Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

MARCH 2000 

OEI-09-98-00140 

THE PROGRAM SUPPORT CENTER’S 

PERSONNEL SERVICE: 

CUSTOMER SERVICE EVALUATION 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, is to 

protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services programs as well as the 

health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them. This statutory mission is carried out through a 

nationwide program of audits, investigations, inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts. The 

Inspector General informs the Secretary of program and management problems and recommends 

legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to correct them. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of 

Inspector General. It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called 

inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public. The 

inspection reports provide findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 

effectiveness of departmental programs. 

OEI's San Francisco office prepared this report under the direction of Kaye D. Kidwell, Regional 

Inspector General, and Paul A. Gottlober, Deputy Regional Inspector General. Principal OEI 

staff included: 

REGION 

Steven Zerebecki, Lead Analyst 

Jay Davidson, Program Analyst 

Rob Gibbons, Program Analyst 

Deborah Harvey, Program Analyst 

Scott Hutchison, Program Analyst 

Thomas Purvis, Program Analyst 

Lori Stickel, Program Analyst 

HEADQUARTERS

Linda Hall, Program Specialist

To obtain copies of this report, please call the San Francisco Regional Office at (415)437-7900. 

Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 

http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/oei 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To (1) assess customer satisfaction with the Program Support Center’s (PSC) payroll service and 

(2) evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of the PSC’s processing of personnel actions that affect 

payroll. 

BACKGROUND 

The PSC was formed in 1995 by combining the administrative functions formerly located in the 

Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Health Resources and 

Services Administration, the Indian Health Service, and the Food and Drug Administration. The 

PSC provides services in three broad business areas: human resources, financial management, and 

administrative operations. Payroll and personnel services are included in the Human Resources 

Service Branch. 

The PSC operates an automated payroll service for all of the Department’s 60,000 employees in 

13 agencies. Payroll services include, but are not limited to, electronically processing all 

personnel-related actions for each employee, paying each employee correctly biweekly or monthly 

and timely with other pay-related functions, and managing current and historical personnel and 

payroll data on all employees. 

The PSC provides personnel services for the Administration on Aging, the Office of the Secretary, 

and the PSC itself. Personnel services that affect payroll include, but are not limited to, 

recruitment and employment relations, classification and compensation, human resources, 

information systems, and payroll servicing. 

To evaluate customer satisfaction, we conducted three surveys of 448 respondents by telephone 

or in-person, using standardized survey instruments. We compared PSC personnel customers to 

non-PSC customers and reviewed the Official Personnel Files and transaction processes for a 

select group of respondents. 

We conducted this inspection over a 1-year period. During that time, we kept 

PSC informed of our progress and findings. As we conducted the inspection, 

PSC advised us of changes it was making and intended to make to be more 

responsive to its clients. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

1 
FINDINGS 

Personnel transaction error rates reported by PSC and Non-PSC customers were 

significant but not statistically different 

Employees in both of our sample populations, new employees and employees who submitted 

personnel transactions that affect payroll, reported errors in their personnel transactions. While 

PSC customers reported errors in 13 percent of their transactions, non-PSC customers reported 

errors in 9 percent of all personnel transactions. The 4 percent difference between the two groups 

was not statistically significant. However, we found statistically significant differences between 

the two groups in other indicators of customer satisfaction, such as the accuracy of earnings and 

leave statements. In addition, we found that new employees experienced more payroll problems 

than existing employees who submitted an individual personnel transaction that affected payroll. 

PSC customers were less satisfied than non-PSC customers 

PSC customers, both new employees and employees who submitted personnel transactions that 

affected payroll, were less satisfied with personnel services than non-PSC customers. 

Administrative officers who are PSC customers ranked personnel services lower in terms of 

overall quality and timeliness than non-PSC customers. 

Processing delays accounted for the most customer dissatisfaction 

Almost one-half of the problems that employees reported were attributed to slow processing. 

New employees often reported delays and problems with their first paycheck and earnings-andleave statements. Both administrative officers and new employees complained that corrections of 

payroll inaccuracies were especially slow. 

To improve customer satisfaction, PSC revised its personnel staffing and 

organization 

The PSC’s personnel service has improved in recent months. Administrative officers reported 

improved satisfaction due to the reorganization of PSC’s personnel division, including the 

relocation of staff to downtown Washington, D.C. New employee satisfaction also has improved. 

Vulnerabilities persist in some key processes 

The PSC does not date stamp and log incoming employee requests. The Official Personnel Files 

(OPFs) maintained by PSC are sometimes incomplete or contain inappropriate information. 

IMPACT, PSC’s automated personnel and payroll system, is outdated and does not retain data 

on the identity of operators who change addresses and social security numbers on savings bonds 

issued from employee salary allotments. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

2 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

While PSC’s personnel service customer satisfaction lagged behind that of other HHS personnel 

units, we believe PSC has taken some steps to improve its service. We recommend that PSC 

continue to improve the customer-service focus of its personnel service. In addition, we 

recommend that PSC take the following specific actions: 

1. establish timeliness standards for processing payroll-related personnel actions, 

2. expand its “help desk” model of customer assistance, 

3. begin to date stamp and log employee requests, 

4. maintain more complete and accurate OPFs, 

5. continue plans to replace the outdated IMPACT system, and 

6. assure that the software that replaces IMPACT identifies staff who make changes to the 

system’s data. 

AGENCY RESPONSE 

In response to the recommendations in our draft report, PSC reports that it has “put systems in 

place to insure quality personnel service.” The PSC reports having implemented service standards 

including timeliness standards to improve personnel transaction processing times. According to 

PSC, HHS employee requests are now being logged and date stamped, and in most cases requests 

are entered into the payroll system as soon as they are received from customers. Additionally, 

PSC reports that in calendar year 2000 it will audit its personnel customers’ OPFs and begin to 

implement a new software system for personnel transaction processing . 

This inspection was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections 

issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. During the course of this 

inspection, we collected and analyzed personal and confidential information concerning 

Department employees. We took all reasonable precautions to prevent the misuse of this 

personal data. Some of the personal data we collected may be covered by the Privacy Act 

(P.L. 95-579). The Privacy Act provides criminal penalties for any Federal employee 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

3 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 5

Purpose ............................................................. 5

Background .......................................................... 5

Methodology ......................................................... 7

FINDINGS ................................................................ 9

Transaction processing .................................................. 9

Customer satisfaction ................................................. 10

Processing delays ..................................................... 13

Improved customer relations ............................................ 15

Vulnerabilities persist .................................................. 15

RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 17

AGENCY RESPONSE ..................................................... 18

APPENDICES ............................................................ 19

A: Table 1: Sample Sizes and Response Rates .................................... 19

B: Table 2: Confidence Intervals for Selected Statistics ............................. 20

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

4 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

To (1) assess customer satisfaction with the Program Support Center’s (PSC) payroll service and 

(2) evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of the PSC’s processing of personnel actions that affect 

payroll. 

BACKGROUND 

The PSC was formed in 1995 by combining the administrative functions formerly located in the 

Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Health Resources and 

Services Administration, the Indian Health Service, and the Food and Drug Administration of the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The PSC provides services in three broad 

business areas: human resources, financial management, and administrative operations. Personnel 

and payroll services are included in the Human Resources Service Branch. 

Envisioned as a “business enterprise,” the PSC’s mission is to provide the Department and other 

Federal agencies with administrative support services on a “cost-effective, competitive, 

fee-for-service basis.”1 Using fee schedules, the PSC contracts with “customer agencies” ( i.e., 

Department components) to provide various administrative services. The PSC2 received 

approximately $31.6 million for personnel and payroll services for fiscal year 1998, and it projects 

payments of approximately $19.5 million for fiscal year 1999.3 The decrease in payments is the 

result primarily of the Social Security Administration’s move to another servicing agency4 plus the 

completion of a computer modernization project. 

Payroll services include, but are not limited to: 

! electronically processing all personnel-related actions for each employee, 

! paying each employee correctly biweekly or monthly and timely with other pay-related 

functions, and 

! managing current and historical personnel and payroll data on all employees.5 

1

Program Support Center, Fiscal Year 1998 Business Plan. 

2

We refer to the Human Resources Service as the PSC throughout this report. 

3

PSC website (http://www.psc.gov) 

4

The PSC also processed payroll for all Social Security Administration employees until 

April 1998. 

5

Program Support Center, 1999 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

5 
The PSC operates an automated payroll service for all of the Department’s 60,000 employees in

13 agencies:

! Office of the Secretary (composed of 10 sub-offices),

! Administration for Children and Families,

! Administration on Aging,

! Agency for Health Care Policy and Research,

! Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,

! Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

! Food and Drug Administration,

! Health Care Financing Administration,

! Health Resources and Services Administration,

! Indian Health Service,

! National Institutes of Health,

! Program Support Center, and

! Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.6

The PSC also provides personnel services for the Office of the Secretary, the Administration on

Aging, and the PSC itself. Personnel services that affect payroll include, but are not limited to:

! entry on duty processing,

! classification and compensation,

! human resource information systems, and

! payroll servicing.

Other Reviews 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) completed an audit report in July 1997 of the PSC’s 

automated payroll system. The audit included an inventory of payroll transactions and a sample 

of payroll files to test the automated system controls. The OIG concluded “that no computational 

errors were in the sample population of payroll payments made to HHS employees in fiscal year 

1996.”7 

In April 1999, the OIG issued an inspection report titled, “Personnel Service Options: Exploring 

the Possibilities” (OEI-09-98-00141). The OIG found that PSC’s charges to the Office of 

Secretary of DHHS for personnel and payroll service were reasonable compared to what other 

DHHS agencies spent on internal personnel operations. 

6

The PSC also processed payroll for all Social Security Administration employees until 

April 1998. 

7

Office of Inspector General, Agreed-Upon Procedures Report on the Department of Health and Human 

Services Payroll System, Summary Memorandum, A-17-96-00010, July 1997. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

6 
The Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness within the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) evaluated the Department’s human resource management program in fiscal 

year 1999. This evaluation is part of a government-wide effort to identify (1) compliance issues, 

(2) common findings, and (3) best practices among operating divisions. The OPM is conducting 

agency-focused reviews to “help meet mission goals through more effective recruitment, 

development, and use of employees” and to “gather information to improve Federal human 

resource systems and programs.”8 

METHODOLOGY 

The scope of this inspection was limited to the experiences and satisfaction of customers (i.e., 

Department employees and agencies) that use PSC’s Human Resource Service. We compared the 

experience and satisfaction of PSC’s personnel customers with the experience and satisfaction of 

customers serviced by other HHS personnel units. Throughout this report, we refer to the former 

as PSC customers and the latter as non-PSC customers. At the time of our inspection, PSC 

customers accounted for approximately 7 percent of all HHS employees. 

Customer experience and satisfaction 

We conducted four customer satisfaction surveys via telephone or in-person using standardized 

survey instruments. In total, we interviewed 488 respondents. 

Survey #1: HHS Employees — Interviews were conducted February through April 1999. 

We selected a random sample of employees who initiated personnel transactions that 

affect payroll. We stratified the sample into two groups: PSC customers and nonPSC customers. We asked all respondents to report their experience and satisfaction 

with a specific transaction that was processed on their behalf from October 1, 1998 

through December 31, 1998. We also asked them about their their experience and 

satisfaction with personnel services in general. See appendix A for details on sample 

sizes and response rates. 

Survey #2: New HHS employees — Interviews were conducted February through April 1999. 

We selected a sample of all employees who entered on duty to their current 

employing agency from October 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. We 

stratified the sample into two sub-groups: PSC customers and non-PSC customers. 

We asked all respondents to report their experience and satisfaction with the entryon-duty process and with personnel services in general. See appendix A for details 

on sample sizes and response rates. 

8

Office of Personnel Management, Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness Briefing Charts. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

7 
Survey #3: New OIG employees — Interviews were conducted in May 1999. 

In addition to the new HHS employees (which included some OIG employees), we 

interviewed all OIG employees who entered on duty from March 1, 1999 to May 9, 

1999. We asked all respondents to report their experience and satisfaction with the 

entry-on-duty process and with personnel services in general up to the date of our 

interview. See appendix A for details on sample sizes and response rates. 

Survey #4: Administrative Officers — Interviews were conducted May through June 1999. 

We compiled a population of HHS administrative and personnel staff (both 

headquarters and regional offices) who regularly interact with the PSC for personnel 

and/or payroll services. We stratified the population into two sub-groups: PSC 

customers and non-PSC customers. We asked all respondents to report their 

experience and satisfaction with personnel services up to the date of our interview. 

See appendix A for details on sample sizes and response rates. 

Personnel-case-file review and PSC workflow review 

We reviewed the Official Personnel Files (OPFs) and examined the transaction processes for 

selected respondents from surveys #1 , #2, and #3. We focused on evidence of timeliness and 

accuracy in their transactions. The file reviews were conducted in June 1999 and included all 

documents that were present in the files at that time. In total, we reviewed 53 OPFs. 

This inspection was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for InspectionsÊ

issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. During the course of this 

inspection, we collected and analyzed personal and confidential information concerning 

Department employees. We took all reasonable precautions to prevent the misuse of this 

personal data. Some of the personal data we collected may be covered by the Privacy Act 

(P.L. 95-579). The Privacy Act provides criminal penalties for any Federal employee 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

8 
FINDINGS 

We conducted this inspection over a 1-year period. During that time, we kept 

PSC informed of our progress and findings. As we conducted the inspection, 

PSC advised us of changes it was making and intended to make to be more 

responsive to its clients. 

Personnel transaction error rates reported by PSC 

and non-PSC customers were significant but not statistically 

different 

Employees in both of our sample populations, new employees and employees who submitted 

personnel transactions that affect payroll, reported errors in their personnel transactions. While 

PSC customers reported errors in 13 percent of their transactions, non-PSC customers reported 

errors in 9 percent of all personnel transactions. The 4 percent difference between the two groups 

was not statistically significant. However, we found statistically significant differences between 

the two groups in other indicators of customer satisfaction, such as the accuracy of earnings and 

leave statements. In addition, we found that new employees experienced more payroll problems 

than existing employees who submit an individual personnel transaction that affects payroll. 

Employees reported low error rates for individual personnel transactions that 

affect payroll 

According to PSC and non-PSC 

employee customers, 85 percent of 

all transactions were processed 

correctly. Of the remainder, 

slightly more than 10 percent were 

problematic and 

5 percent were not characterized. 

In our file review of PSC 

customers who reported a 

transaction problem, we found that 

21 percent of their problems were 

confirmed as processing errors. 

The remaining 79 percent either 

were not supported by existing 

paperwork or the files were not 

complete enough to verify or refute 

the perceived error. 

Transaction types: Employee reported errors 

Transaction type Frequency in 

sample 

Start/change health benefits 4 

Promotion 3 

Termination 3 

Start/change/transfer Thrift Savings data 3 

Change in savings allotment 3 

Change in work hours or duty station 2 

Federal tax withholding 1 

Stop allotment 1 

Start/change bond allotment 1 

Conversion to excepted appointment 1 

Transfer of leave data 1 

Total reported problems 23 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

9 
New employees who are PSC customers reported more payroll problems than 

non-PSC customers 

While fewer than one-quarter of the new employees who are non-PSC customers reported 

inaccuracies, more than 40 percent who are PSC customers reported inaccurate earnings-andChart 1 

All new HHS employees: 

Innacurate earnings-and-leave 

statements 

PSC customers Non-PSC customers 

leave statements within the first 6 to 7 months 

of employment. (See chart 1.) New employees 

reported errors in four basic transaction 

categories (i.e., health benefits, leave, life 

insurance, and tax-withholding) in addition to 

several other categories. New employees who 

are PSC customers experienced more healthbenefit and tax-withholding problems than nonPSC customers. However, employees in both 

groups had difficulty obtaining accurate leave 

balances. Many of the leave problems were 

attributed to delays in the transfer of leave data 

from other Federal agencies. 

41% 

23% 

We reviewed the files of more than half of the new employees who are PSC customers who 

reported a problem. Only 22 percent of their problems could be confirmed as processing errors. 

The remaining 78 percent of problems either were not supported by existing paperwork or the 

files were not complete enough to confirm or refute the reported error. 

PSC customers were less satisfied than non-PSC customers 

Almost one-half of PSC customers who submitted payroll transactions were either somewhat or 

not at all satisfied with their personnel service. They reported that PSC staff were not responsive 

to their requests and inquiries. In addition, the 

dissatisfied employees said that PSC’s personnel service 

was too slow in processing employee requests. 

However, one dissatisfied employee conceded that PSC 

is improving, chiefly as a result of personnel staff 

relocating to offices in downtown Washington, D.C. 

In comparison, 17 percent of the HHS employees who 

are non-PSC customers reported that they were either 

somewhat or not at all satisfied with their service. 

See chart 2 for the satisfaction levels of employees who 

submitted transactions in the fourth quarter of 1998. 

Chart 2 

All HHS employees: Satisfaction 

with personnel services 

83% 

54% 

46% 

17% 

very satisfied or somewhat satisfied 

satisfied or not at all satisfied 

PSC customers Non-PSC customers 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

10 
New employees who are PSC customers were 

less satisfied with personnel services 

New employees who are PSC customers were less 

satisfied and complained more about the entry-on-duty 

process and other personnel services than non-PSC 

customers. Their most common complaint was that 

they were not paid on time. While our review revealed 

that only 22 percent of the new employees’ complaints, 

Chart 3 

New employee satisfaction 

with the EOD process 

28% 

72% 

20% 

80% 

very satisfied or somewhat or not at all 

satisfied satisfied 

including late pay, are attributed to personnel 

processing errors, new employees generally felt that 

personnel inefficiencies were at the root of their 

personnel problems. They also reported that their 

orientation, including explanations of the forms that 

they needed to complete, was deficient. Some new 

Chart 4 

New employee ranking 

of personnel services 

PSC customers Non-PSC customers 

employees reported that too much 

responsibility is 

given to their administrative officers 

during orientation, particularly when 

1% 

30% 

69% 

3% 

18% 

79% 

they are located in regional or field 

offices, far removed from the expertise 

of PSC’s personnel staff. One new 

employee reported that PSC was 

particularly diligent in the steps leading 

up to her appointment. After she 

excellent or good fair or poor don't know reported for work, however, her agency 

forbade her contact with PSC, insisting PSC customers Non-PSC customers that she talk to her agency’s 

administrative staff who would contact 

PSC personnel on her behalf. 

Administrative officers who are PSC customers ranked their personnel service 

lower non-PSC customers 

Fewer than 40 percent of administrative officers who are PSC customers ranked the overall 

quality of their personnel service as either good or very good compared to 84 percent of non-PSC 

customers. The PSC customers complained that PSC personnel staff are difficult to reach and 

that they often lose paperwork that is sent to them. The administrative officers located in regional 

and field offices complained that reaching PSC staff by phone and e-mail is especially difficult. 

As a result of the PSC reorganization of 1995, HHS regions lost many of their personnel staff, 

making it necessary for regional administrative officers to work with headquarters PSC staff. In 

addition, many administrative officers have assumed the duties for which they once relied on local 

personnel experts. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

11 
Chart 5 

All adminstrative officers: 

Overall quality of personnel services

13% 20% 

28% 38% 

4% 11% 

1% 

84% 

poor or very poor adequate good or very good don't know /recall or did not 

PSC customers Non-PSC customers ask

Administrative officers who are PSC customers ranked timeliness much lower than non-PSC 

customers. Approximately one quarter ranked PSC’s timeliness as good or very good, while 

approximately three quarters of administrative officers who are non-PSC customers ranked their 

personnel offices good or very good. The PSC customers believed that PSC is understaffed. As 

a result, personnel and payroll service was slow, particularly for corrections of personnel actions 

that affect payroll. 

Chart 6 

All administrative officers: 

Timeliness of personnel services 

74% 

15% 

36% 28% 

7% 19% 20%

0% 

poor or very poor adequate good or very good don't know/recall 

PSC customers Non-PSC customers 

Slightly more than one-third of the 

administrative officers who are PSC 

customers were more satisfied with 

personnel services since the inception of 

PSC in 1995. Almost half of them were 

less satisfied. More than two-thirds of 

the PSC customers were in their current 

positions prior to 1995 and the creation 

of PSC. Those who were less satisfied 

with personnel also ranked 

communication between the PSC and 

their employing agency lower than nonPSC customers. 

Chart 7 

Administrative officers 

who are PSC customers: 

1999 satisfaction compared to 1995 

36% 

14% 

46% 

less satisfied about the same more satisfied 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

12 
Processing delays accounted for the most customer 

dissatisfaction 

Almost one-half of the employees who reported problems with transactions attributed their 

problems to processing delays. In total, 4 percent of the general employee population perceived a 

transaction problem attributed to a delay in processing. There was no statistically significant 

difference in the frequency of perceived delays between PSC customers and non-PSC customers. 

New employees reported delays and problems with their first pay and earningsand-leave statements 

Approximately 17 percent of all new employees reported delays in receiving their first paycheck. 

While only 11 percent of the new employees who are non-PSC customers reported pay delays, 21 

percent of new employees who are PSC customers reported a delay. We could confirm less than 

half of the delays reported by PSC customers. More than half of the reports either were not 

supported by existing paperwork or the files were not complete enough to confirm or refute the 

perceived error. Of those reports that we confirmed, delays were attributed to: late entry of data 

to the payroll system, mid-pay period hires resulting in forms being submitted after deadlines, late 

or incorrect direct deposit forms, and problems related to temporary appointments to the Office of 

Emergency Services. 

While most new employees received their first paycheck on time, many, especially new employees 

who had transferred from other Federal agencies, reported other delays. For example, employees 

who transferred from other Federal agencies often reported that their leave and Thrift Savings 

balances remained inaccurate for weeks and sometimes months following their appointment. The 

PSC and other HHS personnel offices rely on the “losing” Federal agency to submit data to them 

in order to calculate and transfer accurate leave and Thrift Savings account balances. Based on 

our review of selected files, the PSC made reasonable attempts to acquire the data from other 

Federal agencies. The other agencies were slow in responding, sometimes taking up to 6 months. 

Almost four times as many new employees who are PSC customers reported health benefit 

problems than non-PSC customers. Most of the problems were late confirmations from various 

health insurance providers. While health benefit deductions from payroll were timely, employees 

reported that insurance providers had not received notification of their enrollment and therefore 

could not provide benefits. 

Corrections of payroll inaccuracies were especially slow 

The PSC took longer to process personnel and payroll corrections than non-PSC agencies,

according to administrative officers. While a significant proportion of both types of administrative

officers reported that it can take more than a month to correct payroll inaccuracies,

fewer PSC customers reported that it takes only one or two pay periods to perform corrections.

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

13 
See chart 8 for details. The 23 percent of non-PSC administrative officers who responded 

“other” most often said that payroll corrections performed by PSC, not their personnel unit, took 

longer. 

Chart 8 

All administrative officers: 

38% 

10% 

44% 

8% 

23% 

54% 

18% 

6% 

Corrections prccessing time 

within one or two pay 

periods 

more than a month other don't know/recall 

PSC customers Non-PSC customers 

The employees who are PSC customers were more often dissatisfied because of delays in 

correcting payroll inaccuracies. Almost twice the proportion of PSC customers responded that 

their correction was not timely than did non-PSC customers. While the corrections performed for 

PSC customers were rarely performed in a timely fashion, they were all eventually performed. 

Twelve percent of the employees who are non-PSC customers and who had experienced a 

Chart 9 

All HHS Employees: Was the correction performed in a timely fashion? 

18% 

82% 

12% 

45% 43%

No Yes Problem has not been 

corrected 

PSC customers Non-PSC customers 

problem reported that corrections were yet to take place. See chart 9 for details. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

14 
To improve customer satisfaction, PSC revised its personnel 

staffing and organization 

While administrative officers were less satisfied with personnel services since the creation of 

PSC, several mentioned that the service has improved in recent months. The accessibility of the 

help desk for payroll-related problems and the relocation of some personnel staff to downtown 

Washington, D.C. have contributed to improved customer service and staff accessibility. 

New employee satisfaction with personnel 

services has improved. For example, all of the 

new OIG employees who entered on duty 

between March and May 1999 reported that 

they were satisfied with the EOD process. 

This compares to 81 percent of the OIG new 

employees who entered on duty in the fourth 

quarter of 1998. The newest OIG employees 

were also experiencing fewer delays in pay. 

Twenty percent of OIG employees from the 

fourth quarter of 1998 reported a delay in 

their first pay, compared to 8 percent of the 

OIG employees who entered on duty from 

March to May 1999. 

Chart 10

New OIG employees: 

Satisfaction with EOD process?

100% 

81% 

19% 

somewhat or not at all very satisfied or 

satisfied satisfied 

EOD October - December 1998 

EOD March - May 1999 

Vulnerabilities persist in some key processes 

Despite improved customer satisfaction, personnel and payroll inaccuracies appear to have 

increased for the newest employees. The new OIG employees are still experiencing problems 

getting timely confirmation of health benefits from providers. Some new OIG employees received 

inaccurate salary amounts or inaccurate grade and step specifications on their first earnings-andleave statements. 

We identified several deficiencies in the PSC’s internal tracking and accounting process. The PSC 

staff rarely date stamp the forms they receive from customers, and the systems in place to ensure 

accurate and timely computer input of customer requests are tenuous at best. For example, we 

observed new employee entry-on-duty packages being received in PSC’s personnel office without 

being logged in or date stamped. Instead, the packages were immediately placed among stacks of 

other customer requests, with no apparent system to assess priorities and/or to assure timely 

processing. In addition, original forms retained by the PSC in OPFs often lack transaction dates 

of entry and signatures or initials of the PSC staff who processed them, making evaluation of 

processing times and staff accuracy more difficult if not impossible. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

15 
During our review of OPFs for 40 new employees, we frequently found that important forms and 

other information were missing from the files or, conversely, we often found information that 

should not be contained in the OPF. One quarter of the files were missing important forms and 

information. For example, 18 percent of the files were missing position descriptions, and 

15 percent were missing the accession paperwork for the employee’s current position. On the 

other hand, 23 percent of the files contained information that did not belong in the file. Examples 

of the latter include employee evaluations from previous jobs, photocopies of an employee’s 

drivers license and marriage certificate, and the list of the other “best qualified” candidates from 

which the employee was selected for the position. 

The PSC’s “IMPACT” automated personnel and payroll system lacks internal controls for the 

mis-allocation of bond allotments. IMPACT does not retain data on the identity of system 

operators who change social security numbers and addresses on savings bonds issued from 

employee salary allotments. Therefore, bond allotments can be changed and issued to addresses 

and social security numbers other than those indicated by the employee without record of who 

made the change. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

16 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

While PSC’s personnel service customer satisfaction lagged behind that of other HHS personnel 

units, we believe PSC has taken some steps to improve its service. We recommend that PSC 

continue to improve the customer-service focus of its personnel service. In addition, we 

recommend that PSC take the following specific actions: 

1. establish timeliness standards for processing payroll-related personnel actions, 

2. expand its “help desk” model of customer assistance, 

3. begin to date stamp and log employee requests, 

4. maintain more complete and accurate OPFs, 

5. continue plans to replace the outdated IMPACT system, and 

6. assure that the software that replaces IMPACT identifies staff who make changes to the 

system’s data. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

17 
AGENCY RESPONSE 

The PSC offered the following comments in response to the recommendations in our draft report: 

Since February 14, 1999, PSC has put systems in place to ensure quality personnel service. They have 

monthly and/or quarterly meetings to address concerns relative to customer satisfaction, delivery of services 

and quality of products. After customer meetings, team meetings are held to discuss issues raised by the 

customer, identify corrective steps and develop preventive/improvement procedures. Additionally, they have 

designed a check list and quality review mechanisms for all incoming personnel requests. . . . 

PSC has implemented service standards and deliverables that define service expectations. More specifically, 

Operations Managers established timeliness standards for receiving personnel actions by Wednesday of the 

second week of each pay period to be effective the next pay period. The standard for the receipt of payroll 

documents is that those received by the end of the first week of the pay period will be processed by the end of 

that pay period. 

Dedicated staff is responsible for resolving personnel, payroll and automated systems inquiries and issues. 

PSC has developed a report monitoring system. The report is generated by the Help Desk employee and 

submitted to PSC management and to customers. The report provides updates and status to customers and 

provides PSC management with activity, timeliness and trend assessments. This information is used to better 

serve customers. Also, they have identified in appropriate correspondences, including the telephone directory, 

the name and number of the “help desk” contact for specified servicing agencies. 

PSC has been dating and logging incoming correspondence which has been generated by its customers’ 

administrative officers and now has started to log in and date stamp all employee requests as well. In most 

cases, employee requests are put into the system as soon as they are received. Note: There probably were 

delays associated with employee requests when the servicing personnel office was located in Silver Spring and 

physically away from its customers. 

Samples of OPFs are audited quarterly in order to insure that OPFs remain accurate and complete. A 

standardized check list is used in auditing and a control log is maintained on OPFs audited. In addition, 

OPFs are routinely reviewed when actions are taken. Deficiencies, when found, are immediately addressed 

and the OPFs are corrected. PSC plans to accomplish, within the next calender year 2000, a review of OPFs 

for OS/AoA/OIG customers. 

For the past year, a Department-level Steering Committee for the EHRP (Enterprise Human Resources Payroll 

System) has examined options for a replacement solution of the current payroll system. This also includes the 

replacement of the IMPACT system. In August 1999, the Steering Committee selected a solution and 

implementation of this system will begin in FY 2000. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

18 
APPENDIX A 

Sample Sizes and Response Rates 

Respondent Group Survey number 

(see methodology) 

Sampling 

method 

Sample 

size 

Number of 

responses 

rate 

Response 

HHS employees, serviced 

by PSC personnel, who 

submitted a personnel 

action that affected 

payroll from October 1 to 

December 31, 1998 

1 stratified 

random 

sample 

125 103 82.4% 

HHS employees, serviced 

by other HHS personnel 

units, who submitted a 

personnel action that 

affected payroll from 

October 1 to December 

31, 1998 

1 stratified 

random 

sample 

125 105 84% 

HHS employees, serviced 

by PSC personnel, who 

entered on duty from 

October 1 to December 

31, 1998 

2 total 

universe 

selected 

102 88 86.2% 

HHS employees, serviced 

by other HHS personnel 

units, who entered on 

duty from October 1 to 

December 31, 1998 

2 random 

sample 

85 66 77.6% 

HHS administrative 

officers serviced by PSC 

personnel 

4 purposeful 42 39 92.8% 

HHS administrative 

officers serviced by other 

HHS personnel units 

4 purposeful 90 74 82.2% 

HHS OIG employees who 

entered on duty from 

March 1 to May 9, 1999 

3 total 

universe 

selected 

14 13 92.9% 

Total 583 488 83.7% 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140 

19
APPENDIX B 

Confidence Intervals for Selected Statistics 

Chart Statistic Point 

estimate 

95 Percent 

Confidence Interval 

PSC-processed employees who reported transaction errors 13.2% 7.2% - 19.2% 

HHS agency-processed employees who reported transaction errors 8.9% 3.8% - 13.9% 

1 PSC-processed new employees who reported inaccurate earnings and 

leave statements 

41.4% exact9 

1 HHS agency-processed new employees who reported inaccurate 

earnings and leave statements 

23.1% 13.1% - 33.1% 

2 PSC-processed employees who are somewhat or not at all satisfied 

with their personnel services 

46.4% 36.7% - 56.2% 

2 HHS agency-processed employees who are somewhat or not at all 

satisfied with their personnel services 

17.2% 9.0% - 24.5% 

3 PSC-processed new employees who are satisfied or very satisfied with 

the EOD process 

72.4% exact 

3 HHS agency-processed new employees who are satisfied or very 

satisfied with the EOD process 

80.3% 72.75% - 87.9% 

4 PSC-processed new employees who reported their personnel service is 

good or very good 

69.0% exact 

4 HHS agency-processed employees who reported their personnel 

service is good or very good 

78.5% 68.7% - 88.2% 

5 since the administrative officers group was a purposive sample, confidence 

intervals do not apply 

exact 

6 since the administrative officers group was a purposive sample, confidence 

intervals do not apply 

exact 

7 since the administrative officers group was a purposive sample, confidence 

intervals do not apply 

exact 

8 since the administrative officers group was a purposive sample, confidence 

intervals do not apply 

exact 

9 PSC-processed employees who reported their correction was not 

timely 

81.5% 58.7% -100.0% 

9 HHS agency-processed employees who reported their correction was 

not timely 

45.0% 12.2% - 77.8% 

10 OIG new employees who reported they are satisfied or very satisfied 

with the EOD process 

100.0% exact 

9 Since the entire population was sampled, a t-test is not necessary. 

PSC — Personnel Customer Service Evaluation ))))))))))) OEI-09-98-00140

20