Social Security Administration
Additional Actions Needed in Ongoing Efforts to Improve 800-Number Service
Gao ID: GAO-05-735 August 8, 2005
The Social Security Administration (SSA) at some point touches the life of nearly every American. Each day thousands of people contact SSA to file claims, update records, and request information from its 1,300 field offices, website, and national toll-free 800 number. Implemented nationwide in 1989, SSA's 800-number has become a principal contact point for millions of individuals seeking agency services. Congressional requesters asked GAO to review the quality of SSA's 800 number in terms of caller access and agent accuracy of response and courtesy.
Despite making improvements to its 800-number service, SSA still has difficulty keeping pace with caller demand for agent assistance. In 2001, SSA upgraded its 800-number network so that all callers could either access its automated services or be routed to the next available agent at any site in the network--a feat not possible under the previous system. The new network also enhanced SSA's ability to monitor and manage call traffic, agent availability, and network operations in real-time to ensure the network's integrity and the consistent delivery of services. SSA also expanded its automated and agent-assisted services accessible through the 800-number network. However, SSA's expansion of its automated services to reduce agent call burden has not had its intended effect, as callers continue to show a strong preference for agent assistance. In fiscal year 2004, about 51 million of the more than 71 million callers requested to speak to an agent. However, 8.7 million, or 17 percent, of these calls did not get through to an agent--a 2 percentage point increase over the previous year. SSA has taken steps to help agents provide callers with accurate information and consistent services, but still has problems with agents assisting callers in line with agency policies and procedures. SSA's training curriculum provides agents with a comprehensive overview of SSA programs. Agents are also encouraged to use available on-the-job resources, including a customized computer application that helps agents provide consistent service and accurate responses. Nevertheless, from 2001 through 2003, SSA did not meet its 90 percent target for service accuracy--that is, agents' performance in handling non-payment related issues in accordance with agency requirements. Although SSA has taken several actions to help agents improve their performance, including mandating agent use of the computer application, it has not yet determined why agent compliance with agency policies continues to fall short. SSA trains and monitors agents for courtesy and conducts periodic customer satisfaction surveys, but does not routinely capture all customer complaints about alleged agent discourtesy. Agents receive training on developing their interviewing and interpersonal skills, and SSA monitors agents to determine whether or not they are providing courteous service to callers. SSA monitoring indicates that agent courtesy levels are high. SSA solicits limited customer feedback on agent courtesy in its annual surveys and compiles general ratings, but these surveys do not ask callers for the reasons behind the ratings. Callers to the 800 number do complain of agent discourtesy, but SSA does not routinely document and assess all complaints. Some call center staff told us that when they receive allegations of agent discourtesy, they typically apologize for the discourteous service and may proceed to assist the caller without recording the complaint. SSA has feedback mechanisms in place to capture caller complaints, but these mechanism do not do so in a manner that allows SSA to assess complaints and identify corrective actions needed.
Recommendations
Our 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:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-05-735, Social Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed in Ongoing Efforts to Improve 800-Number Service
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-735
entitled 'Social Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed in
Ongoing Efforts to Improve 800-Number Service' which was released on
August 18, 2005.
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.
Report to the Committee on Finance,
U. S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2005:
Social Security Administration:
Additional Actions Needed in Ongoing Efforts to Improve 800-Number
Service:
GAO-05-735:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-735, a report to the Committee on Finance, U.S.
Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Social Security Administration (SSA) at some point touches the life
of nearly every American. Each day thousands of people contact SSA to
file claims, update records, and request information from its 1,300
field offices, website, and national toll-free 800 number. Implemented
nationwide in 1989, SSA‘s 800-number has become a principal contact
point for millions of individuals seeking agency services.
Congressional requesters asked GAO to review the quality of SSA‘s 800
number in terms of caller access and agent accuracy of response and
courtesy.
What GAO Found:
Despite making improvements to its 800-number service, SSA still has
difficulty keeping pace with caller demand for agent assistance. In
2001, SSA upgraded its 800-number network so that all callers could
either access its automated services or be routed to the next available
agent at any site in the network”a feat not possible under the previous
system. The new network also enhanced SSA‘s ability to monitor and
manage call traffic, agent availability, and network operations in real-
time to ensure the network‘s integrity and the consistent delivery of
services. SSA also expanded its automated and agent-assisted services
accessible through the 800-number network. However, SSA‘s expansion of
its automated services to reduce agent call burden has not had its
intended effect, as callers continue to show a strong preference for
agent assistance. In fiscal year 2004, about 51 million of the more
than 71 million callers requested to speak to an agent. However, 8.7
million, or 17 percent, of these calls did not get through to an
agent”a 2 percentage point increase over the previous year.
SSA has taken steps to help agents provide callers with accurate
information and consistent services, but still has problems with agents
assisting callers in line with agency policies and procedures. SSA‘s
training curriculum provides agents with a comprehensive overview of
SSA programs. Agents are also encouraged to use available on-the-job
resources, including a customized computer application that helps
agents provide consistent service and accurate responses. Nevertheless,
from 2001 through 2003, SSA did not meet its 90 percent target for
service accuracy”that is, agents‘ performance in handling non-payment
related issues in accordance with agency requirements. Although SSA has
taken several actions to help agents improve their performance,
including mandating agent use of the computer application, it has not
yet determined why agent compliance with agency policies continues to
fall short.
SSA trains and monitors agents for courtesy and conducts periodic
customer satisfaction surveys, but does not routinely capture all
customer complaints about alleged agent discourtesy. Agents receive
training on developing their interviewing and interpersonal skills, and
SSA monitors agents to determine whether or not they are providing
courteous service to callers. SSA monitoring indicates that agent
courtesy levels are high. SSA solicits limited customer feedback on
agent courtesy in its annual surveys and compiles general ratings, but
these surveys do not ask callers for the reasons behind the ratings.
Callers to the 800 number do complain of agent discourtesy, but SSA
does not routinely document and assess all complaints. Some call center
staff told us that when they receive allegations of agent discourtesy,
they typically apologize for the discourteous service and may proceed
to assist the caller without recording the complaint. SSA has feedback
mechanisms in place to capture caller complaints, but these mechanisms
do not do so in a manner that allows SSA to assess complaints and
identify corrective actions needed.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that SSA take steps to (1) increase callers‘ access to
agent services, (2) determine why agents fail to comply with SSA
requirements when handling calls, and (3) establish uniform procedures
for documenting and assessing customers‘ agent-related complaints. SSA
agreed with the first two recommendations, but disagreed with the
third, saying that its consistently high courtesy rates demonstrates
that its present approach is working and taking any additional measures
to improve courtesy would not be cost-effective. GAO maintains that
routinely documenting and analyzing customer complaints could help SSA
identify callers‘ concerns and reinforce the agency‘s commitment to
quality ’citizen-centered“ service.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-735.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barbara Bovbjerg at (202)
512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
SSA Has Improved Overall Access to the 800 Number, but Many Calls
Seeking Agent Assistance Do Not Get Through:
SSA Trains and Provides Agents On-the-Job Resources, but Agents Have
Not Met SSA's Standard for Accuracy of Assistance:
SSA Conducts Training, Monitoring, and Customer Surveys but Lacks a
Uniform System for Assessing Agent Courtesy:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Major Services That Agents Provide to 800-Number Callers:
Table 2: Services Available through the 800-Number Automated Menus, As
of June 2005:
Table 3: Top Five Types of Service Errors Observed in Fiscal Year 2003:
Figures:
Figure 1: SSA's 800-Number Call Center Locations:
Figure 2: Most Frequent Reasons for Calls to the 800 Number, Fiscal
Year 2003:
Figure 3: Calls Placed to the 800-Number, Fiscal Years 2002 through
2004 (in Millions):
Figure 4: 800-Number Calls Seeking Agent Assistance That Did Not Get
Through, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 (in Millions):
Figure 5: 800-Number Calls Handled and Abandoned in Automation, Fiscal
Years 2002 through 2004 (in Millions):
Figure 6: SSA's Performance in Meeting Payment Accuracy and Service
Accuracy Targets, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2003:
Figure 7: Regional Performance for Meeting Service Accuracy Target,
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003:
Abbreviations:
CHIP: Customer Help Information Program:
OIG: Office of the Inspector General:
OQA: Office of Quality Assurance and Performance Assessment:
OTS: Office of Telephone Services:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
SSI: Supplemental Security Income:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 8, 2005:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Chairman:
The Honorable Max Baucus:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The Social Security Administration (SSA) at some point touches the life
of nearly every American. Its services include issuing Social Security
cards, maintaining earnings records, and administering some of the
largest federal benefit programs--Old Age and Survivors Insurance and
Disability Insurance--commonly referred to as Social Security--and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Each day thousands of people
contact SSA's 1,300 field offices, Web site, and national toll-free 800
number (1-800-SSA-1213) to file claims, report events to update
records, and request information about SSA's programs. Since becoming
available nationwide in 1989, SSA's 800 number has become a principal
contact point for individuals seeking agency services. Callers to the
800 number may opt to use a self-service menu of automated services or
request to speak with an agent. In fiscal year 2004, callers placed
over 71 million calls to SSA's 800 number.
SSA has made improvements and adjustments to its 800-number service in
response to customer feedback. However, some problems have persisted.
For example, SSA reported that millions of calls were encountering busy
signals or being terminated before being served. An SSA survey of 800-
number callers in September 2000 found that callers wanted easier and
faster access to live service--that is, to speak with an agent without
wading through the lengthy list of automated services. Furthermore,
callers commented that SSA could improve its 800-number services by
having agents with expertise provide consistent information and exhibit
courteous behavior and helpful attitudes.
In this context, you asked us to review the quality of SSA's 800 number
in terms of caller access, agent accuracy of response and courtesy.
This report discusses SSA's efforts to (1) improve caller access to the
800 number; (2) ensure that SSA agents provide accurate responses and
follow SSA requirements; and (3) ensure that agents treat callers
courteously.
To conduct our work, we reviewed SSA's policies and procedures for 800-
number agents and interviewed SSA officials to develop information on
SSA's telephone systems and services, training offerings and
requirements, and the steps they take to ensure that their agents
provide acceptable service. Specifically, we interviewed and obtained
documentation from officials at SSA headquarters in Baltimore,
Maryland; regional officials in 3 of the 10 regions; and staff working
in a total of six call centers--two in each location visited--
Birmingham, Alabama; Kansas City, Missouri; and Richmond, California.
The call centers we selected varied in the volume of calls handled and
included those that handled 800-number calls on a routine basis and
centers that handled calls as needed. We reviewed SSA performance data
related to access, accuracy, and courtesy and determined the data to be
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We conducted our
work from September 2004 through July 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Appendix 1 provides a more
detailed description of our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
Despite making improvements to its 800-number systems, management, and
services to improve caller access, SSA still has difficulty keeping
pace with caller demand for agent assistance. In 2001, SSA upgraded its
800-number network so that all callers could either access its
automated services or be routed to the next available agent at any site
in the network--a feat not possible under the previous system. The new
network also enhanced SSA's ability to monitor and manage call traffic,
agent availability, and network operations in real-time to ensure the
network's integrity and the consistent delivery of services. SSA also
expanded its automated and agent-assisted services accessible through
the 800-number network. However, SSA's expansion of its automated
services to reduce agent call burden has not had its intended effect,
as callers continue to show a strong preference for agent assistance.
In fiscal year 2004, 51 million of the more than 71 million callers
opted to speak with an agent, but 8.7 million, or 17 percent, did not
get through--a 2 percent increase over the previous year.
SSA has taken steps to help agents provide callers accurate information
and to comply with SSA requirements, but still has problems with agents
not meeting its standards for accurate service. SSA provides agents
with comprehensive training and equips them with on-the-job resources
such as a customized computer application to enable them to offer a
broad range of services and to help ensure that they provide accurate
and consistent service. SSA also makes experienced staff available to
assist agents with complex or technical calls. In addition, SSA
monitors agents' calls agencywide to assess agent accuracy and training
needs. SSA's own monitoring assessments for 1998 through 2003 found
that the agency generally met its 95 percent standard for "payment
accuracy," having agents correctly handle inquiries involving
eligibility and benefit payment issues. However for this same period,
SSA did not meet its standard for "service accuracy," having agents
correctly handle issues that do not have the potential to affect
eligibility and/or payment according to agency requirements. SSA's
overall performance for "service accuracy" for fiscal year 2003 was
85.1 percent; below the agency's 90 percent target. According to SSA's
assessment, agents' failure to obtain six personal identifying pieces
of information from callers to verify their identity before accessing
and disclosing information was the most frequent service error
committed by agents. This error accounted for 28 percent of all service
errors identified through SSA's assessment in fiscal year 2003. SSA has
taken several actions to help agents improve their performance,
including requiring agents to use the computer application designed to
help them comply with agency requirements by directing their questions
and responses to callers. However, the improvement in the service
accuracy rate that followed these initiatives was short-lived. SSA has
not determined why agents fail to comply with requirements and thus
commit service errors.
SSA trains and monitors agents for courtesy and conducts periodic
customer satisfaction surveys, but does not routinely document or
analyze all incidents of discourtesy or caller complaints. As part of
the basic training curriculum, agents are taught interviewing and
interpersonal skills. In addition to monitoring for accuracy, SSA also
monitors agents to determine whether or not they were courteous to
callers. Based on 4,384 monitored calls in 2003, SSA reported an agent
courtesy rate of 99.9 percent. Although this would mean discourtesy was
highly infrequent, it would still mean that agents may have handled as
many as 60,000 calls placed during fiscal year 2003 discourteously. SSA
solicits direct customer feedback about agent courtesy by surveying
callers annually. In 2004, 91 percent of the respondents rated the
agent level of courtesy as good, very good, or excellent while 5
percent rated it as fair and 4 percent rated it as poor or very poor.
However, the survey does not ask callers their reasons for the ratings.
Also, while callers also contact SSA to complain of agent discourtesy,
SSA does not routinely document all complaints. We were told that when
callers report allegations of agent discourtesy, call center staff
typically apologize for the discourteous service and may proceed to
assist the caller without making a record of the complaint. In
addition, callers sometimes make complaints about agent discourtesy
through SSA's Web site. However, the Web site does not give guidance to
complainants about the specific information they should provide. As a
result, customers do not typically provide information that would help
SSA assess the overall nature of complaints and identify any needed
action. According to experts on customer service, a good management
complaint system is key to building customer relations and identifying
recurring problems and solutions to prevent future problems. Without
such a system, SSA may be missing opportunities to address customer
concerns and improve 800-number services.
This report contains recommendations to the SSA Commissioner that are
intended to improve the quality of the 800-number service related to
access, accuracy, and courtesy. In its comments on a draft of this
report, SSA agreed with our recommendations to identify cost-effective
ways to increase agent availability to handle 800-number calls and
conduct a comprehensive analysis of the source of agent service errors.
SSA disagreed with our recommendation to establish procedures for
documenting and assessing customer complaints. SSA believes a formal
complaint system is not necessary or cost-effective given the
consistently high level of courteous service indicated by SSA's service
monitoring and customer satisfaction surveys. In our report, we
acknowledge the high level of agent courtesy indicated through these
sources. Yet, SSA's high call volume means that even with low rates of
discourtesy, agents may be treating potentially tens of thousands of
callers discourteously. Good customer service stresses the importance
of paying attention to customers' complaints, however minor, and
establishing a simple user-friendly and comprehensive complaint
management system. We do not anticipate a need for SSA to expend
extensive resources in meeting our recommendation, but rather suggest
that SSA modify and uniformly apply the mechanisms already in place to
obtain information about callers' concerns or complaints that could
help the agency further improve customer service.
Background:
Before implementing the nationwide 800-number service, SSA delivered
most of its services to the public face-to-face in an SSA field office.
In 1989, SSA implemented a national, toll-free 800 number to better
enable individuals to request information on SSA programs or report
events that affect their own or someone else's SSA records or
payments.[Footnote 1] SSA set up the 800-number service with the
expectation that callers would ask basic questions and conduct simple
business transactions, such as reporting address changes and scheduling
field office appointments. When a call came into the 800 number, it
would be routed to a local SSA call center. This strategy resulted in a
high busy rate. Troubled by high busy-signal rates, SSA in 1996 added a
nationwide automated menu to the 800 number that allowed callers to
conduct a limited number of transactions without speaking to an agent.
In 1997, we identified a number of conditions that limited the
effectiveness of SSA's 800-number service.[Footnote 2] For one, callers
often reached a busy signal instead of the automated menu or an agent.
In addition, the automated menu offered only a limited number of
services. To reach an agent, callers were required to select a specific
topic about which they wished to speak to an agent so that the system
could direct their call to an agent in a call center with the requisite
subject matter expertise. This routing strategy led to some call
centers being overwhelmed with calls. Also, because agents could not
transfer calls, callers sometimes were inconvenienced by having to
redial the 800 number to complete their business.
Since the introduction of its nationwide 800-number service, SSA has
worked to keep pace with the public's growing demand for telephone
services and interests in conducting more complex transactions over the
telephone. Today, calls made to the 800 number are answered at 44
geographically dispersed locations. A call placed to the 800 number may
be answered by agents located in any one of SSA's 36 teleservice
centers, 6 Program Service Centers; or at one of 2 components within
SSA's Office of Central Operations.[Footnote 3] Figure 1 shows the
locations of these call centers within the 10 SSA regions.
Figure 1: SSA's 800-Number Call Center Locations:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
SSA staffs its 36 teleservice centers with approximately 4,060
teleservice representatives who answer incoming calls to the 800
number. In addition, each of SSA's six program service centers, which
are co-located on teleservice center sites, has designated specialists,
called "SPIKES," who have been cross-trained to provide back-up support
in answering 800-number calls during peak call volume periods. The
SPIKE staff is comprised of various technical staff in the program
service centers whose routine responsibilities include processing
claims, mailing out notices, managing SSA's debt collection activities,
and handling reports of non-receipt of checks and representative payee
issues.
SSA employs a cadre of approximately 2,030 trained SPIKES in its six
program service centers. When the volume of calls is expected to exceed
the levels that teleservice representatives can handle, SSA activates
SPIKES, diverting them from their routine responsibilities to answer
incoming 800-number calls. These peak calling periods typically occur
on the first day of the week, the first week of the month, and the
first 3 months of the year. In this report, we refer to teleservice
representatives and SPIKES as "agents" and to teleservice centers and
program service centers as "call centers."
SSA's Office of Telephone Services (OTS) plans, implements, operates,
and evaluates SSA telephone service to the public delivered by way of
the national 800 number and field offices. OTS plans and conducts
studies, pilots, and analyses of 800-number and field office telephone
operations to assess and improve the service. It also provides direct
support to call centers and field offices, including developing and
communicating uniform operating policies and procedures. OTS staff
works closely with SSA's vendor that supplies and manages the network
hardware, software, and telephone equipment used to support the 800-
number service. OTS also manages the 800-number network operations,
designs and administers call routing plans, and monitors call handling
and adjusts call routing to handle emergency situations.
Full-time SSA agents spend much of their time answering calls.[Footnote
4] These calls may cover a broad range of inquiries about SSA programs
and procedures. Figure 2 shows the 10 most frequent reasons for calls
to the 800 number in fiscal year 2003.
Figure 2: Most Frequent Reasons for Calls to the 800 Number, Fiscal
Year 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Agents' time off the phone, such as for staff meetings, training
sessions, or annual leave must be scheduled months in advance so that
the network operations may continue without interruption.
SSA sets goals for telephone access and agent services and measures
performance in these areas. In recent years, to measure access, SSA
calculated the number of calls handled, the number of calls that reach
the 800 number on their first attempt, and the number of calls that
reach an agent within 5 minutes of selecting the option to speak with
an agent. In fiscal year 2005, SSA replaced these measures with two new
access performance measures--the average speed of answer and the agent
busy rate--consistent with standards in the telecommunications
industry. SSA also expects agents to adhere to agency guidance and
procedures and sets standards and measures agent accuracy (i.e.,
compliance with SSA's requirements when serving callers) and agent
courtesy. The Office of Quality Assurance and Performance Assessment
(OQA) measures the accuracy of information agents provide callers by
listening in daily to a statistical random sample of calls handled by
agents nationwide. OQA assesses accuracy based on whether agents
adhered to SSA requirements when responding to callers' inquiries. As
shown in table 1 agents are expected to provide callers a broad range
of services. OQA also periodically surveys 800-number callers to
assess, among other things, callers' perception of agent courtesy.
Table 1: Major Services That Agents Provide to 800-Number Callers:
Provide information about Social Security numbers including
requirements for obtaining Social Security numbers and replacement
cards.
Explain SSA program rules specific to individuals' circumstances.
Screen individuals for entitlement to benefits under SSA programs.
Advise individuals about their rights and responsibilities as
participants in SSA programs.
Receive and input reports such as address changes, non-receipt of
checks, and deaths that affect SSA records or benefit payments.
Answer questions about communications individuals received from SSA.
Inform individuals of assistance provided by other agencies and make
referrals.
Source: GAO analysis of SSA data.
[End of table]
SSA Has Improved Overall Access to the 800 Number, but Many Calls
Seeking Agent Assistance Do Not Get Through:
Despite making improvements to its 800-number systems, SSA still has
difficulty keeping pace with caller demand for agent assistance. Since
2001, SSA has made improvements to its telephone systems, management,
and services to improve caller access to the 800-number network.
Specifically, the new enterprise-wide network improved incoming call
routing and network capacity; enhanced SSA's ability to manage network
operations, forecast call volumes, and set staffing levels; and
expanded automated and agent services. However, callers continue to
demonstrate a preference for speaking with an agent over using the
automated service menus. In fiscal year 2004, about 51 million callers
requested to speak to an agent. Of these calls, 8.7 million, or 17
percent, of these calls did not get through to an agent--a 2 percent
increase over the previous year.
SSA Made Numerous Upgrades to Its 800-Number Network:
SSA upgraded the network to help overcome past access problems. One
major upgrade was the replacement of the geographically based routing
system with a nationwide routing system capable of distributing calls
to any agent within the network. This change gave SSA the ability to
monitor call traffic and agent availability in real time at each call
center and receive "cradle to grave" management information on a call's
movement from the time the caller dials the 800 number until the call
is terminated. The network also effectively eliminated the busy signal
that callers encountered when using the older system. The new system
accepts all calls made to the 800-number network and provides callers
with a broad range of automated services. Calls seeking agent
assistance are distributed to 1 of SSA's 44 answering sites.
When callers dial the 800 number, the network provides a series of
prompts to direct them to the desired services. The network uses
recorded announcements and pre-set menu prompts to separate callers
according to language preference (i.e., English or Spanish) or type of
telephone service (i.e., touchtone or rotary dial). The network uses a
digitized voice to read menu selections to the caller and responds to
caller-entered touch-tone digits. The caller's selection can invoke a
number of options, such as playing a recorded announcement (e.g., on
cost-of-living adjustments) or transferring a call to an agent. SSA
provides callers with an extensive menu of available automated services
before offering them the option of acquiring agent assistance. SSA told
us that the menus were set up this way to offer callers an opportunity
to conduct their business using automated services before forwarding
their calls to agents.
When a caller indicates a preference for agent assistance, the network
determines the optimum destination for the call. It reviews among other
factors agent availability, the number of calls in queue, and the
minimum expected delay. If all agents are busy and call queues are
filled to capacity, the network delivers an agent busy message to
callers, advising them that heavy call volume prohibits the transfer of
their call to an agent and encouraging them to call back during periods
of typically lower call volumes.
A call placed in agent queue remains queued until an agent becomes
available. The network applies treatments to calls waiting in agent
queue, such as announcements promoting the use of SSA's Web site.
According to SSA, if the wait time in an agent's queue exceeds 15
minutes, the call is re-routed to another agent and given priority over
other incoming calls. The network continually tracks the status of each
call until the caller disconnects. Although the network was designed to
hold one call per agent in queue, the vendor told us that it typically
holds up to 1.65 calls in queue per agent.
SSA and the vendor have taken measures to ensure the integrity of
network-generated data and the continuous operation of the network.
Both SSA and the vendor conduct ongoing tests of the accuracy and
completeness of the network-generated data on which so much of SSA's
800-number related performance measurement, management decisions, and
staffing levels depend. The vendor told us that redundancy was built
into the network to ensure that the failure of any one component only
affected existing calls. For example, if one component fails, the
network automatically employs a backup execution path to bypass the
problem location and reroutes calls to one of the remaining call
centers. According to the vendor, the redundancy built into the 800-
number network and the geographical dispersion of its redundant
functions would make a complete system outage almost unimaginable.
Vendor staff told us that the local outages that occur on occasion are
mainly caused by loss of network facilities, extended local power
failures, or hardware issues. SSA and the vendor maintain back up
databases critical to network operations.
SSA takes several additional steps to help ensure that callers can
access 800-number services. SSA network operations staff frequently
calls the 800-number network to test the integrity of the main menu
scripts and the routing of calls to both automated and agent services.
They evaluate calls for proper routing through the option choices;
proper functionality of the automated scripts; proper functionality of
routing to agents; proper routing to agents and agent queues; and the
quality and clarity of the connection. Call centers also have systems
administrators who monitor the performance of the equipment used on the
premises and notify headquarters when any anomalies appear. System
administrators are responsible for keeping the phones and headsets
working, troubleshooting problems with desktop applications, monitoring
computers, printers, or management information data. If the
administrators notice any problems, they are responsible for notifying
headquarters so that the vendor can dispatch a technician to initiate
repair.
SSA Manages Call Traffic and Forecasts Future Call Demand and Staffing
Needs:
SSA takes advantage of the wealth of management information at its
disposal to monitor ongoing network operations and plan for the future.
SSA forecasts call volumes and schedules the appropriate number of
agents in accordance with anticipated demand based on historical data.
These forecasts allow SSA to group days into specific levels depending
on the anticipated volume of calls. For example, the busiest days--
"Level 1" days--require the greatest number of SPIKES to be activated
to answer phones. SSA sets and tracks SPIKE commitments to help ensure
that enough SPIKES will be available networkwide to answer the volume
of incoming calls. Depending on network conditions, managers may make
adjustments to the number of available agents and the routing of calls
to align available 800-number resources with caller demand. SSA
adjusted its call volume forecast downward 5 times each in fiscal years
2003 and 2004, allowing SPIKES scheduled to answer 800-number calls to
return to their other assigned duties.
SSA uses real-time data to monitor call traffic, caller activity, and
system performance. SSA can use these data to track overall incoming
calls and information on automation or determine whether calls were
routed to an SSA call center or to a busy message. SSA monitors such
800-number network statistics as calls made to the network, calls
offered to agents, agent staff levels, average speed of answer, and
agent busy rate. Staff also monitors cable and national news for
events, such as inclement weather, news stories on Social Security, or
homeland security events to determine what impact they may have on
projected 800-number call volumes. Furthermore, SSA monitors caller
usage of the automated menus and reshuffles automated options to keep
the most popular options first.
SSA performs limited checks of the network generated data. Upon
receiving the data electronically, SSA runs the data through a
multistep automated procedure that backs up the data and converts it to
a readable format. As part of this process, SSA checks each record to
ensure that all area codes are good, all phone numbers are properly
formatted, and all listed phone numbers originate in the 800-number
network. The vendor also generates separate reports on automated
services and agents. SSA reviews the reports and compares the results
with historical trends. Although SSA has no additional means of
verifying the reliability of the vendor-provided data or the results
that appear in report field outputs, both SSA and the vendor maintain
that these data are accurate, and the vendor states that SSA has the
source data it needs to assess network performance.
SSA Expanded Its Automated and Agent-Assisted Services, but 17 Percent
of Calls Seeking Agent Assistance Do Not Get Through:
Since the inception of the nationwide 800 number and the later
introduction of limited 24-hour automated services, SSA has continually
improved the quality and quantity of services available to callers. In
1996, SSA introduced voice-recognition applications and added an option
allowing callers to replace their Medicare card by phone. In 1998, SSA
implemented five new automated service options to handle inquiries
surrounding the increased number of Social Security statement mailings.
By 2002, SSA had made the full range of automated services available in
the Spanish language.
Callers may access the automated services at any time in English or
Spanish to obtain services, information, or forms. Table 2 lists the
services available through the 800-number automated menus.
Table 2: Services Available through the 800-Number Automated Menus, As
of June 2005:
Main service categories: Field office locator database;
Subcategories:
* N/A.
Main service categories: Password/password request code/account status;
Subcategories:
* N/A.
Main service categories: Social Security card application form;
Subcategories:
* N/A.
Main service categories: Benefit verification;
Subcategories:
* N/A.
Main service categories: Social Security statement options;
Subcategories:
* Form to request Social Security statement;
* Form to correct name or date of birth;
* Form to request Social Security statement with different estimate of
future earnings;
* Message--why Social Security statement was sent;
* Message--address on Social Security statement;
* Message--earnings on Social Security statement.
Main service categories: Medicare options;
Subcategories:
* Replacement Medicare card;
* Form to request help with the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan costs;
* Medicare Prescription Drug Plan message.
Main service categories: Pamphlets;
Subcategories:
* Understanding the benefits;
* Retirement benefits;
* Disability benefits;
* Survivors benefits;
* How work affects your benefits;
* Benefits for children with disabilities;
* What every woman should know.
Main service categories: Informational messages;
Subcategories:
* Payment delivery dates;
* Direct deposit;
* Best times to call 800 number;
* SSA Internet address and services;
* SSI message;
* 1099 benefits statement (seasonal);
* Cost-of-living adjustment (seasonal).
Source: SSA data.
[End of table]
SSA has adopted the telephone industry "best practice" of taking care
of all of the caller's business during the initial contact. Agents have
been trained to answer a wide range of inquiries and have the capacity
to transfer calls they cannot handle to others who handle these calls.
For example, in 1998, SSA began allowing callers to file claims for
retirement and survivors' benefits immediately through the 800 number,
eliminating the need for the caller to leave a message and wait for
another SSA agent to return the call. In 1999, SSA gave agents access
to a computer-based application to assist them in handling telephone
calls more efficiently. In 2002, SSA provided callers the option of
having their call routed to a designated group of bilingual agents. SSA
also extended the hours of agent availability nationwide. Agents are
now available weekdays from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. in each time zone. In
addition, SSA provides unadvertised agent service for extended hours on
weekday nights and weekends. SSA also provides agent service for the
hearing impaired through a separate toll-free number.
In following SSA's instructions to handle all of the caller's business
needs, agents may be performing tasks that limit their availability to
answer calls. During site visits, we observed agents who filled out
forms by hand, retrieved printouts, placed the mailings in an envelope,
addressed the envelopes by hand, and put the envelope in the mail slot,
while the caller remained on hold. While these steps may help give
callers the assurance that their business is being completed, such
manual tasks are time-consuming and potentially limit the number of
calls that agents can handle.
Although the number of calls placed to the 800 number has increased
slightly since fiscal year 2002 and SSA has expanded services available
through automation, the agency continues to have difficulty keeping
pace with caller demand for live agent assistance. Figure 3 shows the
calls made to the 800 number since fiscal year 2002 when SSA's most
recent telephone network upgrade was fully implemented. The proportion
of calls to the 800 number indicating a preference for agent assistance
has been relatively consistent, whereas SSA had hoped that the
introduction of automated services would divert calls away from agents
to the less costly, self-service automated system. Such a reduction
would be consistent with the call center industry trend toward self-
service with minimal agent intervention. However, agents continue to
answer the majority of calls, including some calls that, according to
agents, could easily be handled through automation. The percentage of
calls seeking agent assistance but not getting through declined from
22.7 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 15.2 percent in 2003, but rose 2
percent in fiscal year 2004. Specifically, as figure 4 shows, 8.7
million (or 17.2 percent) of the 51 million calls seeking agent
assistance in fiscal year 2004 did not get through. About half of these
calls encountered a busy message and the other half abandoned the call
while waiting in queue. Managers of private call centers do not place a
lot of importance on call abandonment rates for several reasons,
including their belief that callers terminate calls to visit the Web
site. Some callers that request SSA agent assistance may be able to
satisfy their needs through the automated menu or Web site. However, if
callers' business require agent assistance, they will not be able
satisfy their needs if they unable to get reach an agent.
Figure 3: Calls Placed to the 800 Number, Fiscal Years 2002 through
2004 (in Millions):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 4: 800-Number Calls Seeking Agent Assistance That Did Not Get
Through, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 (in Millions):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
SSA offers a variety of possible reasons why callers abandon their
calls after being placed in queue for an agent, one being that
customers simply do not want to continue waiting any longer before
having an opportunity to speak to an agent. SSA has several initiatives
underway to reduce the number of abandoned calls in queue, including a
call-back service, which will provide callers kept in queue beyond a
certain threshold with an opportunity to enter their telephone number
and select a contact time so that an agent can call them back. While
providing convenience to callers and potentially using any agent "down"
time more efficiently, a call back option also has the potential to
increase agent workload.
Since 2002, SSA's 800-number automated menus have received
progressively higher call volumes but handled fewer calls to
completion. In addition, as shown in figure 5, the number of calls
being abandoned without completing a transaction in the automated menus
has steadily increased, culminating in fiscal year 2004, when nearly
half of calls to automation were abandoned.
Figure 5: 800-Number Calls Handled and Abandoned in Automation, Fiscal
Years 2002 through 2004 (in Millions):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Although SSA offers a number of possible reasons, it is unable to say
with any degree of certainty why calls continue to be abandoned. In the
past, SSA has conducted follow-up caller surveys to ask callers what
had prompted them to abandon the automated services. The primary reason
that callers gave for hanging up after an initial selection of an
automated service was their desire to speak to an agent. According to
SSA, many callers simply desire the security of human contact when
leaving personal information that is required to transact business. SSA
has now eliminated the need for callers to redial; callers may now have
their calls transferred from automated services to agent queue.
However, this option will likely increase agents' call burden. SSA
intends to make its automated menu selections more accessible by
introducing a speech-enabled main menu that would allow callers to
simply speak their needs in response to directed questions. For
example, rather than listening to a list of options, callers will be
able to use their voice to narrow down available options and find the
ones relevant to the services they seek. SSA plans to implement this
feature nationwide later in this fiscal year. SSA also redesigned its
Web site in 2003 to improve its accessibility and usability in the hope
of relieving the burden on the 800 number. The Web site now attracts
over 30 million visitors a year, which SSA says has reduced the demand
for direct service from 800-number and field office agents. SSA's
customer satisfaction surveys from 2002 and 2003 show that the
percentage of the survey respondents who said they would likely use the
800 number the next time they contacted SSA decreased from 75 to 61
percent. In contrast, the percentage of respondents who reported they
were likely to use the Internet or email to contact SSA increased by 2
percent and the percentage of those who said that they would likely
call or visit a field office increased by 10 percent.
SSA Trains and Provides Agents on-the-Job Resources, but Agents Have
Not Met SSA's Standard for Accuracy of Assistance:
SSA has taken steps to help agents provide callers accurate information
and comply with agency requirements, but still has problems with agents
meeting its standards for accurate service. SSA provides agents with
comprehensive training and equips them with on-the-job resources to
help them provide accurate and consistent service. In addition, SSA
monitors agents' calls and compiles agencywide assessments of agent
accuracy in handling calls and identifies agent training needs. SSA's
own monitoring assessments for 1998 through 2003 found that the agency
generally met its standard for agent accuracy in handling issues that
had the potential to affect individuals' benefit payments, but not its
standard for "service accuracy," handling issues that did not have the
potential to affect benefits. SSA's overall performance for "service
accuracy" for fiscal year 2003 was 85.1 percent; below SSA's 90 percent
target. According to SSA's assessment, agents' failure to obtain the
required identifying pieces of information from callers to verify their
identity before accessing and disclosing information was the most
frequently committed service error. In fiscal year 2003, this error
alone accounted for 28 percent of all service errors that SSA
identified. SSA has taken several actions to help agents improve their
performance, but these actions have not resulted in sustained
improvements in service accuracy.
SSA Trains Agents and Equips Them with Resources to Properly Handle
Calls:
SSA provides agents with comprehensive training to enable them to offer
callers a broad range of services and to complete callers' business on
initial contact. The basic training curriculum is comprised of formal
course work to teach agents about the agency's programs, policies, and
procedures,[Footnote 5] including rules for disclosing information to
and accepting reports from callers; how to access, interpret, and enter
data into SSA computer systems and databases; and how to query and
interpret SSA records. As part of their basic training, agents take
frequent tests, conduct mock interviews, observe experienced agents
handling calls, and answer calls. The basic training curriculum for
full-time agents at the call centers we visited ranged from 11 to 16
weeks. In addition, call center officials told us that they taught a
modified 11-to 12-week course to back-up agents to augment their
existing technical skills. In addition, officials told us that they
supplemented the basic training with regional and call center training
offerings, such as new employee orientation, diversity training, and
public service training.
After agents complete basic training, regions and call centers follow
their own established practices to help agents transition to handling
calls on their own. At the sites we visited, agents were mentored or
closely supervised during a transitional period. For example, some call
centers assigned a personal mentor to sit and observe agents handling
calls and to provide prompt assistance, as needed. After spending a
number of weeks with a mentor, agents are evaluated to determine their
readiness to handle calls on their own. As another transitional step,
one call center placed agents in a training unit that had a higher
supervisor-to-agent ratio to allow closer supervision and monitoring of
agents' work. Floor support staff in one training unit said that, in
addition to providing technical assistance, they review the accuracy of
agents' data entries for events, such as direct deposit requests and
death reports. Based on an agent's proficiency, floor-support staff may
review agents' work to provide daily feedback or review their work less
frequently as agents demonstrate proficiency.
Agents may receive subsequent training in a variety of ways. For
example, training can occur during the 3-hour allotments reserved for
monthly staff meetings. Call center staff and officials told us that
these meetings were used as a forum to provide agents information on
emerging issues such as national and regional initiatives and changes
in operating procedures, as well as feedback on the call center's
performance. During the workday, supervisors may provide agents with
important information that agents need to know, such as generic
responses to calls triggered by current media reports on Social
Security solvency. We were told that agents also receive voluminous
intra-agency communications for which they may be allotted 15 minutes
at the end of each workday to read. We were also told that supervisors
and floor-support staff use various strategies to ensure that agents
are aware of the most important changes. Call center managers and
supervisors told us, that if needed, more time maybe requested for
agents to be off the telephones to receive additional training, such as
hands-on computer training.
To assist agents in providing callers with accurate and consistent
services, SSA provides agents with the Customer Help and Information
Program (CHIP)--a customized online computer application for providing
services to 800-number callers. CHIP helps agents navigate the
comprehensive set of requirements and guidance for SSA programs and
directs agents in the actions they should take to accurately complete
callers' business on initial contact. For example, if an agent enters
an address change for individuals receiving Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) benefits, CHIP displays screens prompting the agent to ask
callers a series of questions about changes in living arrangements--
events that may lead to an increase or decrease in SSI benefits. As
another resource, the call centers we visited made more experienced
staff available to help agents handle more complex or technical calls.
Officials told us that such floor support was customary at call centers
agencywide.
SSA Monitors Agents to Assess Performance and to Identify Training
Needs:
SSA monitors agents' handling of 800-number calls for payment accuracy
and service accuracy.[Footnote 6] SSA assesses agent performance for
payment accuracy in cases where agents' responses on such matters as
eligibility, filing of claims, or reportable events could potentially
affect an individual's eligibility or benefits. SSA also assesses
agents' performance for service accuracy to determine whether or not
the services they provide correspond with SSA policies and procedures.
When assessing service accuracy, SSA considers whether agents provided
accurate information as well as performed all other related actions
that the agency requires. Some of these actions are required as a
matter of convenience to callers or to avoid the potential need for
follow-up contact.
SSA conducts random, remote monitoring of agents handling calls for
various purposes. OQA is responsible for two types of monitoring.
First, OQA monitors a statistical national sample of calls handled by
agents throughout the year to develop both agencywide and regional
assessments of agent performance. This type of monitoring serves as
SSA's means of assessing agent payment accuracy and service accuracy.
OQA officials told us that such monitoring had the capacity to reveal
issues that needed to be addressed at the agency level, such as
pinpointing areas needing policy clarification. However, the
responsibility for agent performance, including improving performance
to meet agency targets, rests with the various regions and individual
call centers. Second, if requested by regional officials, OQA
occasionally monitors a small number of calls handled by individual
call centers and visits the call centers to brief managers and agents
on its findings. Call center staff also randomly monitor calls handled
by their call center for payment accuracy and service accuracy and to
identify training needs for their agents. SSA does not specify the
number of calls that should be monitored for this purpose. Call center
officials told us that the number of calls they monitored do not
provide a statistically valid assessment of their center's performance.
Designated call center personnel also monitor individual agents to
provide agents individualized feedback on their telephone performance.
Monitors may point out positive aspects of agents' performance as well
as suggest additional training. Agents are given advance notice of when
monitoring will occur and are allowed to choose whether to have
monitors sit with them or to have monitors listen in from a remote
location.[Footnote 7] For full-time agents, SSA guidance recommends
monitoring as many as five calls per month for agents with more than 1
year of experience and unlimited calls for agents with less than 1
year.[Footnote 8] Officials told us that agents are given timely
feedback on assessments of their overall performance. Some officials
also said that when monitors observe agents making an error, they may
interrupt the call to instruct the agent on the correct procedure.
Agents Have Not Met SSA's Standard for Accuracy of Assistance:
Although SSA takes a number of actions to help agents provide callers
accurate information in accordance with agency policies and procedures,
agents still have problems meeting SSA's standard for service accuracy.
As shown in figure 6, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003,
SSA generally met its 95 percent target for payment accuracy--having
agents correctly handle inquiries involving eligibility and benefit
payment issues--but not its 90 percent target for service accuracy--
having agents serve calls related to nonpayment -related issues
according to agency requirements.[Footnote 9]
Figure 6: SSA's Performance in Meeting Payment Accuracy and Service
Accuracy Targets, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: OQA does not routinely calculate and publish confidence intervals
at the agency level. However, OQA calculated the approximate sampling
variability for the fiscal year 2003 results at the 95 percent
confidence level to be ± .8 percent for payment accuracy for the
universe of calls with a payment-affecting issue and ±1.1 percent for
service accuracy. OQA said that because the call population, the number
of calls monitored, and accuracy rates have remained relatively
constant for the period of our review, the confidence intervals would
change by only tenths of a percentage point from one year to the next.
[End of figure]
SSA reported that its overall performance for payment accuracy in
fiscal year 2003 was 95.9 percent, and the performance for each of its
10 regions was similar. However, SSA reported its overall performance
for service accuracy in fiscal year 2003 was 85.1 percent. Based on
OQA's assessment, as few as four regions may have met the 90 percent
service accuracy target in 2003.[Footnote 10] As shown in figure 7, for
fiscal years 2001 through 2003, almost all regions had problems
consistently meeting SSA's established target for service accuracy.
Figure 7: Regional Performance for Meeting Service Accuracy Target,
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: OQA does not routinely calculate and publish confidence intervals
at the regional level. OQA estimates the sampling variability for FY
2003 at the 95 percent confidence level, would range from ±2.9 percent
to ±4.4 percent for service accuracy. OQA said it would expect similar
regional sampling variability for prior years.
[End of figure]
OQA identified 63 types of required actions that agents failed to take
in fiscal year 2003 that led SSA to miss its service accuracy target.
Agents' failure to take these required actions resulted in service
errors. As shown in table 3, the most frequent error stemmed from
agents' inadequate protection of individuals' personal information. SSA
protects individuals' privacy by limiting disclosure of the personal
information in its records to individuals for whom the agency maintains
the records and to others authorized. Agents committed an error each
time they failed to collect the requisite six identifying pieces of
information to verify a caller's identity before accessing or
disclosing information from SSA records (i.e., improper handling of
access and disclosure).[Footnote 11]
Table 3: Top Five Types of Service Errors Observed in Fiscal Year 2003:
Type of service error[A]: Improper handling of access/disclosure;
Percentage of all service errors: 28;
Example of service error: Caller inquiry and agent action: A caller
representing an attorney's office wanted to know when a client who was
in the attorney's office should expect payment of disability benefits.
The client had received a letter indicating SSA had made a favorable
decision; The agent obtained the client's Social Security number from
the caller, verified that a favorable decision was made, and told the
caller that it usually takes 3 months from the date of the letter to
receive payment;
Example of service error: Action agent failed to take: Agent should
have asked to speak to the client to verify client's identity and ask
the client's permission to conduct business with the attorney
representative.
Type of service error[A]: Failure to obtain or properly interpret a
query;
Percentage of all service errors: 10;
Example of service error: Caller inquiry and agent action: A caller
wanted to know the status of her child's disability claim; The agent
misread SSA's records, advised the caller that the claim was denied,
and offered to mail appeal forms;
Example of service error: Action agent failed to take: Agent should
have advised the caller that a final decision had not been made and to
allow 60 days for SSA's decision.
Type of service error[A]: Improper handling of potential claims[B];
Percentage of all service errors: 8;
Example of service error: Caller inquiry and agent action: A widow
reported her husband's death to stop his retirement checks. The agent
accepted the death report and told the widow she should return the
husband's next payment to her local SSA office;
Example of service error: Action agent failed to take: Agent should
have screened the widow to determine her possible eligibility for
benefits on her husband's account.
Type of service error[A]: Improper handling of referral to another SSA
component;
Percentage of all service errors: 8;
Example of service error: Caller inquiry and agent action: Caller
wanted to obtain replacement of a lost Social Security card. The caller
acknowledged having two of the identity documents that the agent said
she would need to get a replacement; Agent told the caller to contact
the SSA office ahead of her visit to make sure the two documents were
sufficient and was given the SSA office address and telephone number;
Example of service error: Action agent failed to take: Agent should
have offered to mail the caller a Social Security card application form
that would have allowed caller to obtain a replacement Social Security
card without having to visit an SSA office.
Type of service error[A]: Improper handling of acceptable reporter[C];
Percentage of all service errors: 6;
Example of service error: Caller inquiry and agent action: Caller was
payee for two children receiving benefits, one of whom recently turned
18 and was away at school. Caller wanted to report address change for
both children; Agent properly identified the caller, processed a change
of address for the younger child, and told the caller the older child
would have to report the address change herself;
Example of service error: Action agent failed to take: Agent should
have accepted address change for both children because caller was an
acceptable reporter.
Source: OQA "800 Number Evaluation Reports" for fiscal years 2001
through 2003.
Note: The examples provided are for illustrative purposes and the
actual incident depicted may not have occurred in fiscal year 2003.
[A] OQA identified 58 additional causes of service errors, 9 of which
occurred at frequencies between 1 and 5 percent, and the remaining 49
occurred at a frequency of less than 1 percent.
[B] Inquiries about claims where there was no reasonable probability to
affect payment or eligibility for benefits.
[C] This error occurs when agents either accept a nonpayment-affecting
report without verifying the identity of the reporter to determine if
the report can be accepted, or refuses to accept a nonpayment-affecting
report from a proper reporter.
[End of table]
Managers at the sites we visited have taken actions to reduce the
number of service errors, particularly access and disclosure errors.
For example, some call centers provided CHIP refresher training,
designed desk aids reminding agents of the steps for proper disclosure,
placed "hot pink" sheets detailing the service errors on the desks of
agents who commit them, or established a "CHIP doctor" to provide
agents with technical assistance to help navigate the CHIP computer
application. However, the effectiveness of these actions to improve
service accuracy for agents within the respective call center is
unknown because the monitoring that occurs at the call center level
does not provide a statistically valid measurement to make such an
assessment.
OQA has reported that the lower service accuracy rate primarily stemmed
from agents' failure to follow SSA's requirements when asking callers
to verify their identities. Assuming that such "access and disclosure"
failures could be cleared up through the use of the CHIP application,
SSA mandated its use in November of 2001. The service accuracy rate
subsequently improved for fiscal year 2002, but dropped the next fiscal
year because, according to OQA, agents did not make optimal use of
CHIP. OQA recomputed SSA's service accuracy rate without the access and
disclosure error for comparison purposes and reported that it would
have increased from 85.1 to 89.2 percent in fiscal year 2003. SSA has
not determined why agents fail to follow agency procedures when
handling some calls, resulting in service errors.
SSA Conducts Training, Monitoring, and Customer Surveys but Lacks a
Uniform System for Assessing Agent Courtesy:
SSA uses training, call monitoring, and surveys to ensure that agents
deliver courteous service, but does not routinely document or analyze
all incidents of discourtesy or caller complaints. As part of its
comprehensive, multiweek training curriculum, SSA teaches agents the
interviewing and interpersonal skills they need to provide courteous
service. It also determines through monitoring whether agents are being
courteous. Based on its monitoring results from 2001 through 2003, SSA
reported that it found agents to be courteous to callers over 99
percent of the time. SSA also measures caller satisfaction with agent
courtesy as part of its annual 800-number customer satisfaction survey.
In 2004, 91 percent of respondents rated agent courtesy as good, very
good, or excellent; 5 percent rated agent courtesy as fair, and 4
percent rated it poor or very poor. While SSA uses training, monitoring
and customer surveys to ensure courtesy, it does not have a uniform
system for analyzing incidents and complaints of discourtesy. Call
center staff told us that they typically apologize to callers and offer
to provide the desired assistance whenever callers lodge complaints by
phone. Moreover, they may not record the complaint or attempt to
capture and assess information on the nature of complaints. Customer
service studies highlight the importance of paying attention to
complaints and the benefits of having a good management complaint
system.
SSA Relies on Training, Monitoring, and Customer Surveys to Ensure
Agent Courtesy:
As part of its comprehensive, multiweek training curriculum, SSA
teaches interviewing and interpersonal skills to help agents serve
callers in a professional and courteous manner. The training includes
instruction on how to establish rapport with callers, how to obtain
information necessary to accurately serve callers' needs, and how to
end calls on a positive note. As a courtesy measure, agents are
instructed to allow callers to end the call. Agents also receive
training on how to respond to angry, loud, or abusive callers,
including how to calm such callers, and how to continue serving them or
to transfer those calls to supervisors.
SSA also uses its call monitoring process to oversee courtesy levels
and has procedures for immediate intervention to remedy any observed
problem.[Footnote 12] OQA procedures call for monitors to immediately
inform management of a discourteous incident, prepare a written report
for the agent's call center manager, and retain a copy of the report in
the event that a disciplinary action is taken against the agent. Call
center managers who become aware of discourtesy allegations or observe
agent discourtesy are required to follow similar procedures. They are
required to discuss any incident with the agent and consider a
progressive range of disciplinary actions from issuing a reprimand to
terminating an agent's employment.
OQA officials told us that formal monitoring is time-consuming work. As
a result, OQA said that over the years, it reduced the sample size of
the monitored calls due to resource constraints. Regional and call
center management expressed varied opinions as to whether the reduction
in the number of monitored calls was an obstacle to identifying agent
discourtesy. One call center manager told us that discourtesy was more
likely to be observed by managers and supervisors patrolling work areas
than through formal monitoring. On the other hand, one regional
official noted that additional unannounced monitoring would be a more
effective way of catching agent rudeness.
Some of the managers and officials with whom we met, however, told us
that they believed courtesy levels were very high and not a problem.
According to the agency's call monitoring records, SSA agents have
performed at consistently high rates with regard to courtesy. For
fiscal year 2003, OQA determined that based on 4,384 calls, agents had
been courteous to callers 99.9 percent of the time. [Footnote 13] It
reached similar conclusions from its 2001 and 2002 monitoring.
SSA also relies on its annual survey of callers to assess and ensure
agent courtesy. Callers who have used agent services have been asked,
among other questions, to rate agent courtesy on a 6-point scale. The
2004 survey showed that 91 percent of the callers rated agent courtesy
as being good, very good, or excellent; 5 percent rated it as being
fair; and 4 percent rated it as being poor or very poor.[Footnote 14]
These rates were about the same as those reported for the 2001 though
2003 surveys.
Other call centers may use telephone or online surveys to obtain
feedback from customers, although the actual administration of the
surveys may vary. For example, one organization conducts telephone
surveys using voice capture software to record customer responses. At
the beginning of a call, the survey system randomly selects
participants and asks them to participate in a 2-3 minute survey after
they complete their call. Another organization conducts online surveys,
sending a survey to selected customers via email. Nonetheless, these
organizations seek to obtain customers' views on their organization's
performance.
SSA Lacks a Uniform System for Assessing Agent Courtesy:
SSA monitors calls and receive feedback from customers, but it does not
systematically gather and assess this information to identify courtesy
problems, such as particular problem locations or persistent patterns
or trends. SSA agents handled an average of 40.9 million calls each
year from 2001 through 2003. Even if agents were courteous 99.9 percent
of the time as OQA reported, for fiscal year 2003 that would still
leave nearly 60,000 calls in which the agents may have been
discourteous. However, because SSA does not routinely analyze the
details of agent discourtesy observed through monitoring, it has no way
of determining the circumstances or lessons learned from monitored
calls.
Studies conducted on customer service have shown that building
relationships with customers and a having first-rate management
complaint system are critical to maintaining good customer relations.
One study in particular noted that paying attention to customer
complaints, regardless how minor they may be and addressing them
quickly and completely helps satisfy customers and build trusting
relationships.[Footnote 15] Similarly, people who contact their
government agencies want to be heard and expect courteous and
respectful treatment. It is therefore important for government
employees to distinguish what their customers want and to take actions
to ensure that their customers are satisfied. The study also noted that
no matter how good the service or product is, occasions will invariably
arise that result in customer complaints. However, it is important that
when criticisms are voiced, that they are systematically and promptly
addressed. A good management complaint system can provide data and
information on complaints that can be compiled and analyzed to give
insight into where problems are recurring and what needs to be done to
fix them or prevent them from happening in the future. A good complaint
system also facilitates the filing of complaints using simple, yet
comprehensive complaint forms.
SSA's 800-number customer satisfaction surveys are one means of
gathering feedback from callers on agent courtesy. However, the survey
does not ask why some respondents rate agent courtesy as poor. In
addition, the agency does not routinely collect or analyze all caller
complaints placed through the 800 number. Our visits to call centers
found variation in how they handled such calls. When customers call the
800 number to report agent-related complaints, SSA guidance requires
agents to refer calls to supervisors or floor-support staff. However,
SSA does not provide guidance for how those receiving referrals should
handle them. We were frequently told that call center staff receiving
these calls typically apologize for the other agents' rudeness and
offer to provide service to the caller. SSA provides call center staff
a form to document 800-number service complaints, including agent lack
of courtesy. However, SSA has not provided them agencywide guidance on
documenting complaints or the type of information they should record to
allow SSA to identify service issues or trends. We were given a variety
of reasons why call center staff may not document agent-related
complaints. One call center official told us that his site allowed
agents to exercise judgment in deciding which complaints they
documented. Some agents, supervisors, and technical staff told us they
were unaware of procedures for handling such complaints while others
believed callers needed to provide sufficient information such as the
offending agent's name or call center location to lodge a formal
complaint. It was our observation that 800-number agents may not
provide their full name or mention their call center location when
answering a call.
SSA responds differently to customer-reported complaints sent to agency
offices than to complaints registered on its Web site. Specifically,
regional and call center officials said that when warranted they would
attempt to identify the agent, investigate the merits of the complaints
reported to their offices, and initiate disciplinary actions.
Headquarters staff who receive complaints through the agency's Web site
told us that they routinely send customers a letter of apology, but
have no one designated within SSA to whom to forward and or resolve
complaints. Although the Web site has an Intranet-based form ostensibly
designed to capture complaint information, it does not ask for specific
information such as the nature of the alleged act of discourtesy and
the date and time it occurred. By not systematically collecting and
analyzing information on alleged agent discourtesy, SSA is unable to
identify service issues that may warrant corrective actions.
Conclusions:
SSA's toll-free phone service is an important resource for the
thousands of people who call the number daily, and the steps the agency
has taken in recent years demonstrate a commitment to quality service.
The agency's upgraded telephone system along with its expanded menu
options and agent-assisted services has improved access in many
respects by giving customers more services at their convenience. In
addition, the agency has taken steps to help ensure that callers
receive more accurate and courteous service.
Even with good service, however, there is room for improvement.
Improvements to the 800-number network have not necessarily ensured
that callers receive the help they seek, given the number of calls not
reaching an agent. This may not be a mounting problem if callers follow
the general trend in the call center industry toward automation and
self-service as they grow more comfortable with these options. However,
the impending increase in the size of the retiree and disability
populations, and anticipated changes to the Social Security system
suggest that SSA may continue to experience a substantial proportion of
callers who request agent assistance. Measures to improve customer
access to agents may therefore be needed. In addition, SSA's many
benefit programs will continue to generate some complex questions that
require agent assistance. Currently, the prevalence of service accuracy
errors diminishes the quality of service that callers receive when they
do reach an agent through the 800 number. Finally, although SSA's
estimates show instances of agent discourtesy to be rare among all
calls, such instances could nonetheless affect tens of thousands of
callers. Because SSA does not routinely capture information on all
customer complaints about discourtesy, however, it loses the ability to
assess the severity of the problem and misses opportunities to better
understand caller needs, solve unanticipated problems, and retain the
good will of the public.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the quality of the 800-number telephone service, we
recommend that the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
take the following three steps:
* Identify cost-effective ways that will help ensure that more calls
seeking agent assistance get through to agents, such as streamlining
the call-handling process, automating some mailings that agents now do
by hand, or increasing number of agents available to take calls.
* Conduct a comprehensive analysis of the source of service errors. For
example, the agency might consider holding agent focus groups to gain
insight into why agents tend to fail to comply with certain
requirements. The agency could get agents' views on the effectiveness
of CHIP in helping them meet agency requirements.
* Establish procedures for documenting and assessing customer-reported
complaints. In doing so, the agency should determine the types of
information it needs to assess customers' concerns and to provide the
agency a means to identify and address service issues.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from the
Commissioner of SSA. In its comments, SSA said it was pleased that our
report reflected the agency's commitment to providing high-quality 800-
number telephone service that meets the needs and expectations of its
customers. SSA agreed with our recommendation to identify cost-
effective ways to increase agent availability to handle 800-number
calls and described several planned initiatives to improve agent
productivity and to expand automated services. SSA also agreed with our
recommendation to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the source of
agent service errors. Accordingly, SSA said it would convene a
workgroup to obtain feedback on the source of agent service errors and
make recommendations as appropriate to improve the agency service
accuracy level.
SSA disagreed with our recommendation to establish procedures for
documenting and assessing customer complaints. SSA said that its
findings that agent courtesy levels are consistently high demonstrate
that its present approach to ensuring agent courtesy--which combines
training, monitoring, and customer surveys--is working. Moreover, SSA
said that based on its experience with prior initiatives, a nationwide
reporting system would require heavy resource expenditures and be cost
prohibitive given current budget constraints. Furthermore, SSA stated
that any use of agent resources to document complaints would be
counterproductive to improving caller access to agent services.
While we agree that agent courtesy levels are high and state this in
the report, given the sheer volume of 800-number calls SSA receives,
even relatively small percentages of callers encountering agent
discourtesy could result in tens of thousands of callers not getting
the service they deserve. Thus, we believe that SSA can benefit from
having uniform procedures for documenting and assessing customer
complaints and have added additional information for further
clarification. Experts believe that paying attention to customer
complaints, however minor, and working to quickly resolve them is
important to building relationships with customers. In addition, having
information on complaints helps identify recurring problems and
potential fixes as well as help prevent future occurrences. Under SSA's
current practices, because the decision to document a complaint lies
with the individual agent handling the call, customers contacting the
800 number have no assurance that SSA will review the merits of their
complaints. Routinely documenting and assessing customer-initiated
feedback could help the agency identify areas of concern to callers and
reinforce the agency's commitment to providing quality "citizen
centered" service.
While we understand SSA's concerns about resource constraints, we
maintain that SSA can implement a system to document complaints using
existing mechanisms, such as its 800-number feedback form and Internet
form for complaints reported to its 800 number and Web site,
respectively. As we state in the report, SSA already devotes time and
staff to the documentation and handling of customer-reported
complaints; however, such efforts are not done routinely. SSA states
that its agents provide more efficient service when they keep the
caller on the phone until the caller's business and all agent actions
are completed. We believe routinely documenting callers' concerns would
take no more time than completing callers' other business. Further, the
information could be collected uniformly in an electronic format that
would facilitate analysis that could be used to improve service. As
others have pointed out, a good system for managing complaints should
be comprehensive, yet simple. Finally, we believe that understanding
and responding to customer complaints are integral to the delivery of
quality customer service.
SSA's comments are reproduced in appendix II. SSA also provided
technical comments, which we have incorporated in the report as
appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the interested congressional committees and the Commissioner of SSA
and will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (201) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@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 III.
Signed by:
Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of this study were to evaluate SSA's actions for
ensuring callers have ready access to 800-number services and receive
accurate and courteous service from agents. To do this, we reviewed
published works that included the National Performance Review
benchmarking reports to identify industry benchmarks in areas key to
our work and issues surrounding call center services.[Footnote 16] We
also reviewed GAO and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reports
and SSA annual performance plans to identify what is currently known
about SSA telephone service operations. To evaluate the quality of the
800-number service, we compared telephone system performance data
compiled by a contractor for SSA and SSA's Office of Quality Assurance
and Performance Assessment (OQA) assessments of agent accuracy and
courtesy to SSA's established standards and, where applicable, to
industry benchmarks. We used performance data from OQA's monitoring of
agents for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 and from OQA's 800-number
customer satisfaction surveys conducted fiscal years 2001 through 2003.
We reviewed OQA's management reports for these activities.
To develop information on the actions SSA takes at the headquarters
level to ensure quality 800-number telephone service, we reviewed
documents related to (1) SSA's forecasts of call volumes and projected
staffing levels for auxiliary agents; (2) services offered using the
automated menu; (3) vendor-contracted services for the 800-number
telephone systems hardware, software, and performance data; and (4)
requirements for training agents, monitoring agent performance, and
agent courtesy to callers. We interviewed officials in the Office of
Telephone Services to obtain an understanding of the general operation
of the 800-number telephone system including the routing of calls; the
compilation of performance data; and SSA's actions to monitor the
performance of the 800-number system and of the vendor. We also
interviewed OQA officials to obtain more detailed information on
procedures for monitoring agents and surveying 800-number callers. In
addition, we reviewed some complaints reported by the public over the
agency's Web site and interviewed officials in the SSA's Center for
Program Support to discuss practices for handling complaints.
We visited six call centers to observe the 800-number service
operations at the regional and call center levels. At the locations
visited, we observed officials monitoring their centers' call traffic
and agent availability in real time, officials monitoring agents
handling live calls, and agents handling live calls from customers. We
reviewed documentation call center officials provided on agent
training, monitoring of agents, agent-related complaints received, and
disciplinary actions taken against agents. We interviewed regional and
call center officials having line-management, supervisory, floor
support, monitoring, and call-handling responsibilities to obtain
information on call center operations and their experiences in
providing telephone services and serving the public. The call centers
we selected varied in the frequency and volume of calls they handled--
three handled calls routinely and three on a back-up basis--and are not
representative of call centers SSA-wide.
To assess caller access and the reliability of the 800 number, we
interviewed SSA officials and contacted selected vendor staff to obtain
documents and data on the 800-number management and operations. SSA
uses the management data and information supplied by the vendor to
track all calls and transactions on the network, including data on
overall incoming calls and information on automation and to determine
whether calls were routed to an SSA call center or to a busy message.
The vendor's reporting system has internal alarms running on each
server and an application that periodically checks each server's vital
functions, capacity, and environmental operating conditions against a
predetermined set of normal operational conditions. Upon receipt, SSA
runs the vendor-supplied data through a multistep automated procedure
that backs up the data, creates data storage files, extracts data to be
stored in other datasets, and recreates the data in a readable format.
As part of this process, SSA checks each record to ensure that all area
codes are good, all phone numbers are properly formatted, and all
answering telephones originate in the 800-number network. The vendor
also generates separate reports on automated services and agents. SSA
reviews the reports and compares the results with historical trends.
Although SSA has no additional means of verifying the reliability of
the vendor-provided data or the results that appear in report field
outputs, both SSA and the vendor maintain that these data are accurate
and the vendor states that SSA has the source data it needs to assess
network performance. We reviewed SSA performance data related to access
and determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report.
To assess the reliability of OQA's monitoring assessments of agents'
performance, we examined data reliability issues identified in an OIG
report and interviewed OQA officials knowledgeable about the monitoring
process and resulting data. In addition, we reviewed documentation and
training materials, including monitoring instructions, evaluation data
entry forms and desk aids, corrective action and evaluation feedback
forms, and information regarding the statistical sampling of calls. In
evaluating OQA's sampling and weighting methodology, we determined that
OQA's methodology for monitoring agents' payment and service accuracy
appears to adequately represent the population of telephone calls.
Approximate confidence intervals were produced by OQA using standard
formulas for proportions based on a simple random sample. As OIG
previously reported, [Footnote 17] we also found that decisions
regarding payment accuracy and service accuracy continue to be
unverifiable because SSA does not maintain documentation of all
monitored calls. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable
for our purposes, given these limitations.
To assess the reliability of the survey of 800-number callers, we
interviewed OQA officials about the survey and resulting data and
reviewed documentation on the survey methodology, sampling, response
rates, and sampling variability. We also reviewed a report contracted
by the OIG regarding this measurement of customer
satisfaction.[Footnote 18] This report concluded that the 800-number
caller survey produced a reliable measurement of callers' views of
agent courtesy for the period measured, but that because the survey was
administered only twice a year, it was unlikely that the survey results
matched the true customer satisfaction across the entire year. Because
the survey was recently limited to being conducted during a single 4-
week period in March, we found that the survey results continue to be
unrepresentative of callers' responses throughout the year. We believe
that seasonal events could affect customer satisfaction in different
ways throughout the year. The survey response rate during the period
2001 through 2004, ranged from 53 percent to 71 percent. Although
response rates within these ranges are not unexpected for this kind of
telephone survey, it should be noted that as the response rate
decreases, the certainty that the survey results represent the universe
decreases. We determined that the survey data are sufficiently reliable
for providing a general indication of customer satisfaction, for the
specified periods of administration.
We conducted our work at SSA headquarters, Baltimore, Maryland; at
regional offices in Birmingham, Alabama; Kansas City, Missouri; and
Richmond, California; and at two call centers in each region. We
conducted our work from September 2004 through July 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
SOCIAL SECURITY:
The Commissioner:
July 22, 2005:
Ms. Barbara Bovbjerg:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income:
Security Issues:
U. S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW:
Room 5968:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Bovbjerg:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report, "Social Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed in
Ongoing Efforts to Improve 800-Number Service" (GAO-05-735).
Our response and technical comments to the draft report are enclosed.
If your staff has questions about the comments, they may contact
Candace Skurnik, Director, Audit Management and Liaison Staff, at (410)
965-4636.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart:
Enclosure:
Appendix II: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
COMMENTS ON THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO) DRAFT REPORT,
"SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: ADDITIONAL ACTIONS NEEDED IN ONGOING
EFFORTS TO IMPROVE 800-NUMBER SERVICE" GAO-05-735:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report. In
general, we find the report to be thorough and comprehensive. We are
pleased that GAO has recognized our commitment to providing high-
quality National 800 Number Network (N8NN) service that meets the needs
and expectations of our beneficiary population and the American public.
We are proud that we have consistently met annual N8NN access
performance goals.
Additionally, we are pleased GAO recognized that the Agency has: 1)
Expanded its automated and agent-assisted call service accessible
through the MINN; 2) upgraded its telephone systems, management and
service to enhance its ability to monitor and manage call traffic,
agent availability and network operations; 3) adopted the telephone
industry "best practice" of taking care of all the caller's business
during the initial contact; and 4) taken steps to help agents provide
callers with accurate information (i.e., providing comprehensive
training and on-the-job resources such as a customized computer
application program).
Our responses to the specific recommendations and our technical
comments are provided below.
Recommendation 1:
Identify cost-effective ways that will help ensure that more calls
seeking Agency assistance get through to agents, such as streamlining
the call-handling process, automating some mailings that agents now do
by hand, or increasing number of agents available to take calls.
Comment:
We agree. We acknowledge that callers continue to show a strong
preference for agent assistance. Therefore, we have focused on
enhancements that improve agent productivity and expand our automated
services. Both types of enhancements increase the number of agents
available to assist callers seeking agent service and increase caller
convenience.
To make improvements in agent availability and productivity, we are
implementing a Screen Pop feature by the end of December 2005 for our
agents that will make use of computer telephone integration. After the
caller has been prompted to provide us with his/her Social Security
number (SSN), Screen Pop will deliver the caller information screen,
populated with the caller's data, to the answering agent's desktop
simultaneous with the receipt of the voice call. Eliminating the need
for the agent to ask, enter and query our data system with the caller's
SSN is expected to save about 10 seconds per call. In addition, we have
formed a workgroup, the Teleservice Center (TSC) Steering Committee,
consisting of regional representatives tasked with developing
recommendations to ensure consistent agent coverage throughout each
day. The TSC Steering Committee is expected to complete development of
its recommendations by November 2005.
We also plan to conduct a pilot with call-back services. The Schedule
Voice Callback (SVC) service will provide callers with the option of
scheduling a callback from SSA in lieu of waiting in queue to speak
with an agent. Equipment within the N8NN network places a call to the
individual during the selected time slot and connects him/her to one of
our agents. Our expectation is that SVC, when fully implemented, will
move calls from the peak calling times to times when agent queues are
shorter or nonexistent. This will improve customer access and make more
efficient use of our staffing resources. An implementation date for the
pilot has not yet been determined.
Regarding enhancements to our automated services, we plan to implement,
by October 2005, the ability to offer two speech enabled options to
callers who desire to change their address/telephone number or sign up
for direct deposit (or make changes to their direct deposit bank
accounts) without the need to speak with an agent. We also plan to
redesign our main menu to allow callers to simply speak their needs in
response to directed questions rather than use the telephone keypad (a
simple "yes/no" response) to navigate to the desired service. By
December 2005, this speech enabled main menu will he available to
approximately 55 percent of our callers with full implementation by the
end of fiscal year (FY) 2006. We believe these two enhancements will
further increase the number of callers using our automated services and
thus, increase the availability of our agents.
Currently, many requests for forms and publications are processed
through the Public Information Request System (PIRS). PIRS allows the
agent to select the type/number of forms/publications, key in address
information and have the requests automatically filled by an outside
vendor. This system eliminates most of the manual tasks that are
involved in mailing forms/publications from N8NN. We are constantly
updating the list of forms/pamphlets available for automated mailing,
allowing more agent availability to answer calls. While it may be
necessary for an agent to occasionally mail documents (forms,
printouts, etc.) to the caller, we believe more efficient service is
provided when the caller remains on the telephone until all agent
actions related to the call are completed. This ensures that the caller
receives the service requested at the time of the call and eliminates
time that might be wasted in conducting after-call wrap up activities.
While a few of these tasks are manual in nature (e.g.. appeals forms),
handing off some of the tasks would not be cost-effective since it
would require double handling of the workload (i.e., more than one
employee required to complete the action) and require additional
resources.
Finally, we will continue to develop ways to expand self-help options
in our automated services and on our Internet site, thus further
increasing the availability of our agents.
Recommendation 2:
Conduct a comprehensive analysis of the source of service errors. For
example, the Agency might consider holding agent focus groups to gain
insight into why agents tend to fail to comply with certain
requirements. The Agency could get agent's views on the effectiveness
of Customer Help Information Program (CHIP) in helping them meet Agency
requirements.
Comment:
We agree. We know that non-compliance with access/disclosure
requirements by our agents accounts for the majority of the service
errors and that improvement in this area would significantly improve
the service accuracy level. We have observed that agents who routinely
use CHIP and available desk-aids have much higher service accuracy
levels.
We plan to convene an intercomponent workgroup to address improvements
needed to meet out service accuracy level. This workgroup will be
tasked to conduct agent focus groups to obtain feedback on the nature/
source of our major service errors, in particular, non-compliance with
access/disclosure. These focus groups will also provide insight on why
agents fail to comply with the access/disclosure requirements and why
they fail to fully utilize CHIP. The workgroup will also examine making
recommendations for changes to our access/disclosure policy and the
possibility of making recommendations for technical changes (e.g.,
adding a CHIP "check-off' screen for the access/disclosure questions;
adding a message to callers in agent queue that they will be asked
several questions about their personal identity). A start-up date for
the workgroup has not yet been determined.
In October 2006, we plan to implement a Screen Splash feature. This
feature will allow us to collect personal identifying information from
callers while they are waiting in a queue for agents. The collected
information will be presented to the agent's desktop via a pop-up
screen reflecting which information was verified or not verified
against our records. We expect this feature to save up to 30 seconds
per call, improve agent availability and improve service accuracy.
Recommendation 3:
Establish procedures for documenting and assessing customer-reported
complaints. In doing so, the Agency should determine the types of
information it needs to assess customers' concerns and to provide the
Agency means to identify and address service issues.
Comment:
We disagree. As noted in the report, SSA's service monitoring and
customer satisfaction survey's have consistently shown a high level of
courteous service. We do not believe a formal complaint system is
necessary or worth the intensive resources that would be required. We
place a high value on the courtesy of our service, and believe that our
current approach combining training, call monitoring and customer
survey's is the best way to ensure courteous service.
SSA previously piloted a Talking and Listening to Customer (TLC)
initiative that was designed to gather and maintain records on customer
comments and complaints. This initiative was abandoned due to heavy
resource requirements. Likewise, a pilot to mandate the input and
maintenance of a system for Customer Comment Cards used in our field
offices was also determined to be too labor intensive. Accordingly, we
decided that the benefit to the Agency was not proportionate to the
resource investment.
Despite the potential benefit of having a formal, consistent and
uniform process, we do not believe the Agency can devote, within
current budget constraints, the resources required to plan, design,
test and implement, then collect, analyze, distribute and dispose of
courtesy complaints via a structured nationwide system. We believe
requiring N8NN agents to register complaints received during N8NN calls
would considerably lengthen the call. This would reduce the number of
agents available and be counterproductive to our efforts to improve
access to callers desiring agent assistance.
We also question the benefits to be gained by adopting a formal
complaint process to assess courtesy. Many service complaints are often
vague or invalid (i.e., the citizen didn't "like" the answer we
provided). We believe that current and any additional resources that
become available would be more cost-effectively used in conducting
increased service observations at the local answering site level. Not
only would this provide more valid site-specific data and indicate
persistent patterns/trends, it would also permit quicker feedback and
corrective actions, such as additional focused training. As noted
above, our prior TLC pilot was not productive and we believe that
future attempts would yield similar results.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Director (202) 512-7215:
Staff Acknowledgments:
The following individuals made important contributions to this report:
Shelia Drake, Assistant Director, Jacquelyn Stewart, Analyst-in-
Charge, Susan Bernstein, Michelle Fejfar, Jonathan McMurray, and Roger
Thomas.
FOOTNOTES
[1] First established in 1988, SSA's 800-number service was initially
available to 60 percent of the population. SSA expanded the service to
all callers nationwide in 1989.
[2] GAO, Social Security Administration: More Cost-Effective Approaches
Exist to Further Improve 800-Number Service, GAO/HEHS-97-79
(Washington, D.C.: June 1997).
[3] Two components within SSA's Office of Central Operations also
answer 800-number calls. SSA's Wilkes Barre Data Operations Center in
Pennsylvania has approximately 266 agents trained to answer calls. In
addition, SSA's Division of Earnings Record Operations in Baltimore,
Maryland, has 198 agents trained to answer 800-number calls.
[4] The terms full-time and back-up agents are used to describe SSA
employees who handle 800-number telephone calls as their primary and
secondary responsibility, respectively.
[5] Guidance for SSA's programs include, the Teleservice Center
Operating Guide (guidance for answering general inquiries and
processing events callers report), the Program Operations Manual System
(instructions for developing actions for input), the Modernized Systems
Operations Manual (instructions for entering transactions into SSA's
computer system), the Social Security Handbook (explains SSA's
programs, health insurance, and related programs), and the Medicare
Handbook (explains how Medicare program services are provided and
payments made).
[6] SSA's practices for monitoring agents are subject to a memorandum
of understanding with the American Federation of Government Employees.
[7] The purpose of monitoring individual agents is to assess an agent's
performance and provide feedback without creating a punitive
environment.
[8] The national American Federation of Government Employees agreement
allows SSA to monitor all full-time agents individually but requires
SSA to bargain with local unions to similarly monitor backup agents.
[9] In fiscal year 2003, SSA discontinued externally reporting
performance for meeting the goals it set for payment accuracy and
service accuracy. However, the agency has indicated that it remains
committed to agents delivering an acceptable level of service. SSA
officials told us that the agency continues to use the performance
goals internally.
[10] Given that OQA estimated the sampling error for fiscal year 2003
could have been as large as ±4.4 percent, only the four regions for
which OQA reported service accuracy rates of at least 85.6 percent may
have met the 90 percent service accuracy target.
[11] SSA does not consider the ability to provide all the required
identifiers to be proof of callers' identity. Similarly, the agency
does not consider the failure to provide required identifiers as
conclusive evidence that callers are not who they allege.
[12] OQA defines courtesy as a reflection of whether agents treated
callers in accordance with generally accepted standards. Other SSA
guidance provides examples of unacceptable agent conduct, including
hanging up on callers without cause, using profanity, yelling at
callers, exhibiting rudeness or impatience with callers, using
inappropriate tone, and putting callers on hold unnecessarily.
[13] OQA observed six calls of discourteous service that they said
represented a population of nearly 60,000 calls.
[14] A study contracted by the Office of the Inspector General reported
that SSA's customer satisfaction survey provided a reliable statistical
representation of caller's views for the period measured. However,
because SSA limits the survey to being conducted during a designated
period--most recently a 4-week period in March--the survey may be an
inadequate representation of customers' views year round. Further, the
sampling variability for responses to this question would be ±2 percent
or less at the 95 percent confidence level. SSA's response rate during
the period 2001 through 2004, ranged from 53 to 71 percent. Although
response rates within these ranges are not unexpected for this kind of
telephone survey, it should be noted that as the response rate
decreases, the certainty that survey results represent the universe of
800-number callers decreases.
[15] Richard D. Young, Customer Driven Focus and Excellence in the
Public Sector (Columbia, S.C.: Institute for Public Service and Policy
Research, University of South Carolina, 2002).
[16] National Performance Review, "Serving the American Public: Best
Practices in Telephone Service," National Performance Review
Benchmarking Study Report (Washington, D.C.: 1995).
[17] Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General,
Management Advisory Report: Performance Measure Survey of the Percent
of 800-Number Calls Handled Accurately, OIG-A-08-01-11024 (Washington,
D.C., August 2001).
[18] Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General,
Performance Indicator Audit: Customer Satisfaction, OIG A-02-02-11082
(Washington, D.C.: February 2003).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: