 11 services that measured customer satisfaction
reported doing so at least annually as well. In addition, many services
measured more frequently. Eleven of the surveyed services measure
customer satisfaction daily, for example, and 8 reported that they
measure customer service daily.
The surveyed services reported measuring various aspects of their
customer service. Customer service measures can include measures
related to customer access to services, wait times, accuracy and other
factors. Eleven surveyed services had measures related to quality or
accuracy of service. For example, IRS measures the accuracy of
responses provided by service representatives to questions on both tax
law and taxpayers' accounts by listening to and reviewing phone calls.
Ten services had measures related to customer wait times, eight had
measures of processing time, and eight had measures related to access
times. For example, Passport Services measures wait times for customers
applying in a passport agency office, application processing times, and
the number of passport book re-writes due to errors made by Passport
Services. Similarly, for VGLI, VBA measures the percentage of calls
that receive busy signals and the average speed of answer, as well as
processing time for disbursements, applications, and correspondence.
All surveyed services but TSA and CBP reported gathering input from
customers regarding their level of satisfaction through surveys. The
National Park Service (NPS), for instance, reported using a visitor
survey card program to survey visitors at over 320 of its points of
service. These surveys are conducted annually at NPS units to measure
performance related to visitor satisfaction and visitor understanding
of park significance.
Four surveyed services stated that they use the American Customer
Satisfaction Index (ACSI) to gather and report results.[Footnote 12]
ACSI is a standardized customer satisfaction survey that measures
customer satisfaction for a particular service based on drivers of
satisfaction, including customer expectations and perceived quality.
Overall results of the ACSI survey are made available on the ACSI
public Web site, [hyperlink, http://www.theacsi.org], where results can
be compared among federal agencies that use the survey. Participating
agencies receive more detailed results that contain information,
trends, and recommendations for areas to work on to improve results.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), which provides student loans under the
direct loan program, for instance, uses an independent third-party
contractor to conduct the ACSI survey on FSA's behalf. Officials stated
that from the results of ACSI, they determined that some of the
responses that they were providing customers on telephone calls were
not achieving satisfactory marks, which led FSA to start a task force
to address the issue.
In addition to customer surveys, most services also employed other
methods through which they gathered customer input. The most common of
these were comments cards or suggestion boxes (seven services),
telephone numbers (seven services), and e-mail or written
correspondence (five services). For instance, Social Security
Administration (SSA) officials stated that customers have the
opportunity to either complete comment cards at field offices, or send
letters to field offices regarding their satisfaction with the service
received.[Footnote 13] Passport Services officials stated that they
gather input from customers by having them complete comment cards while
being served at a passport agency. Additional methods services reported
using for gathering input include focus groups, e-mail lists,
conferences, and outreach campaigns. IHS, for instance, uses patient
satisfaction surveys, telephone surveys, a director's blog, personal
interviews, an incident reporting process, tribal negotiation meetings,
suggestion boxes, and a patient needs task force to gather input from
customers.
All surveyed services reporting having methods to receive customer
complaints. In addition to general methods of gathering input described
above, many agencies reported using additional methods to receive
complaints. These included complaint forms on the agency Web site,
identifying service mailing addresses to receive complaints, providing
customers with additional telephone numbers to provide feedback, and
general feedback forms and survey cards about the service they
received. For example, VBA reported that they use a public message
management system called the Inquiry Routing and Information System
(IRIS) for receiving inquiries, including complaints, for beneficiary
medical care and disability service. All electronic messages received
from the public through VA Web sites are directed through the IRIS
system, and a set of policies and procedures is in place that guides
the agency in sorting through and responding to submissions.
Paperwork Reduction Act Affects Gathering of Customer Views:
Before requiring or requesting information from the public, such as
through customer satisfaction surveys, federal agencies are required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to seek public comment as well as
approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed
collection of information.[Footnote 14] The PRA requires federal
agencies to minimize the burden on the public resulting from their
information collections, and to maximize the practical utility of the
information collected. To comply with the PRA process, agencies must
develop and review proposed collections to ensure that they meet the
goals of the act. Once approved internally, agencies generally must
publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting public
comment on the agency's proposed collection, consider the public
comments, submit the proposed collection to OMB and publish a second
Federal Register notice inviting public comment to the agency and OMB.
OMB may act on the agency's request only after the 30-day comment
period has closed. Under the PRA, OMB determines whether a proposed
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility.[Footnote 15] The PRA gives OMB 60 days to approve or
disapprove a proposed collection, however, OMB can also instruct the
agency to make a substantive or material change to the proposed
collection.
There are two primary ways that the normal clearance process can be
altered. First, agencies may request and OMB may authorize emergency
processing under certain circumstances.[Footnote 16] Second, agencies
may submit generic information collection requests, which are requests
for OMB approval of a plan for conducting more than one information
collection using very similar methods, such as a plan to gather views
from the public through a series of customer satisfaction surveys. The
plan itself is subject to the standard 60-and 30-day public comment
periods, but, if approved, each specific collection under the plan
requires only OMB review and approval without additional public
comment, subject to the terms of the original generic clearance.
According to some agency officials, the Paperwork Reduction Act
clearance process may, in certain instances, make obtaining customer
input difficult. A March 2009 report from the Government Contact Center
Council, an interagency group of contact center directors and managers
sponsored by the General Services Administration's (GSA) Office of
Citizen Services, notes that although the PRA is important and affords
many safeguards and benefits, the council commonly hears from agencies
that the approval process takes 9 months or longer, in fact, so long
that sometimes a survey is no longer relevant.[Footnote 17] The report
recommended that OMB lead a task force to help to fully understand the
implications of the Paperwork Reduction Act for agencies and to
identify ways to minimize the length of time it takes for an agency to
get approval for surveys intended for citizens.
Two services we surveyed told us that the PRA clearance process made
obtaining customer input difficult. NPS officials referred us to the
letter of input they provided in response to OMB's Federal Register
notice seeking comment on, among other things, reducing paperwork
burdens and avoiding adverse consequences of the PRA clearance
process.[Footnote 18] In the letter, NPS stated that lengthy delays in
obtaining approval of information collections such as visitor surveys
under the PRA sometimes causes research to be postponed or even
abandoned. In addition, Forest Service officials told us that the time
needed to obtain clearance for surveys is a major barrier in gathering
input from customers on their level of satisfaction. Forest Service
officials told us that because approval for new collections of
information often takes in excess of a year, which is in addition to
the time for collection, data entry, and reporting, it is not possible
to include customer input in many time- sensitive decisions.
OMB representatives noted that the reported lengths of time to clear
submissions include the time for internal agency development and
processing and that some delays can be the result of inappropriate
submissions. OMB representatives told us that once an Information
Collection Request (ICR) is submitted to OMB, the average time for
review at OMB is typically less than the required sixty days.
According to OMB representatives, the time to obtain clearance could be
reduced by using generic clearances, if the collections meet the
criteria for generic clearances. Some other agencies we contacted also
told us that the generic clearance process made PRA requirements
manageable for surveying. For example, SSA officials told us that
obtaining OMB clearance for its surveys had not presented a challenge,
and that this was facilitated by a generic clearance for satisfaction
surveys that SSA has had since the mid-1990s. Likewise, FSA officials
told us that the expedited review process associated with a generic
clearance allows it to get surveys approved within 10 to 15 days and
that most problems with surveys that arise during the process are
quickly resolved.
As required by a presidential memorandum issued on January 21, 2009,
OMB issued an Open Government Directive,[Footnote 19] which among other
things, instructs the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to review existing OMB policies, such as PRA
guidance, to identify impediments to open government and the use of new
technologies, and where necessary, issue clarifying guidance and/or
propose policy revisions. OMB recently released three memorandums
containing clarifying guidance to improve the implementation of the
PRA. The memorandums provide information for federal agencies to
facilitate their understanding of PRA clearances and when and how they
can be used. The most recent memorandum, issued on May 28, 2010,
outlines the availability and uses of generic information collection
requests. The other two memorandums, issued on April 7, 2010, relate to
the central requirements of the PRA and the treatment of social media
and Web-based interactive technologies under the PRA.
All Surveyed Services Use Various Methods to Gather Frontline
Employees' Ideas for Improving Customer Service:
All surveyed services reported that within the last 12 months they
gathered ideas for improving customer service from frontline employees
who are in contact with customers. The Executive Order is not
prescriptive in the method agencies should use to survey employees, and
the services reported employing a variety of methods to survey their
employees for ideas for improving customer service. These included
staff meetings, blogs, employee suggestion programs, and employee
surveys. Passport Services officials, for example, stated that each
regional Passport Agency location is staffed with at least one customer
service manager charged with reviewing the ideas and suggestions from
staff within the agency or center. The manager then communicates the
information to colleagues at other locations and the customer service
division at headquarters to initiate further discussion and action on
suggestions. To encourage customer service managers to gather and share
ideas, there is a bi-weekly teleconference, an e-mail list, a monthly
customer service report, and an annual conference. SSA officials stated
that some of its offices have established councils, which include
frontline employees, to look for new ideas to improve customer service.
At the Forest Service, input from employees is gathered primarily at
the individual forest level with no formal mechanism in place to
communicate employee input at a national level.
Selected Services with Less Widespread Contact with the Public Also Set
Customer Service Standards and Measure Results:
The five additional services we interviewed that had less widespread
contact with the public and different customer groups or missions than
those we surveyed perform many of the same customer service management
activities as those we surveyed.[Footnote 20] All five had customer
service standards. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) has a target that 75 percent of customers will report
being very satisfied, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a
standard that 90 percent of power plant licensing actions will be
completed within 1 year of receipt.
All five services reported measuring service results. Four of these had
measures related to customer satisfaction, and most used the ACSI as a
measure. In addition, four had measures of customer access, wait times
or other measures. For instance, CDC measures the percentage of phone
calls answered in less than 30 seconds. All of the additional services
reported having methods to receive and act on customer complaints, such
as through distributing feedback forms in person or through the agency
Web site, as well as through designated e-mail and phone numbers or
call centers, which were also used by the surveyed services. All five
services gather ideas from employees on improving customer service. For
example, GSA's Federal Acquisition Service is using the social network
tool "Yammer," as a mechanism to gather internal employee input.
Most Selected Services Could Increase the Public Availability of
Customer Service Information, but All Use Results to Improve Service
Quality:
Most Surveyed Services Share Standards and Results, but Could Increase
Their Availability to Customers:
About half of surveyed services' standards were not in a form readily
available to the public, as the March 1995 presidential memorandum on
improving customer service requires. We found that the standards were
often either not made available to the public at all or were made
available in a way that would not be easy for customers to find and
access. Ten services reported making standards available to customers
through both government Web sites and government publications; one
service, TSA's Passenger and Baggage Screening, reported making
standards available through only a government Web site; and two
services did not make standards available at all. Five of the 11
services that reported they make standards available do so in documents
or Web sites that are not likely to be viewed by customers. These
services made their standards available in long, detailed documents
mostly focused on other topics, such as Annual Performance Plans,
Performance and Accountability Reports, and budget justifications.
The two services that did not make standards available to customers
were Federal Student Aid (FSA) and Forest Service for recreational
facilities and services. FSA officials reported that they do not make
their standards for the Direct Loan Program, which are standards for
contractor performance, available to customers because they were not
intended to inform the public. Similarly, the Forest Service officials
told us that they have standards that are part of a contract with an
external service provider, but because they are not in an
understandable format and presentation for customers they are not made
available. Forest Service officials also reported that Forest Service
has standards employees must meet in the operation of recreation
program areas that are not consistently shared with the public, such as
the frequency with which rest rooms must be cleaned. Forest Service
officials feel the standards would not be helpful to the visitors who
evaluate such things as "cleanliness" of rest rooms against their own
standards rather than the frequency of cleaning.
Some services made their standards more readily available to customers.
For example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has a Web page
called "Know Before You Go," [hyperlink,
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/], which communicates
regulations for international travel by U.S. residents. This Web page,
which is also available as a document, specifically identifies customer
service standards, such as a pledge to explain the CBP process to
customers, and provides information and instructions to customers on
how they can express their service concerns to CBP representatives. The
standards are also available through a link on CBP's travel customer
service page, [hyperlink,
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/customerservice/]. Five services,
including the Indian Health Service, the Passport Service, the Veterans
Health Administration, CBP, and SSA, make standards available by
posting them in government offices open to the public.
Figure 1: Customs and Border Protection's Pledge to Travelers:
[Refer to PDF for image: CBP's pledge to travelers displayed on their
customer service web site]
Source: DHS, GAO (presentation).
[End of figure]
In addition to standards, all services we surveyed stated that they
report customer service results to customers through a government Web
site, and 11 of these services told us that they also make results
available through written publications. Further, the Indian Health
Service and the Veterans Health Administration also post service
results in government offices open to the public. However, most
services did not post service results in government offices. Two
services, IRS and Forest Service, told us their results are too lengthy
to post in their public offices.
Similar to the reporting of customer service standards, about half of
services posted customer service results in documents that may not be
easily accessible to customers.[Footnote 21] Six services we surveyed
only report customer service results in their Performance and
Accountability Reports, Congressional Budget Justifications, or other
documents that are targeted to larger or different audiences than
customers, or through Web sites such as the ACSI Web site that customer
may not know to visit to find customer service results. However, some
agencies made their customer service results more readily available to
customers. For example, CBP has a web page with airport and border wait
times that can be accessed directly from CBP's main travel page,
[hyperlink, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/].[Footnote 22] In
another example, the Veterans Benefits Administration has a customer
service page for Veterans Group Life Insurance with service results
that can be accessed from the insurance home page, [hyperlink,
http://www.insurance.va.gov/].
Figure 2: The Department of Veterans Affairs' Life Insurance Customer
Service Web Site:
[Refer to PDF for image: customer service results reported on VA's life
insurance website]
Source: VA, GAO (presentation).
[End of figure]
As required by the presidential memorandum, all services report results
to customers at least annually. In addition, more than half of services
post some customer service results as frequently as monthly, and in one
case, results are posted as frequently as hourly. Customs and Border
Protection collects hourly wait time estimates for land border ports of
entry, from 70 of the largest land border crossings on the Northern and
Southwestern borders. This information is posted directly from the
ports of entry to CBP's wait times Web site on an hourly basis so that
the public can use the information in trip planning. For airline
travel, CBP collects detailed daily flight information at the arrival
terminals of 48 of the busiest air ports of entry. This information is
assembled into an historical database that provides hourly flight
processing time estimates for any time of day, and is available to the
public on the airport wait times Web site.
Figure 3: Customs and Border Protection's Border Wait Times Web Site:
[Refer to PDF for image: Border wait times reported on CBP's website]
Source: DHS, GAO (presentation).
[End of figure]
All Surveyed Services Compare Customer Service Results to Standards and
Use Them to Improve Internal Processes, and Some Have Recently Compared
Performance to the Private Sector:
All services we surveyed reported that they compare their performance
to their service standards, as Executive Order 12862 requires for
agencies that provide significant services directly to the public. All
services but two reported doing so at least monthly, and five services
reported making daily comparisons. For example, SSA officials said
their performance on customer service measures, such as the average
speed of answer and busy rate for calls to their national phone number
are tracked and compared to monthly standards, and the results are
reported on an internal tracking report that is distributed to SSA's
Commissioner and executive staff.[Footnote 23] CBP produces daily wait
times exception summary reports for internal Headquarters and regional
management of the ports of entry. Officials said wait times in excess
of 1 hour at either air or land border ports require explanation and
are tracked to monitor ongoing problems and develop mitigation
strategies.
Further, all services reported that they use the results of their
customer service measures to improve customer service. Several services
reported using performance data to improve training, allocate staff,
and improve phone systems and Web sites. For example, the Passport
Services reported that they use measures of passport center workloads
to ensure timely processing of applications by transferring application
processing work between centers at various times, such as during
inclement weather. In addition the Internal Revenue Service said that
it analyzed wait times for taxpayer assistance to improve service by
making staffing adjustments and routing certain types of activities to
specific employees.
CBP officials said land border, and airport wait time patterns have
been studied, which led to facility enhancements and staff assignment
changes. The officials told us that changes at one port of entry, the
Detroit Ambassador Bridge reduced wait times and recurring traffic
delays by more than half. Medicare officials said the 1-800-Medicare
call center used customer service measure results to improve and
clarify the script used by its customer service representatives to
answer beneficiary questions. Medicare officials also stated that their
review of the volume, nature, and turnaround time for complaints about
private companies marketing Medicare products led them to apply a more
rigorous turnaround time requirement for staff handling these
complaints.[Footnote 24]
Seven services reported that they had compared customer service
performance against performance in the private sector in the prior 12
months, and these seven also reported that they had used this
comparison to improve their customer service. For example, officials
from the Direct Student Loan Program (DLP) said they obtained
information from the private sector that borrowers using electronic
services (such as electronic debit and services on Web sites) were
among the most satisfied. Subsequently, DLP implemented initiatives to
increase borrowers' awareness of online services and provided
information on how to enroll in these services. Similarly, officials
from Veterans Benefits Administration's Veterans Group Life Insurance
(VGLI) said comparisons against performance in the private sector
offered ongoing confirmation that their measures and practices remain
competitive against industry standards. For example, officials said
awareness of changing technology in the private sector has led to
enhanced self-service Web-based features that include the ability to
pay VGLI premiums, add or change beneficiaries, update customer
demographic information, and print certificates of coverage online.
Officials from SSA told us that their national call centers operate
efficiently by using sophisticated call forecasts and changing agent
shift assignments to better match projected call patterns based on
methodology used in the private sector. Finally, Medicare officials
said after comparing the program's turnaround time for urgent
complaints with that of private sector health plans, they made a
decision to revise their internal standard to align with the private
sector plans.
However, four of the services reported they had not compared their
customer service performance against performance in the private sector
as Executive Order 12862 requires, and one other service had not done
so recently. Officials of three of the four services that had not
compared customer service performance against the private sector, CBP,
TSA, and the Bureau of Consular Affairs, told us that they do not have
a comparable private entity to compare with. CBP officials, however,
also told us they have worked with a number of private companies to
identify improvements that could be made to the federal inspection
service areas that would reduce confusion, shorten delays, and improve
customer service, such as better managing passenger lines and improving
CBP signs at airports. In addition, CBP is working closely with several
private sector regional organizations, such as the U.S.-Canada Border
Trade Alliance, to develop technology solutions for improving vehicle
processing and traffic management at the ports of entry. Forest Service
officials told us that they had worked with a private company that runs
campgrounds to develop standards in the late 1980s, but have not had
funding for benchmarking against the private sector since then.
Most Surveyed Services Consider Customer Service Measures in Employee
Performance Appraisals:
Most surveyed services told us that they base performance appraisals
for their employees, in part, on customer service measures; these
include members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) or equivalent,
managers,[Footnote 25] supervisors of frontline employees, and
frontline employees themselves. Office of Personnel Management
regulations require agencies to establish performance management
systems that evaluate SES performance using measures that balance
organizational results with customer, employee, and other perspectives.
Eleven of the 13 services we surveyed reported that they based
performance appraisals for all SES in part on customer service
performance measures, and two services reported that they based some
SES performance appraisals on customer service performance measures. In
addition, all services reported that performance appraisals for
managers and supervisors of employees in contact with customers were
based in part on customer service performance measures. Finally, 11
surveyed services reported that performance appraisals for all
employees in contact with customers were based in part on customer
service performance measures.
Among those services that based performance appraisals on customer
service performance measures, the extent to which they did so varied by
service and job type. For example, performance appraisals for all
employees in Federal Student Aid's Direct Loan Program have two
sections: organizational priorities and customer service. Officials
from FSA told us that some staff are assessed for service to internal
or external customers depending on the assigned job and some lower
level employees have quantitative measures in their appraisals, such as
accuracy and the average time it takes to resolve issues. For other
services, performance appraisals are based on qualitative measures of
customer service. For example, officials from IRS told us that, for
taxpayer assistance, customer satisfaction knowledge and application
have been critical job elements in performance appraisals for all
employees, including those in their bargaining unit, for at least 10
years. Figure 5 shows descriptions of IRS's customer satisfaction
knowledge and application critical job elements. In addition, all
employees are rated on whether they have met the standard for the fair
and equitable treatment of taxpayers developed in accordance with the
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.[Footnote
26] The standard states, "Administer the tax laws fairly and equitably,
protect all taxpayers' rights, and treat each taxpayer ethically with
honesty, integrity, and respect." The inclusion of customer
satisfaction in employee performance appraisals is part of the agency's
collective bargaining agreement with the union.
Figure 4: IRS Critical Job Elements for Taxpayer Assistance Related to
Customer Satisfaction:
[Refer to PDF for image: text box]
Customer Satisfaction – Application:
This individual performance critical job element describes how the
employee promotes the satisfaction of taxpayers and customers through
professionally and courteously identifying customers‘ needs and/or
concerns and providing quality products and services. Communication to
the customer is appropriate for the issue and encourages voluntary
compliance.
Customer Satisfaction – Knowledge:
This individual performance critical job element describes how the
employee promotes the satisfaction of taxpayers and customers by
providing the technical expertise to serve the customers with
professional and helpful service. Accurate identification and
resolution of issues and the correct interpretation of laws, rules,
regulations and other information sources are key components of this
critical job element.
Source: IRS, GAO (presentation).
[End of figure]
Officials from the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and the
American Federation of Government Employees, the two unions that
represent the largest number of federal employees, both expressed
concerns about the use of customer service performance measures in
performance appraisals. Officials from both unions told us that many
employees do not have control over the customer service results
achieved, and one said that customer service performance is best
addressed at the agency level. This official also cautioned that using
customer service measures, such as the time to handle a case, in
performance appraisals could lead to employees overlooking details of
the case as they attempt to save time. Nevertheless, agency officials
did not report recent issues related to including customer service as
part of performance appraisals. Similarly, IRS and NTEU officials told
us there had not been any recent concerns or issues related to the way
customer service measures are used in performance appraisals.
Selected Services with Less Widespread Contact with the Public Also
Make Customer Service Information Available and Use Results:
Most of the services we interviewed that had less widespread contact
with the public and often different customer groups or missions than
those we surveyed reported making customer service standards and
results available to customers and using customer service results for
various purposes. Four of the five services reported making their
customer service standards available to customers, but only three of
the four services post the standards where they are likely to be viewed
by customers. Similarly, three of the five services reported making
customer service results available to customers, but two posted the
results in documents that may not be readily available to customers.
Three services reported comparing the results to customer service
standards, and two reported comparing results to the private sector.
All five services reported using results of its customer service
measures to improve customer service. Finally, three services reported
basing performance appraisals in part on customer service measures. For
example, performance appraisals for employees staffing CDC's
information contact center contain elements based on ensuring customer
satisfaction for internal and external customers.
Several Additional Tools and Practices for Customer Service Management
Are Used by State, Local, and Non-U.S. National Governments:
A number of approaches have been used by state, local, and other
national governments to improve customer service. Several approaches,
which are also employed by some federal agencies, were identified as
good practices in our literature review of customer service and
customer service management and by knowledgeable current and former
researchers and practitioners in these fields. These practices include
methods to better understand customers' needs, facilitate improved
customer decision making, and provide citizens with the information
necessary to hold government accountable for customer service
performance. OMB is planning several initiatives designed to facilitate
the use of many of these approaches across federal agencies.
Improved Understanding of Customers Helps to Align Standards with
Customer Needs:
Organizations may be able to increase customer satisfaction by better
understanding customer needs and organizing services around those
needs. Governments of both the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand
reported that research into customer needs helped them establish
drivers of customer satisfaction. Once they identified the drivers,
they used them to set customer service standards to better meet
customer needs. In the United Kingdom, the Cabinet Office commissioned
a nationally representative survey that yielded a set of five drivers
of customer satisfaction in the United Kingdom.[Footnote 27] These
drivers, listed in order of impact on customer satisfaction, include:
* Staff deliver the outcome as promised and manage any problems:
* Staff address customer requests quickly and directly:
* Information given to customers is accurate and comprehensive:
* Staff are competent and treat customers fairly:
* Staff are friendly, polite and sympathetic to customers' needs:
In 2008, the UK government created a standard called Customer Service
Excellence (CSE) that includes five criteria for evaluating customer
service quality based on the five drivers of customer satisfaction.
Organizations can apply for formal CSE certification in which their
performance is measured against 57 sub-elements of the five CSE
criteria by licensed certification bodies, accredited by the United
Kingdom Accreditation Service.[Footnote 28] For example, one sub-
element asks organizations to demonstrate that they evaluate customer
satisfaction by asking customers specific questions related to the
drivers of satisfaction, such as timeliness, delivery and information.
The New Zealand Government's State Services Commission (SSC), New
Zealand's central public service management agency, works with
government service providers to monitor and improve performance. SSC
conducted its own citizen survey, Kiwis Count 2007, to determine
citizens' perspectives on drivers of customer satisfaction.[Footnote
29] Although similar to the United Kingdom's drivers in many respects,
the SSC reported that New Zealanders also considered the value of a
service relative to taxpayer investment when evaluating the overall
customer service experience. The six drivers are:
* Service experience met citizen expectations:
* Staff were competent:
* Staff kept their promises--they did what they said they would do:
* Citizens were treated fairly:
* Citizens felt their individual circumstances were taken into account:
* Citizens felt the service was an example of good value for tax
dollars spent:
The SSC reported that respondents rated the "service met your
expectations" driver as the most important driver of customer
satisfaction, followed by "staff competency." Although the New Zealand
government does not have national standards, SSC worked with agencies
to help them better understand what the drivers mean and how to
appropriately set agency level standards. Additionally, SSC, in
collaboration with other central agencies, developed a Performance
Improvement Framework (PIF) to assess performance and drive
improvements. According to an SSC official, the PIF includes a
component that examines how well agencies meet customer expectations.
In the future, this component may be expanded to examine the impact of
basing standards on the drivers of satisfaction.
In addition to establishing drivers of satisfaction, segmenting the
population into groups and providing differentiated service delivery
can be an effective strategy to better meet diverse customer needs. In
2005, the government of Canada reorganized its diverse set of service
providers under one umbrella service organization, called Service
Canada, that offers citizens a single point of access to a wide range
of government services and seeks to make access to services easier,
quicker, and more convenient. As one part of its efforts to improve
service delivery, Service Canada crafted a segmentation strategy
centered around seven subpopulations: workers, seniors, people with
disabilities, Aboriginal people, newcomers to Canada, youth, and
families. Service Canada then tailored its service delivery processes
to the needs of each subpopulation. Specifically, Service Canada
outlined priority service issues for each population segment, as well
as marketing approaches tailored to better inform customers about
available services. For instance, to improve its outreach to Aboriginal
populations, Service Canada created fact sheets in 11 Aboriginal
languages, hired staff that spoke Aboriginal languages and modified the
distribution of office locations to better serve remote and northern
communities. Service Canada attributes improved results in the areas of
citizen satisfaction, access to services and efficiency of service
delivery to the implementation of its segmentation strategy.
Organizations can also use social media to better understand and engage
their customers. Social media can facilitate low effort communication
between customers and service providers. It allows service providers to
disseminate up to date and relevant information that may lead to
improved customer decision making, while also allowing customers to
provide feedback on their experiences. In order to encourage the use of
social media by federal agencies, the General Services Administration
(GSA) sponsors a Web site, [hyperlink, http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/],
that is managed by the Federal Web Managers Council, an interagency
group of Web managers from every cabinet-level agency and numerous
independent agencies. The Web site contains information on the benefits
of using social media for customers of government agencies, as well as
detailed advice on social media best practices. For example, it states
that agencies can use microblogs[Footnote 30] to both provide timely
information to citizens and improve understanding of customer needs by
searching microblogs for references to their agency name or
acronym.[Footnote 31] Additionally, GSA has negotiated terms of service
with several social media vendors to make it easier for agencies to
employ these tools on their Web sites.
TSA is an example of an agency that has been using social media to
engage and communicate with customers. TSA communicates policy changes
and other relevant information via articles on its blog,
[hyperlink,http://blog.tsa.gov/], and allows customers to post comments
and complaints. Using the feedback obtained from their blog, TSA
learned from customers when policies weren't being implemented
appropriately in various airports or regions and made changes when
appropriate. For example, a blog comment prompted the TSA Blog Team to
investigate and ultimately stop a local airport policy that required
passengers to remove all small electronics for individual screening.
Additionally, social media may reduce the effort required of customers
to complete service transactions. San Francisco enables city residents
to sign up as followers of the San Francisco's 3-1-1 customer service
center on Twitter and send short messages containing service requests
and complaints, rather than trying to reach city customer service
representatives by phone.[Footnote 32] Providing this additional
channel of communication has the potential to reduce the customer
effort required and improve customer service. However, service
transactions may require customers to communicate more detailed
information than microblogs generally allow.
Self-Service Options and Customer Relationship Management Systems Can
Improve Customers' Experiences and Facilitate Better Decision Making:
Providing customers autonomy and control by allowing them to serve
themselves can also be an effective strategy to improve customer
service. Self service options may reduce customer effort and provide
customers with information that allows them to make informed decisions.
In addition, customers often report a preference to self-serve over
speaking to a representative.
Several U.S. federal agencies allow customers to self-serve via the
Web. For example, customers can make reservations online for National
Park Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management campsites.
Similarly, FSA allows students to apply for financial aid online,
manage their accounts and make payments over the Internet. Officials
from Service Canada told us that they have started a campaign entitled
"Why Wait in Line When You Can Go Online" to encourage the use of
online services; they have also been working to ensure that self-
service tasks are easy to complete. Agencies such as the Social
Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs now use
their Web sites to help customers identify benefits that may be
available to them and to develop a personalized estimate of those
benefits. The Social Security Administration provides a Benefit
Eligibility Screening Tool that enables customers to determine benefits
they may be eligible for, as well as calculators that estimate future
retirement, disability, and survivor benefits based on current law and
the citizen's earnings record, and the next steps to apply. In 2002, 10
federal agencies partnered to develop a Web site, [hyperlink,
http://www.GovBenefits.gov].
Figure 5: Govbenefits.gov Web Site:
[Refer to PDF for image: The web pages at Gov.Benefits.gov enable
customers to search for government benefit programs for which they may
be eligible]
Source: DOL/GovBenefits.gov, GAO(presentation).
[End of figure]
The Web site helps customers find government benefit programs for which
they may be eligible and then provides information on the next steps to
learn more about and apply for those eligible benefits. As of fiscal
year 2010, the initiative included 1,000 programs provided by 17
federal partners.
With or without prior use of self-service, when customers interact
directly with government service providers, they expect the government
to have relevant information about them to produce an effective
customer service experience. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is
a tool to help service providers use data to understand their customers
and provide better service. CRM uses technology to provide a single,
integrated view of customers, enabling an organization to reach desired
outcomes with a minimum of customer effort, thereby improving customer
service. Singapore's Central Provident Fund Board, which manages the
comprehensive social security savings plan for working Singaporeans,
has a CRM system that centrally stores information about their
customers which enables both board staff and citizens to track the
status of customer transactions via the Web. Moreover, the board's
complete profiling of customers within their CRM system enables them to
personalize their service to their customers. Personalized service
improves customer service by reducing the investment of time required
of customers and aids customer decision making by providing customers
with relevant and timely information. However, experts caution that
privacy concerns need to be considered when federal agencies introduce
CRM.[Footnote 33] Nevertheless, federal agencies, such as GSA and the
Small Business Administration, have implemented, or are in the process
of implementing, CRM systems. SBA is implementing a CRM tool that
aggregates data from a variety of systems to allow employees to access
information in less time and in a more concise format when interacting
with small business borrowers, lenders and other stakeholders, which
SBA believes will improve customer service.
Offering Redress for Unmet Standards and Reporting Meaningful
Performance Results Can Foster Accountability for Effective Customer
Service:
Providing redress to customers when standards are not met can enhance
the effectiveness of standards. For example, Service Ontario, a
provincial partner of Service Canada, refunds the birth certificate fee
a customer pays if the certificate is not issued within the established
timeliness standard. In the United Kingdom, London TravelWatch, a local
consumer watchdog organization established by Parliament, investigates
complaints made by travelers using transportation services in London,
including the London Underground and London's buses, and makes
recommendations for recompense when appropriate. In its literature,
TravelWatch cited examples of Transportation providers dispensing
compensation, such as ticket refunds, when they agreed with
TravelWatch's findings. California State University at Long Beach
(CSULB) established a one year pledge relating to the performance of
its College of Education graduates. If first year teachers experience
problems at their school of employment, CSULB will assist them in areas
related to their credential preparation.
Including customer service measures in performance evaluations of
frontline employees may be an effective strategy for improving customer
service. As previously discussed, most of the services we surveyed
already consider customer service measures in employee performance
appraisals, though the extent and weight varied widely by job and
service. However, as noted earlier, there can be challenges to creating
effective performance standards for frontline employees. A primary
concern is that some performance standards, such as call duration, are
easy to measure but ignore the tradeoff between efficiency and quality
customer service. Call center employees being judged solely on call
duration might sacrifice the quality of the customer service they
provide in order to end calls more quickly. One solution is to create
performance metrics that attempt to balance operational efficiency and
quality service. For example, telephone agents at the nonemergency
services call center in the city of Denver, Colorado, are graded using
a balanced scorecard which takes into account both call duration and
whether or not the agent resolved a customer's issue without having to
transfer the caller to another employee. Because this measure
emphasizes service quality, it serves to counterbalance the incentive
to rush through service calls. A representative from the Georgia Office
of Consumer Affairs (OCA) raised the additional concern that including
customer service measures in performance appraisals may be perceived as
a mechanism for placing blame on frontline employees. In order to gain
employee support, the OCA representative recommended that agencies
engage employees in the conversation about customer service management
and seek employee input about how management can help them provide
better customer service. The representative from the OCA reported that
involving employees in the development of new processes has led to
increased employee trust in management and openness to setting common
goals and performance standards.
Public reporting of agency standards and performance results can also
improve customer service by providing citizens with the facts they need
to make informed decisions and hold agencies accountable for service
quality. As previously discussed, about half of the surveyed services
published results in documents that may not be easily accessible to
customers. New York City's Customer Service Group has instituted an
online tool called the Citywide Performance Report[Footnote 34] that
allows the public to visualize trends based on general performance
data, such as crime rates and cleanliness ratings of city parks, and
hold underperforming agencies accountable. Due to the success of this
tool, the Customer Service Group plans to create a similar portal
dedicated to customer service performance data. The data would then be
visually linked to locations using a Geographical Information System in
order to present the information in a clear format for customers.
Likewise, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service publishes
comparative quality data, such as differential mortality rates at
hospitals, which enables customers to make informed choices about where
to receive treatment. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services has a Web site, [hyperlink,
http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov], where customers can view
comparative data on outcomes, process, and patient satisfaction.
Figure 6: Example of Medicare Hospital Comparison Web Page:
[Refer to PDF for image: HHS's Hospital Compare Web site enables
customers to compare hospitals on measures of outcomes, processes and
patient satisfaction]
Source: HHS, GAO (presentation).
[End of figure]
OMB Has Taken Several Steps to Facilitate Use of Some Tools and
Practices across Federal Agencies to Improve Customer Service:
Starting early in 2010, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began
planning several initiatives to promote federal agencies'
responsibility for quality customer service to their customers. On
September 14, 2010, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum to
the Senior Executive Service (SES) on the Accountable Government
Initiative. The memorandum was accompanied by a memorandum from OMB's
Deputy Director for Management to the SES outlining, among other
things, the steps OMB is taking on customer service. An OMB
representative told us they have begun working with GSA's Office of
Citizen Services and other agencies to generate and share ideas and
improve customer service. OMB plans to accomplish this by holding
agency discussion groups, one-on-one meetings with private sector CEOs
who participated in a forum on modernizing government on January 14,
2010, and meetings with officials who were part of the National
Performance Review. An OMB representative stated that they have already
begun holding some meetings. Planned topics for discussion include:
offering agency services online, coordinating services provided across
multiple points of contact and examining how agencies gather and use
customer feedback. The OMB representative told us this will involve
looking at the Paperwork Reduction Act clearance process, which entails
OMB approval of agency data collection prior to accumulating feedback
from customers.
As a part of its broader initiative with GSA's Office of Citizen
Services, OMB is also developing a pilot dashboard which contains
agency standards and some related measures, with links to agency Web
sites where customers can track their individual transaction status,
where available. OMB has asked agencies participating in the pilot to
identify metrics that are drivers of customer satisfaction, such as
wait time, processing time, and first call resolution, and is currently
reviewing their proposals. OMB expects the pilot dashboard to launch
publicly in late fall 2010.
On April 19, 2010, Presidential Executive Order 13538 established the
President's Management Advisory Board within the General Services
Administration, to be chaired by the administration's Deputy Director
for Management.[ 35] The board's mission is to provide advice and
recommendations on effective strategies for the implementation of best
business practices related to federal government management and
operation. OMB is selecting members and it expects to hold the first
meeting of the board by the end of 2010. The board is expected to focus
on improving productivity, the application of technology, and customer
service.
In addition, in its fiscal year 2011 Budget planning memorandum on June
11, 2009, OMB outlined its guidance to agencies to identify a limited
number of high-priority performance goals for the next 12 to 24 months.
These goals are intended to foster accountability and the chances that
the federal government will deliver results on what matters most by
making agencies' top leaders responsible for specific goals that they
themselves have named as most important.[Footnote 36] Although the
guidance did not require agencies to create goals specifically related
to customer service, more than half of the services we surveyed had at
least one goal related to customer service in their agencies' high-
priority performance goals. For example, as part of its goal to improve
customers' service experience on the telephone, in field offices, and
online, the Social Security Administration has a goal to increase the
percentage of customers who rate service as "excellent," "very good,"
or "good" from 81 percent to 83.5 percent. Also, the Department of
Veterans Affairs has a goal implement a 21st Century paperless claims
processing system by 2012 to ultimately reduce the average disability
claims processing time to 125 days. See appendix IV for more examples
of high-priority performance goals that relate to customer service.
Conclusions:
The elements of a customer-centered approach to delivery of federal
service are common among those services with the most widespread
contact with the public that we surveyed, as well as those we
interviewed with less direct contact. All 13 government services we
surveyed report they had established customer service standards,
measured service results, and shared the results with customers. In a
number of instances, the services report improvements in the quality of
service delivered and customer satisfaction. Further, the fact that
more than half of the services we surveyed had a specific goal related
to customer service among their agencies' High Priority Performance
Goals indicates that these services recognize the importance of
customer service.
While a number of services have not encountered problems with survey
clearances, some services that obtain customer input through surveys
and other methods, which is critical to understanding the level of
customer satisfaction, reported challenges related to obtaining PRA
clearance for these activities. These challenges can lead to missed
opportunities to involve customers in decision making. OMB has recently
issued clarifying guidance on the PRA clearance process, including
guidance on obtaining generic clearances, though it remains to be seen
whether the guidance will reduce agency challenges or increase
effective agency use of the generic clearance process.
Communicating customer service standards and results in a way that is
useful and readily available to customers is important in enabling them
to hold government accountable and to inform customer decision making.
Most services we contacted do make customer service standards and
results available to customers, but many do so through documents that
serve larger purposes, such as Performance and Accountability Reports
and Budget Justifications which, while not excluding customers, are
targeted to a much broader audience. On the other hand, some services
make standards and results readily available to customers in documents,
websites or government offices specifically targeted to customers to
better deliver service and achieve higher levels of customer
satisfaction. The OMB pilot dashboard initiative has the potential to
facilitate agency efforts to make customer service standards and
results readily available to customers, but has not yet been launched.
Most services reported they base employee performance ratings from SES
to frontline employees, in part, on customer service measures, but the
manner and objective weight that attaches to this varied. There seems
to be widespread agreement among services, management, and labor
officials that customer service is an important factor in assessing
employee performance, although there is also some reservation relative
to how conclusively service measures can and should be applied at the
individual employee level. But while labor officials and others
expressed concerns about lack of employee control over variables that
may affect the quality, accuracy, processing time, and level of a
customer's satisfaction, agency officials did not report recent issues.
For example, IRS customer service is included in IRS's performance
appraisal system and IRS and NTEU officials stated that there had not
been any recent issues with the system relating to customer service.
While the experience of several of the surveyed services suggests that
the use of service measures in performance appraisals can be effective
and appropriate, as current and former researchers and practitioners
pointed out, they need to be developed with care, particularly
balancing all dimensions of customer service and involving employees in
their selection and application.
Tools and practices identified in our review, such as using social
media to engage customers and segmenting customer groups to provide
tailored services based on particular needs, could lead to potential
benefits for customers of federal agencies. Some of these are already
being used by some federal agencies, but OMB's initiative to gather and
share customer service ideas through the President's Management
Advisory Board, established in April 2010, and meetings with GSA's
Office of Citizen Services, agencies, and other groups offers an
opportunity to evaluate the benefits of applying these tools and
practices on a more widespread basis and to share those that are found
to be beneficial.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Director of OMB take the following two actions,
building on the progress OMB has already made as part of its customer
service initiative:
* Direct agencies to consider options to make their customer service
standards and results more readily available to customers using
documents or Web pages specifically intended for customers, or the
dashboard once it is more fully developed.
* Collaborate with the President's Management Advisory Board and
agencies to evaluate the benefits and costs of applying the tools and
practices related to understanding customers' needs, facilitating
improved customer decision making, and providing citizens with the
information necessary to hold government accountable for customer
service, and include those that are found beneficial to the federal
government in the initiative on gathering and sharing customer service
ideas.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report for review to OMB and the
departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, the Interior, State, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs,
and the General Services Administration, the National Science
Foundation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Social Security
Administration.
OMB provided comments and additional information regarding the PRA
review process. We made changes as appropriate to describe the process
more fully. OMB had no comments on the recommendations.
The departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the
Treasury, and Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration
provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.
The departments of Agriculture, Education, the Interior, and State and
the General Services Administration, National Science Foundation and
Nuclear Regulatory Commission had no comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human
Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, State, and Veterans Affairs;
the Commissioners of the Internal Revenue Service and the Social
Security Administration; the Administrator of the General Services
Administration; the Directors of the National Science Foundation and
OMB; the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and other
interested parties. The report will also be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact
Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Bernice Steinhardt:
Director, Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology The objectives of our
study were to (1) assess the extent to which federal agencies are
setting customer service standards and measuring results against these
standards, (2) assess the extent to which federal agencies are
reporting standards and results to customers and using the results to
improve service, and (3) identify some customer service management
tools and practices used by local, state, federal, and non-U.S.
national governments. In addition, we examined steps the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) is taking to facilitate federal agency use
of tools and practices to improve customer service.
Survey of Federal Government Services:
To assess whether and how federal agencies are setting customer service
standards, measuring results, reporting those results and using them to
improve services, we conducted a survey, based on the requirements of
Executive Order 12862 and the related presidential memorandum
"Improving Customer Service." We surveyed 13 services provided by
federal agencies that are among those with the most widespread contact
with the public. We selected a nonrepresentative sample of government
services because there is no single list of government services that
could be used to pull a representative sample. We selected the sample
based on a set of criteria including: services provided by a federal
agency; 1 million customers served annually; customers are primarily
U.S. individuals; and primary customers are not employees of a
government agency receiving benefits related to employment. We compiled
the list of potential services by starting with a list of Vanguard
agencies (agencies having the most contact with the public) that was
developed as part of the National Performance Review in the late 1990s
and identifying services within those agencies. To this list we added
agencies and respective services that were suggested by at least two of
the five knowledgeable individuals in the area of customer service whom
we consulted,[Footnote 37] or by one of the knowledgeable individuals
in the area of customer service and OMB. The final list of services
surveyed can be found in appendix II. The sample of services surveyed
was not a representative sample of services provided by the federal
government, meaning that results from our survey cannot be generalized
to apply to any other services provided by the federal government.
To minimize errors that might occur from respondents interpreting our
questions differently than we intended, we pretested our questionnaire
with four officials who were in positions similar to the respondents
who would complete our actual survey. During these pretests, we asked
the officials to complete the questionnaire as we observed the process.
We then interviewed the respondents to check whether (1) the questions
were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) the
questionnaire was unbiased, and (4) the questionnaire did not place an
undue burden on the officials completing it. We also submitted the
questionnaire for review by a GAO survey methodology expert and four
external reviewers who were experts on the topic of the survey
(selected based on their experience managing or designing government
performance improvement initiatives). We modified the questions based
on feedback from the pretests and reviews, as appropriate.
We sent the questionnaire by e-mail to the individual identified by the
service as the lead respondent. We asked services to complete the
questionnaire within the electronic form and return it as an e-mail
attachment. All 13 services completed the questionnaire. We reviewed
all questionnaire responses and followed up by phone and e-mail to
clarify the responses as appropriate.
We analyzed responses to closed-ended questions by counting and
summarizing the type and frequency of response for each of the 13
services. For responses to open-ended narrative questions, we coded the
responses from each service and created categories for the purpose of
organizing and summarizing the response of each service (e.g., methods
used to gather input from customers regarding their level of
satisfaction with the service).
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce
nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular
question is interpreted, the sources of information available to
respondents, or the types of respondents who do not respond to a
question can introduce errors into the survey results. We included
steps in both the data collection and data analysis stages to minimize
such nonsampling errors. As indicated above, we collaborated with GAO
survey specialists to design and review draft questionnaires, versions
of the questionnaire were pretested with four officials from services
not included in our survey but who were in positions similar to the
respondents who would complete our survey, we asked several external
experts to review and comment on a draft of the questionnaire, and we
revised the questionnaire as necessary to reduce the likelihood of
nonresponse and reporting errors on our questions. We examined the
survey results and performed computer analyses to identify
inconsistencies and other indications of error, and addressed such
issues as necessary. A second, independent analyst checked the accuracy
of all computer analyses to minimize the likelihood of errors in data
processing. In addition, GAO analysts answered respondent questions and
resolved difficulties respondents had answering our questions. For
questions that asked respondents to provide a narrative answer, we
created content categories and had one analyst code each response into
one of the categories, and another analyst verify the coding. Any
discrepancies in the coding were resolved through discussion by the
analysts.
We did not evaluate the overall effectiveness of or level of customer
service provided by any of the services reviewed.
Additional Interviews to Supplement the Survey:
To gain a fuller understanding of the survey responses, we selected
five of the services with varying answers to key questions on the
survey for follow-up interviews to discuss their responses. The five
services selected were the Forest Service, National Park Service,
Veterans Benefits Administration, Customs and Border Protection, and
Federal Student Aid.
In addition, because the scope of the survey was limited to services
that have widespread direct interaction with the public, we selected
and interviewed five additional services with a lower volume of contact
with the public and different missions or goals. These five services
were selected from a listing of independent agencies of the United
States government, and were chosen to ensure at least two services were
from each of the following categories:
* Services whose direct customers are individuals, but have fewer
contacts with the public than those in our survey:
* Services that serve government customers and are not subject to the
requirements of Executive Order 12862:
* Services that benefit the public as a whole rather than individuals
directly, such as agencies that make policy or regulate businesses:
The sample of additional services interviewed was not a representative
sample of services provided by the federal government, meaning that
results from the interviews cannot be generalized to apply to any other
services provided by the federal government. A list of the five
additional services we interviewed can be found in appendix II.
The key topics presented in the survey formed the basis of the
interviews with the five additional services. To prepare for analyses
of the open-ended interview questions, we created content categories
and had one analyst code each response into one of the categories
(e.g., measures related to customer satisfaction), and another analyst
verify the coding. Any discrepancies in the coding were resolved
through discussion by the analysts.
Identification of Tools and Practices:
In order to gain insight into the current application of leading
customer service tools and practices, challenges to implementing them
and strategies to overcome these challenges, we first reviewed relevant
literature, such as industry, academic, and management journals dealing
with customer service practices and an annual evaluation[Footnote 38]
of customer service provided by national governments begun in 2000.
Based on the literature review, we selected and interviewed six
knowledgeable individuals in the area of customer service. We selected
these individuals based on their having one or more of the following
characteristics: (1) experience managing or designing government
performance improvement initiatives, such as the National Performance
Review and the Government Performance and Results Act at the federal
level or similar initiatives at the state and local level; (2)
experience implementing, in a government setting, one or more of the
customer service management tools and practices we identified in our
literature review; and (3) published in peer reviewed journals, books,
or frequently referenced publications in the field of public sector
performance improvement.
Based on suggestions from these individuals and the literature, we
identified several customer service tools and practices. We then
identified local, state and foreign organizations to interview that
were either implementing tools and practices we had identified, were
suggested by the individuals we contacted, or were highly ranked in the
2007 edition of the annual evaluation of customer service provided by
national governments, which was the most recent edition that contained
rankings.
We obtained input from the following governmental organizations:
* Cabinet Office, United Kingdom:
* Centerlink, Australia:
* Central Provident Fund, Singapore:
* Customer Service Group, New York City:
* Office of Consumer Affairs, Georgia, USA:
* Service Canada, Canada:
* State Services Commission, New Zealand:
We used the input from these organizations to refine and provide
context for the list of tools and practices we had identified.
We conducted this performance audit in Washington, D.C. between August
2009 to October 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards, which require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis
for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: List of Services Contacted:
Table: Surveyed services:
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
Organizational unit: Forest Service;
Service: Recreational facilities and services.
Agency: Department of Education;
Organizational unit: Office of Federal Student Aid;
Service: Student loans under the Direct Loan Program.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Organizational unit: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;
Service: Health insurance under the Medicare program.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Organizational unit: Indian Health Service;
Service: Medical care for American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Organizational unit: Customs and Border Protection;
Service: Border security inspections of individuals.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Organizational unit: Transportation Security Administration;
Service: Passenger and baggage screening.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Organizational unit: National Park Service;
Service: Visitor and interpretive services.
Agency: Department of State;
Organizational unit: Bureau of Consular Affairs;
Service: Passport services.
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Organizational unit: Internal Revenue Service;
Service: Provision of tax information and advice to individuals.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Organizational unit: Veterans Benefits Administration;
Service: Disability compensation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Organizational unit: Veterans Benefits Administration;
Service: Veterans‘ Group Life Insurance.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Organizational unit: Veterans Health Administration;
Service: Beneficiary medical care.
Agency: Social Security Administration;
Organizational unit: Social Security Administration;
Service: Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance and Supplemental
Security Income.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table: Interviewed Services:
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Organizational unit: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Service: Regulation of power plants and other uses of nuclear
materials.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Organizational unit: National Science Foundation;
Service: Provision of research and education grants.
Agency: General Services Administration;
Organizational unit: Public Building Services;
Service: Property management services for other federal agencies.
Agency: General Services Administration;
Organizational unit: Federal Acquisition Service;
Service: Procurement of goods and services for the government.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Examples of Standards from Surveyed Services As part of
our methodology we asked all services involved in the survey to provide
us with a copy of their customer service standards. Below are examples
of the standards we received from each service.
Passport Services Provided by the Bureau of Consular Affairs:
* Bureau of Consular Affairs will provide service in a courteous,
professional manner:
* Bureau of Consular Affairs will always try to meet your travel needs:
* Bureau of Consular Affairs customers have the right to speak with
management if you are not satisfied with the service you have received:
Health Insurance under Medicare Provided by the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services:
* A target of 90 percent has been established for the Customer
Satisfaction Survey pass rate:
* A target of 90 percent has been established for the percent of
persons with Medicare Advantage Plans who report they usually or always
get needed care right away as soon as they thought they needed it:
* A target of 90 percent has been established for the percent of
persons with Medicare Fee for Service who report they usually or always
get needed care right away as soon as they thought they needed it:
* A target of 90 percent has been established for the percent of
persons with Medicare Advantage Plans who report that it is usually or
always easy to use their health plan to get the medicines their doctor
prescribed:
Border Security Inspection of Individuals Provided by Customs and
Border Protection:
* Customs and Border Protection (CBP) pledges to:
* Cordially greet and welcome you to the United States:
* Treat you with courtesy, dignity and respect:
* Explain the CBP process to you:
* Have a supervisor listen to your comments:
* Accept and respond to your comments in written, verbal or electronic
form.
* Provide reasonable assistance due to delay or disability:
Passenger and Baggage Screening Provided by the Transportation Security
Administration [Footnote 39]:
* A target of > 78 percent has been established for the number of phone
calls answered by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Contact Center within 20 seconds:
* A target of < 4 percent has been established for the TSA Contact
Center telephone call abandonment rate:
* A target of > 98 percent has been set for the accuracy of TSA Contact
Center telephone responses:
* A target of 0 has been established for the number of reportable
communications that were not escalated at the TSA Contact Center:
Student Loans under the Direct Loan Program Provided by Federal Student
Aid:
* The Customer Support Center contractor shall provide bi-lingual
(English or Spanish) phone support to schools, students, parents, and
borrowers Monday through Friday:
* A target of 80 percent has been established as the percentage of
customers that will be on hold for less than 20 seconds in the
Interactive Voice Response system:
* A target of less than 2 percent has been established as the
percentage of calls in the Interactive Voice Response that are
abandoned by the customer before reaching the customer service
representative:
* A target of greater or equal to 95 percent has been established as
the percentage of first time correct answers:
* A target of 99 percent has been established as the percentage of
availability of the Common Originations and Disbursement system and Web
site excluding schedule downtime and required processing outages:
Recreational Facilities and Services Provided by the Forest Service:
* Provide all reservation transaction processing with 100 percent
accuracy including advance reservations, walk-ins, cancellations, and
transfers.
* Provide trip planning and mappings with no more than 10 valid
complaints per Month:
* The trail and trailside are free of litter:
* Interpretive presentations, publications, displays, Web sites, and
visual aids are accessible:
* Visitors are provided an opportunity to communicate satisfactions
Medical Care Provided by the Indian Health Service [Footnote 40]:
* Respond to internal customers within 2 working days. Send e-mail to
address the issue or to provide a timeframe when you can work to
address the issue:
* Utilize "out of office" message as appropriate so customers know how
long you will be away from the office, who to contact for assistance,
and/or how to contact you if this is important:
* Answer phone calls in three rings:
* Pleasant greeting:
* Return phone calls within 1 business day:
Provision of Tax Information and Advice to Individuals Provided by the
Internal Revenue Service:
* A target of 71.0 percent has been established for the relative
success rate of taxpayers that call for customer account services
seeking assistance from a Customer Service Representative:
* A target of 91.2 percent has been established for the measure of how
often the customer received the correct answer with the correct
resolution to all tax law inquiries:
* A target of 93.7 percent has been established for the measure of how
often the customer received the correct answer with the correct
resolution to all account inquiries:
* A target of 698 seconds has been established for the average number
of seconds customers waited in an assistor queue before receiving
service:
* A target of 92.0 percent has been established for the measure of
taxpayer‘s overall satisfaction with the services provided by Field
Assistance personnel as determined by the customer satisfaction
survey:
Visitor and Interpretive Services Provided by the National Park Service
[Footnote 41]:
* A target of 97 percent has been established for the percent of
visitors satisfied with appropriate facilities, services and
recreational opportunities:
* A target of 93 percent has been established for visitor understanding
and appreciation of the significance of the park they are visiting:
* A target of 90 percent has been established for the percent of
designated National Historic Landmarks that are in good condition:
* A target of 92 percent has been established for the percent of
National Park Service (NPS) managed stream channel and shoreline miles
in desired condition:
* A target of 75 percent has been established for percent of miles of
National Historic Trails and Wild and Scenic Rivers under NPS
management meeting their heritage resource objectives:
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security
Income Provided by the Social Security Administration:
* A fiscal year 2011 target of 83.5 percent has been established for
percent of individuals who do business with SSA rating the overall
services as "excellent," "very good," or "good":
* A fiscal year 2011 target of 264 seconds has been established as the
average speed they wish to achieve for answering national 800 number
calls:
* A fiscal year 2011 target of 7 percent has been established as the
percent busy rate they wish to achieve for national 800 number calls:
Disability Compensation Provided by the Veterans Benefits
Administration:
* A target of 5 percent has been established for the percentage of
abandoned calls to Veterans Benefits Administration Public Contact
Representatives in the National Call Center:
* A target of 70.0 percent has been established for the agent
availability rate:
* A target of 75.0 percent has been established for overall quality,
includes measures of technical proficiency, client contact behaviors,
and effective call management.
Life Insurance Provided by the Veterans Benefits Administration:
* The standard for the average speed of answer for their call center is
set at 20 seconds:
* The standard for the overall customer satisfaction rate is set at 90
percent:
* The standard for the average processing days for Veterans Group Life
Insurance (VGLI) applications is set at 5 days:
* The standard for the financial accuracy of all claim payments is set
at 99 percent:
* The standard for the accuracy of VGLI application processing is 99
percent:
Medical Care Provided by the Veterans Health Administration:
* A target score of 83 has been established for the responsiveness of
hospital staff, calculated as the percentage of responses that fall in
the top two categories:
* A target score of 83 has been established for the privacy in hospital
rooms, calculated as the percentage of responses that fall in the top
three categories:
* A target score of 56 has been established for the overall rating of
health care, calculated as the percentage of responses that fall in the
top two categories:
* A target score of 80 has been established for getting care quickly,
calculated as the percentage of responses that fall in the top two
categories:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: High-Priority Performance Goals Related to Customer
Service:
The President‘s budget for fiscal year 2011 included high -priority
performance goals that agencies had committed to achieve within 18 to
24 months.[Footnote 42] The identification of high-priority performance
goals, coupled with measures and targets, will be used by the President
to evaluate agency progress in meetings with cabinet officers. Several
agencies have crafted specific goals to improve customer service. These
goals include targets and measures to improve customer satisfaction, as
well as objective performance measures such as wait times, operational
capacity, citizen engagement, and call center efficiency. This appendix
documents examples of customer service oriented, high-priority
performance goals drafted by federal agencies.[Footnote 43]
Department of Education:
* Simplified Student Aid: All participating higher education
institutions and loan servicers operationally ready to originate and
service Federal Direct Student Loans through an efficient and effective
student aid delivery system with simplified applications and minimal
disruption to students.
Department of Homeland Security:
* Improve security screening of transportation passengers, baggage, and
employees while expediting the movement of the traveling public
(aviation security).
* Wait times for aviation passengers (Target: Less than 20 minutes by
2012).
* Improve security screening of transportation passengers, baggage, and
employees while expediting the movement of the traveling public
(surface transportation security).
* Strengthen disaster preparedness and response by improving FEMA‘s
operational capabilities and strengthening State, local and private
citizen preparedness.
- Improve to 90 percent the percentage of shipments arriving with the
requested materials at the requested location by the validated/agreed
upon delivery date.
- Improve to 95 percent the percentage of respondents reporting they
are better prepared to deal with disasters and emergencies as a result
of training.
Department of the Treasury:
* Increase individual income tax filers‘ American Customer Satisfaction
Index score to 69.
* Improve telephone level of service to at least 75 percent by the end
of 2011.
Department of Veterans Affairs:
* By the end of 2011, reduce the average number of days to complete
original Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefit claims to 18 days.
* Implement a 21st-century paperless claims processing system by 2012
to ultimately reduce the average disability claims processing time to
125 days.
* Deploy a Veterans Relationship Management (VRM) Program to improve
access for all Veterans to the full range of Department of Veterans
Affairs services and benefits by June 2011.
- By the end of 2010, implement call recording, national queue,
transfer of calls and directed voice and self help.
- By the end of 2010, enhance transfers of calls among all Veterans
Benefits Administration lines of business with capability to
simultaneously transfer callers‘ data.
- By the end of 2010, pilot the Unified Desktop within Veterans
Benefits Administration lines of businesses to improve call center
efficiency.
Social Security Administration:
* Increase the Number of Online Applications: By 2012, achieve an
online filing rate of 50 percent for retirement applications. In 2011,
the Social Security Administration‘s (SSA) goal is to:
- Achieve 44 percent of total retirement claims filed online.
- Achieve 27 percent of total initial disability claims filed online.
* Issue More Decisions for People Who File for Disability: SSA will
work towards achieving the Agency‘s long-term outcomes of lowering the
disability backlogs and accurately processing claims. SSA will also
ensure that clearly disabled individuals will receive an initial claims
decision within 20 days. Finally, the agency will reduce the time it
takes an individual to receive a hearing decision to an average of 270
days by 2013.
In order to efficiently issue decisions in 2011, SSA‘s goal is to:
- Process 3.317 million out of a universe of 4.316 million initial
disability claims.
- Achieve 6.5 percent of initial disability cases identified as a Quick
Disability Determination or a Compassionate Allowance.
- Process 799,000 out of a universe of 1.456 million hearing requests.
* Improve SSA‘s Customers‘ Service Experience on the telephone, in
field offices, and online: To alleviate field office workloads and to
provide the variety of services the public expects, SSA will improve
telephone service on the national 800-number and in the field offices.
By fiscal year 2011, SSA‘s goal is to:
- Achieve an average speed of answer rate of 264 seconds by the
national 800-number.
- Lower the busy rate for national 800-number calls from 8 percent to 7
percent.
- Raise our overall rating of ’excellent,“ ’very good,“ or ’good“ given
by individuals who do business with SSA from 81 percent reflected in
2009 to 83.5 percent.
General Services Administration:
* Provide agile technologies and expertise for citizen-to-government
interaction that will achieve unprecedented transparency and build
innovative solutions for a more effective, citizen-driven government.
- Create three readiness assessments and criteria based tool selection
guidance by April 15, 2010.
- Provide assistance to other federal agencies in conducting six
dialogs by September 30, 2010.
- Realize 136 million touch points (citizen engagements) through
Internet, phone, print, and social media channels by September 30,
2010.
- Successfully complete three agency dialogs with the public to better
advance successful use of public engagements by September 30, 2010.
- Train 100 government employees on citizen engagement in forums,
classes, and/or Webinars that are rated highly successful by
participants and linked to agency capability building and successful
engagement outcomes by September 30, 2010.
Office of Personnel Management:
* Hiring Reform: 80 percent of departments and major agencies meet
agreed upon targeted improvements to:
- Improve hiring manager satisfaction with applicant quality.
- Improve applicant satisfaction.
- Reduce the time it takes to hire.
Small Business Administration
* Disaster Assistance: Process 85 percent of home loan applications
within 14 days and 85 percent of business and Economic Injury Disaster
Loan applications within 18 days.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact: Bernice Steinhardt, (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov
Staff Acknowledgments: In addition to the individual named above, key
contributions to this report were made by William Doherty, Assistant
Director; Charlesetta Bailey; Mason Calhoun; Martin De Alteriis; Justin
Dunleavy; Karin Fangman; Robert Gebhart; Colin Morse; Kelly Rubin;
Michael Silver; Eugene Stewman; and Ethan Wozniak. (450788)
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (August 3, 1993) (codified at 5
U.S.C. § 306; 31 U.S.C. §§ 1101 note, 1105, 1115–1119, 9703–9704; 39
U.S.C. §§ 2801–2805).
[2] The National Performance Review was a major executive branch reform
initiative launched in 1993 to improve government performance. In 1998,
it was renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing Government.
[3] Exec. Order No. 12862, "Setting Customer Service Standards," 58
Fed. Reg. 48,257 (Sept. 11, 1993).
[4] "Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act," H.R. 315, 111th Cong.
(2009).
[5] The sample of services was not a representative sample of services
provided by the federal government, meaning that results from our
survey cannot be generalized to apply to all services provided by the
federal government.
[6] The seven local, state, and foreign governments included: New York
City, Georgia (USA), Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and
Singapore.
[7] The order defined the ’best in business“ as the highest quality of
service delivered to customers by private organizations providing a
comparable or analogous service.
[8] IHS consists of a system of more than 650 IHS-funded facilities
organized into 12 geographic areas of various sizes. Within the 12
areas, direct care services are generally delivered by IHS-funded
hospitals, health centers, and health stations.
[9] The presidential memorandum ’Improving Customer Service“ states
that surveying customers shall be a continuing agency activity.
Additionally, the memorandum states that customer views should be
obtained to determine whether standards have been set on what matters
most to customers, and that agencies should publish replacement
standards if needed to reflect these views.
[10] We previously reported that significantly more federal managers
governmentwide had customer service measures in 2007 than in 1997. GAO,
Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on
Using Performance Information to Improve Results, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1026T] (Washington, D.C.: July 24,
2008).
[11] The OMB review is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act clearance
process. See the section below on the Paperwork Reduction Act for more
information on this process.
[12] The ACSI is a survey instrument that was developed at the
University of Michigan. The Department of the Interior‘s Federal
Consulting Group has obtained generic Paperwork Reduction Act clearance
for agencies to use the ACSI under a fee-for-service relationship. See
the section below on the Paperwork Reduction Act for more information
on generic clearances.
[13] While SSA has methods to gather customer input regarding their
level of satisfaction, we have previously recommended that SSA
establish procedures for documenting and assessing customer reported
complaints. See GAO, Social Security Administration: Additional Actions
Needed in Ongoing Efforts to Improve 800-Number Service, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/05-735] (Washington, D.C.: August 08,
2005).
[14] 44 U.S.C. ch. 35, subchapter I. The Paperwork Reduction Act was
originally enacted into law in 1980. Pub. L. No. 96-511 (Dec 11, 1980).
The law was significantly revised by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13 (May 22, 1995).
[15] Under the PRA, OMB‘s review of agency information collections
includes evaluation of factors such as unnecessary duplication with
other information collections, reduction of burden on persons who shall
provide information to the agency, consolidation and simplification of
reporting requirements, use of effective statistical survey methods,
and use of information technology to reduce burden and improve data
quality. See 44 U.S.C. §§ 3506(c)(3) and 3507.
[16] For example, if public harm is reasonably likely to result if
normal clearance procedures are followed, an unanticipated event has
occurred, or the normal clearance procedures are reasonably likely to
prevent or disrupt the collection of information or to cause a
statutory or court ordered deadline to be missed. See, 44 U.S.C. § 3507
(j) and 5 C.F.R. § 1320.13 (a).
[17] The Government Contact Center Council, Removing Barriers to
Citizen Engagement, A White Paper for the Obama Administration (March
2009).
[18] "Improving Implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act," 74 Fed.
Reg. 55,269 (Oct. 27, 2009).
[19] Memorandum, Transparency and Open Government, 74 Fed. Reg. 4685
(Jan. 21, 2009).
[20] Two of the five services, which are provided by GSA, have
customers who are government entities and are not subject to the
requirements of executive order 12862.
[21] Although the presidential memorandum does not explicitly require
that customer service results be easily accessible to customers, it
does require agencies to report results to customers at least annually
in terms readily understood by individual customers. The intended goal
of these stated requirements is the effective communication of customer
service results to customers. In order to achieve this goal, however,
agencies need to post these customer service results where customers
are likely to find them.
[22] We recently reported that CBP‘s border wait times data are
collected using inconsistent methods and are unreliable. GAO, Border
Security: CBP Lacks the Data Needed to Assess the FAST Program at U.S.
Northern Border Ports, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-
694] (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2010).
[23] Although SSA has customer service standards for calls to their
national phone number, we have previously recommended that SSA
establish standards for field office customer waiting times and phone
service. GAO, Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan
Needed to Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-24] (Washington, D.C.: January 9,
2009).
[24] We recently reported on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
assistance to beneficiaries affected by inappropriate marketing. GAO,
Medicare Advantage: CMS Assists Beneficiaries Affected by Inappropriate
Marketing but Has Limited Data on Scope of Issue, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-36] (Washington, D.C.: December 17,
2009).
[25] For the purposes of our report, we defined managers as those below
SES but above supervisors of personnel in contact with customers.
[26] The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 requires IRS to use
the fair and equitable treatment of taxpayers by employees as one of
the standards for evaluating employee performance. Pub. L. No. 105-206,
§ 1204, 112 Stat. 685, 722 (July 22, 1998).
[27] UK Cabinet Office, The Drivers of Satisfaction with Public
Services (2004).
[28] The United Kingdom Accreditation Service is a non-profit
organization authorized by the UK government to assess organizations
that provide certification, testing, inspection and calibration
services.
[29] New Zealand State Services Commission, Understanding the Drivers:
Summary Report (Wellington, New Zealand, March 2009).
[30] Microblogging is the practice of writing extremely short blog
posts, similar to text messages. Twitter is an example of a microblog
service.
[31] "Microblogging," General Services Administration, last Modified
July 21, 2009, [hyperlink,
http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/technology/microblogging.shtml
[32] San Francisco‘s 3-1-1 customer service center connects customers
with service representatives who provide general government information
and facilitate service requests.
[33] The Privacy Act of 1974 establishes requirements governing the
collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally
identifiable information about individuals that are maintained in an
agency‘s system of records, including establishing appropriate
safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of the
information. The Privacy Act specifically prohibits agencies from
disclosing information about an individual absent the consent of the
individual, unless the disclosure is permitted under one of the
statutory exceptions. Pub. L. No. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1897 (Dec. 31, 1974)
(codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a).
[34] "Citywide Performance Report," New York City Office of the Mayor,
accessed 8/25/2010, [hyperlink,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/ops/cpr/html/home/home.shtml]
[35] Exec. Order. No. 13538, ’Establishing the President‘s Management
Advisory Board,“ 75 Fed. Reg. 20,895.
[36] OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2011 (Washington D.C.: Feb. 1, 2010).
[37] See section below on Additional Interviews to Supplement the
Survey, for more information on the individuals contacted.
[38] For example, Accenture, Leadership in Customer Service: Delivering
on the Promise, 2007.
[39] The TSA Contact Center handles contacts for all of TSA, not only
for passenger and baggage screening. These standards apply to all
contacts at the contact center.
[40] IHS did not have standards at the service-wide level, but provided
us with examples of standards from area offices and facilities.
[41] Target figures reflect long term 2013 targets.
[42] Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget
of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011 (Washington, D.C.,
Feb. 1, 2010).
[43] The goals listed in this appendix appear as they were reported in
the President‘s Budget for fiscal year 2011. Agencies may have updated
the goals since that time.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
