POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

Analysis of the Postal 

Service’s FY 2017 Annual

Performance Report and 

FY 2018 Performance Plan

April 26, 2018

Postal Regulatory Commission

Submitted 4/26/2018 9:24:58 AM

Filing ID: 104684

Accepted 4/26/2018
- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................2

A. Background.................................................................................................................................2

B. The FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report............................................................................4

CHAPTER 2: COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.................................................................6

A. Legal Requirements.................................................................................................................6

B. Comments....................................................................................................................................7

C. Commission Analysis ..............................................................................................................8

1. FY 2018 Plan ................................................................................................................9

2. FY 2017 Report........................................................................................................ 12

3. Non-Public Performance Indicators ................................................................ 17

4. FY 2018 Performance Indicator Changes ...................................................... 18

CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE GOALS...................................................................... 20

A. High-Quality Service............................................................................................................. 22

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 22

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 25

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 26

B. Excellent Customer Experiences ..................................................................................... 35

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 35

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 39

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 39

C. Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce..................................................................... 48

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 48

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 53

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 53

D. Financial Health ..................................................................................................................... 63

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 63

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 66

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 66

CHAPTER 4: STRATEGIC INITIATIVES...................................................................................................... 74

A. Background.............................................................................................................................. 74

B. Comments................................................................................................................................. 77

C. Commission Analysis ........................................................................................................... 78

Appendix—Commission Findings and Recommendations
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Executive Summary

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 1 -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Each year the Postal Service must submit to the Commission its most recent annual 

performance plan and annual performance report. 39 U.S.C. § 3652(g). On December 29, 

2017, the Postal Service filed its fiscal year (FY) 2018 annual performance plan (FY 2018 

Plan) and FY 2017 annual performance report (FY 2017 Report) in Docket No. ACR2017. 

The FY 2018 Plan reviews the Postal Service’s plans for FY 2018. The FY 2017 Report 

discusses the Postal Service’s progress during FY 2017 toward its four performance goals:

 High-Quality Service

 Excellent Customer Experiences

 Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce

 Financial Health

In this Analysis, as required by 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d), the Commission evaluates whether the 

Postal Service met these performance goals. This Analysis contains four chapters. In 

Chapter 1, the Commission provides background information about the FY 2018 Plan and 

FY 2017 Report. In Chapter 2, the Commission evaluates whether the FY 2018 Plan and 

FY 2017 Report comply with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. The Commission finds that the 

FY 2018 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803 for the first time, and the FY 2017 Report

meets most of the requirements of 39 U.S.C. § 2804.

The Commission also finds that the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report have improved 

significantly compared to past years. In past years, annual performance plans and annual 

performance reports as filed lacked sufficient information for the Commission to determine 

whether they complied with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. The FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 

Report contain almost all the information necessary to show compliance with 39 U.S.C. 

§§ 2803 and 2804. The Postal Service also made significant efforts to address the issues 

identified in past Commission analyses and adopted some of the Commission’s 

recommendations. The Commission recommends the Postal Service retain these changes in 

future annual performance plans and annual performance reports.

In Chapter 3, the Commission evaluates whether the Postal Service met each performance 

goal in FY 2017 as required by 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d). The Postal Service did not meet or only

partially met each performance goal in FY 2017. The Commission provides related 

observations and recommendations for each performance goal to help the Postal Service 

meet the goal and better assess its performance in future years.

In Chapter 4, the Commission makes observations and recommendations about the Postal 

Service’s strategic initiatives, which support the Postal Service’s strategic goals.
Analysis of FY 2015 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2016 Performance Plan

- 2 -

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

A. Background

The Postal Service is required by title 39 of the United States Code to submit to the 

Commission an annual performance report for the previous fiscal year and an annual 

performance plan for the current fiscal year.1 The Postal Service included its FY 2018 Plan 

and FY 2017 Report in its FY 2017 Annual Report to Congress, which the Postal Service filed 

as a library reference in Docket No. ACR2017.2

The FY 2017 Report discusses the Postal Service’s progress in meeting its performance 

goals during FY 2017. The FY 2018 Plan reviews the Postal Service’s plans for meeting its 

performance goals in FY 2018. A performance goal is “a target level of performance 

expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against which actual achievement shall be 

compared, including a goal expressed as a quantitative standard, value or rate[.]” 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2801(3). In the FY 2017 Report, the Postal Service identifies its four performance goals:

 High-Quality Service

 Excellent Customer Experiences

 Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce

 Financial Health3

Each performance goal uses two or more performance indicators to measure output or 

outcome. 39 U.S.C. § 2801(4). For example, the performance indicators for High-Quality 

Service measure the percentage of various categories of mail delivered on-time. As 

discussed in Chapter 2, the Postal Service will continue using the same performance goals 

in FY 2018, but is adding or changing some of the performance indicators. See Chapter 2, 

section C.4., infra.

Table I-1 lists the four performance goals, their corresponding performance indicators, 

results from FY 2014 through FY 2017, and targets for FY 2017 and FY 2018.

 

1

39 U.S.C. §§ 2803, 2804, and 3652(g); 39 C.F.R. § 3050.43.

2

United States Postal Service FY 2017 Annual Report to Congress at 13-28; see Library Reference USPS–FY17–17, December 29, 2017 (FY 2017 

Annual Report). This Analysis cites to pages from the FY 2017 Annual Report when referring to the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan.

3

FY 2017 Annual Report at 13. These are the same performance goals the Postal Service used in FY 2016, but were reworded slightly in FY 2017. 

The four performance goals in FY 2016 were: Deliver High-Quality Service, Provide Excellent Customer Experiences, Ensure a Safe Workplace 

and Engaged Workforce, and Sustain Controllable Income. United States Postal Service FY 2016 Annual Report to Congress at 13 (FY 2016 

Annual Report); see Docket No. ACR2016, Library Reference USPS–FY16–17, December 29, 2016.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 3 -

Table I-1

Performance Goals by Performance Indicators

Targets and Results

Performance 

Goal Performance Indicator

FY TARGETS FY RESULTS 

2018 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014

High-Quality 

Service

Single-Piece First-Class 

Mail

2-Day 96.50% 96.50% 94.72% 94.66% 93.28% 94.90%

3-5-Day 95.25% 95.25% 85.57% 83.66% 76.56% 87.70%

Presorted

First-Class Mail

Overnight 96.80% 96.80% 96.46% 96.16% 95.74% 97.00%

2-Day 96.50% 96.50% 95.58% 95.05% 93.56% 96.40%

3-5-Day 95.25% 95.25% 93.16% 91.68% 87.78% 92.20%

First-Class Mail Letter and Flat Composite 96.00% 96.00% 93.29% 92.34% 89.44% 93.58%

Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite 91.80% 91.00% 91.44% 90.01% 86.77% 88.35%

Excellent 

Customer 

Experiences

Customer Insights Composite Scorea80.93 89.00 88.30 87.62 85.73 84.65

Business Service Network 96.73% 96.73% 96.25% 95.13% 94.32% 94.05%

Point of Sale 90.42% 90.42% 88.53% 86.38% 86.28% 81.59%

Deliverya

86.33 82.67 83.22 76.26 77.49 79.55

Residential N/A N/A 79.44 79.93 80.32 77.70

Small/Medium Business N/A N/A 73.35 72.60 74.65 81.40

Customer Care Center 69.17% 86.80% 86.80% 85.18% 76.00% 74.00%

Enterprise Customer Careb

70.00% 3.44% 3.78% 5.19% N/A N/A

Large Businessc78.00% N/A 76.75% 75.88% 74.61% N/A

Business Mail Entry Unitc95.00% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

USPS.comc

66.33% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Safe 

Workplace

and Engaged

Workforce

Total Accident Rated

15.00 15.00 15.58 16.08 16.26 15.95

Survey Response Ratee75.00% 51.00% 46.00% 30.00% 47.00% 51.00%

Grand Mean Engagement ScorefN/A N/A 3.25 3.24 3.16 N/A

Financial 

Health

Deliveries per Total Workhours % Changeg

2.1% 0.6% (0.5%) 0.1% 0.2% 0.6%

Controllable Income (Loss) ($ in billions) ($1.40) $0.10 ($0.81) $0.61 $1.19 $1.35

 Target Not Met

a Because results for the Customer Insights (CI) Composite Score and Delivery performance indicators are calculated by weighting and aggregating various 

survey results, they are not expressed as percentages. The Delivery performance indicator result is a composite of results from the Delivery (Residential) and 

Delivery (Small/Medium Business) surveys.

b The FY 2016 and FY 2017 Enterprise Customer Care (eCC) results are expressed as the percentage of cases the customer reopened. See FY 2017 Annual 

Report at 16. The FY 2018 target is based on customer satisfaction with service regarding the issue prompting the case. Id. at 18.

c The Large Business, USPS.com, and Business Mail Entry Unit (BMEU) are new performance indicators introduced in FY 2018. FY 2017 Annual Report at 18.

d The Total Accident Rate results in Table I-1 differ from those provided in the FY 2017 Annual Report because results fluctuate due to accidents added later 

in time that occurred before the end of the fiscal year. See Chapter 3, section C.3.a.(1), infra.

e The FY 2014 result expresses the Survey Response Rate result for the Voice of the Employee (VOE) survey. FY 2015 through FY 2017 results and FY 2017 and 

FY 2018 targets express the Survey Response Rate results and targets for the Postal Pulse survey. FY 2017 Annual Report at 14 n.6.

f The Grand Mean Engagement Score result is the average of the mean scores for Questions 1 through 12 on the Postal Pulse survey. FY 2017 Annual Report

at 20. The Postal Service explains that it does not set targets for the Grand Mean Engagement Score because targets do not “incent managers to encourage 

honest survey feedback.” Id. at 20 n.3.

g The FY 2017 Annual Report expresses the Deliveries per Total Workhours % Change results for FY 2014 and FY 2015 using the old methodology. Responses 

of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-14 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 9, February 1, 2018, question 13 (February 1 Responses to 

Chairman’s Information Request (CHIR) No. 9). Table I-1 expresses FY 2014 and FY 2015 results using the current methodology. Id.

Sources: FY 2017 Annual Report at 14, 17, 20; February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 8; United States Postal Service 2015 Annual Report to Congress

at 19 (FY 2015 Annual Report); see Docket No. ACR2015, Library Reference USPS–FY15–17, December 29, 2015.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 4 -

Each year, the Commission must evaluate whether the Postal Service met its performance 

goals. 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d). It considers the Postal Service to have met a performance goal if 

the results of each performance indicator for that goal meet or exceed the targets 

established in the applicable performance plan. The Commission may also provide 

recommendations to the Postal Service related to protecting or promoting public policy 

objectives in title 39. Id.

B. The FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report

Since Docket No. ACR2013, the Commission has evaluated whether the Postal Service met 

its performance goals in reports separate from the Annual Compliance Determination

(ACD).4 By issuing separate reports, the Commission provides a more in-depth analysis of 

the Postal Service’s progress toward meeting its performance goals and plans to improve 

performance in future years. The Commission continues this current practice by issuing its

analysis of the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report separately from the FY 2017 ACD.5

In conducting this review, the Commission designated a Public Representative and invited 

comments on whether the Postal Service met its performance goals and satisfied applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements.

6 It also sought input on public policy 

recommendations, strategic initiatives, and other relevant matters. Order No. 4334 at 2-3.

Several CHIRs were issued seeking clarification of the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report.

7

The Postal Service filed responses to all information requests.8 The Public Representative 

 

4

See Docket No. ACR2013, Postal Regulatory Commission, Review of Postal Service FY 2013 Performance Report and FY 2014 Performance Plan, 

July 7, 2014; Docket No. ACR2014, Postal Regulatory Commission, Analysis of the Postal Service’s FY 2014 Program Performance Report and 

FY 2015 Performance Plan, July 7, 2015 (FY 2014 Analysis); Docket No. ACR2015, Postal Regulatory Commission, Analysis of the Postal Service’s 

FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Performance Plan, May 4, 2016 (FY 2015 Analysis); Docket No. ACR2016, Postal Regulatory 

Commission, Analysis of the Postal Service’s FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Performance Plan, April 27, 2017 (FY 2016 

Analysis).

5

See Annual Compliance Determination Report, Fiscal Year 2017, March 29, 2018 (FY 2017 ACD).

6

Notice Regarding the Postal Service FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan, January 3, 2018 (Order 

No. 4334).

7

Chairman's Information Request No. 6, January 22, 2018 (CHIR No. 6); Chairman's Information Request No. 9, January 25, 2018 (CHIR No. 9); 

Chairman's Information Request No. 13, February 1, 2018 (CHIR No. 13); Chairman's Information Request No. 16, February 9, 2018 (CHIR 

No. 16); Chairman’s Information Request No. 19, February 16, 2018 (CHIR No. 19).

8

Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-4 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 6, January 29, 2018 (Responses to CHIR 

No. 6); February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9; Response of the United States Postal Service to Question 15 of Chairman’s Information Request 

No. 9, February 6, 2018 (February 6 Response to CHIR No. 9); Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-7 of Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 13, February 8, 2018 (Responses to CHIR No. 13); Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-7 of 

Chairman’s Information Request No. 16, February 15, 2018 (Responses CHIR No. 16); Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 

1-6 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 19, February 23, 2018 (Responses to CHIR No. 19). One CHIR response was accompanied by a 

motion requesting late acceptance. See Motion of the United States Postal Service for Late Acceptance of Response to Question 15 of 

Chairman’s Information Request No. 9, February 6, 2018 (Motion). The Motion is granted.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 5 -

and the Association for Postal Commerce submitted comments,

9 which the Postal Service 

responded to in reply comments.10

The Commission analyzes the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report in the following chapters:

 Chapter 2 analyzes the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report for compliance 

with legal requirements.

 Chapter 3 evaluates whether the Postal Service met its four performance 

goals in FY 2017 and contains related observations and

recommendations for each performance goal.

 Chapter 4 discusses the Postal Service’s strategic initiatives.

The Commission also provides an appendix listing the Commission findings and

recommendations contained in this Analysis.

 

9

Public Representative Comments on the FY 2017 Performance Report and FY 2018 Performance Plan, January 30, 2018 (PR Comments); 

Comments of the Association for Postal Commerce on FY 2017 Performance Report and FY 2018 Performance Plan, February 8, 2018 (PostCom 

Comments).

10 United States Postal Service Reply Comments Regarding FY 2017 Performance Report and FY 2018 Performance Plan, February 22, 2018

(Postal Service Reply Comments).
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 6 -

CHAPTER 2: COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL 

REQUIREMENTS

A. Legal Requirements

The FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report must meet the requirements of 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 

2804.11 Section 2803 establishes requirements for the Postal Service’s annual performance 

plans. Annual performance plans must cover “each program activity set forth in the Postal 

Service budget...,”

12 and must:

 Establish objective, quantifiable, and measurable performance goals that 

define a program activity’s performance level.

 Briefly describe the operational processes, skills and technology, and the 

human, capital, information, or other resources needed to meet the 

performance goals.

 Establish performance indicators to measure or assess each program 

activity’s relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes.

 Provide a basis for comparing actual program results with established 

performance goals.

 Describe the means to be used to verify and validate measured values.

39 U.S.C. § 2803(a). The Postal Service may use an alternative form if it determines that it is 

not feasible to express the performance goals for a particular program activity in an 

objective, quantifiable, and measurable form.13

 

11 Chapter 28 of title 39, which includes sections 2803 and 2804, was added by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, 

Pub. L. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). Sections 2803 and 2804 were not affected by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, which does not apply 

to the Postal Service. See Pub. L. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011).

12 A “program activity” is “a specific activity related to the mission of the Postal Service[.]” 39 U.S.C. § 2801(5). The Commission discusses 

program activities below. See Chapter 2, section C.1., infra.

13 Id. § 2803(b). The alternative form must either: (1) include separate descriptive statements of a minimally effective program and a successful 

program; or (2) “state why it is infeasible or impractical to express a performance goal in any form for the program activity.” Id. §§ 2803(b)(1), 

(b)(2).
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 7 -

Section 2804 sets forth several requirements for the Postal Service’s annual performance 

reports. First, annual performance reports must review whether the Postal Service has met 

the performance goals previously established by the performance plan for that fiscal year. 

Id. § 2804(d)(1). Second, annual performance reports must “set forth the performance 

indicators established in the Postal Service performance plan, along with the actual 

program performance achieved compared with the performance goals expressed in the 

plan for that fiscal year.” Id. § 2804(b)(1). Third, annual performance reports must include 

“actual results for the three preceding fiscal years.” Id. § 2804(c). Fourth, annual 

performance reports must evaluate the performance plan for the current fiscal year (in this 

case, the FY 2018 Plan) relative to the performance achieved toward those goals in the year 

covered by the performance report (in this case, the FY 2017 Report). Id. § 2804(d)(2).

If the Postal Service does not meet a performance goal, annual performance reports must 

explain why the goal was not met and its plans and schedules for achieving the 

performance goal.14 Annual performance reports must also include summary findings of 

program evaluations completed during the fiscal year covered by the report. Id.

§ 2804(d)(4).

B. Comments

The Public Representative comments that “the Postal Service satisfies all but one of the 

requirements of [39] U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804.” PR Comments at 8. She asserts that the 

Postal Service fails to explain how the annual performance plans covers each of the 

program activities listed in the FY 2018 congressional budget. Id. Thus, she contends that 

the FY 2018 Plan does not comply with section 2803(a). Id.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service disagrees with the Public Representative’s 

contention that the FY 2018 Plan does not comply with section 2803(a). Postal Service 

Reply Comments at 7-8. It notes that the Commission previously interpreted “Postal 

Service budget” in section 2803(a) to mean the Postal Service’s operating budget in the 

Integrated Financial Plan (IFP). Id. at 8. The Postal Service points out that the FY 2017 

Report and FY 2018 Plan include a table containing planned revenues and expenses for 

program activities in the IFP. Id. It explains that FY 2018 performance indicator targets 

align with the FY 2018 IFP and are designed “to be achievable given the planned finances in 

the IFP.” Id. Thus, it concludes that it met the requirements of 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. 

Id.

 

14 Id. § 2804(d)(3)(A) and (B). If the performance goal is impractical or infeasible, the Postal Service must explain why and recommend further 

action. Id. § 2804(d)(3)(C).
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 8 -

C. Commission Analysis

In past years, the Commission found that annual performance plans and annual 

performance reports as filed lacked sufficient information for the Commission to determine

whether they complied with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804.15 Extensive CHIRs were necessary 

to obtain the information required to evaluate compliance with these statutory 

requirements. In the FY 2016 Analysis, the Commission expressed concern that the Postal 

Service’s continued reliance on CHIR responses to comply with statutory requirements 

reduced the transparency and usefulness of annual performance plans and annual 

performance reports. FY 2016 Analysis at 9. For this reason, the Commission directed that 

the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report contain all information necessary to show compliance 

with sections 2803 and 2804. Id. The Commission identified one legal compliance issue 

with the FY 2017 annual performance plan (FY 2017 Plan) and described what future 

annual performance plans and annual performance reports would need to include to 

comply with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804 in future years. Id. at 9-22.

The FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report demonstrate that the Postal Service made significant 

efforts to address the issues identified by the Commission. The Postal Service also adopted 

some of the Commission’s recommendations, which helped improve the transparency and 

utility of the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report. For example, the FY 2017 Report lists the 

same performance indicators and targets set in the FY 2017 Plan, which promotes clarity 

and consistency between annual performance plans and annual performance reports. The 

FY 2017 Report also describes changes to performance indicators and methodologies for 

calculating results, which promotes transparency by helping interested persons identify 

and understand when performance indicators change. The Commission appreciates the 

Postal Service’s efforts to incorporate the Commission’s recommendations into the FY 2018 

Plan and FY 2017 Report.

As discussed below, the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report contain almost all information 

necessary to show compliance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. This facilitated the 

Commission’s review of the performance goals under 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d) by allowing the 

analysis to focus less on legal compliance issues and more on how the Postal Service can 

meet its performance goals in future years. It also resulted in a more thorough and 

transparent annual performance plan and annual performance report and significantly 

reduced the number of CHIRs.

 

15 See FY 2016 Analysis at 9; FY 2015 Analysis at 16.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 9 -

The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report have improved significantly 

compared to past years. The Commission recommends the Postal Service retain these changes 

in future annual performance plans and annual performance reports.

1. FY 2018 Plan

This is the first annual performance plan the Commission has reviewed that meets all 

requirements of 39 U.S.C. § 2803. The Commission appreciates that the Postal Service 

included all information required for the Commission to evaluate compliance with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2803 in the FY 2018 Plan.

First, the FY 2018 Plan must “cover[] each program activity set forth in the Postal Service 

budget... .” See 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a). The Commission previously found that “Postal Service 

budget” in section 2803(a) means the Postal Service’s operating budget that is part of the 

IFP. See FY 2016 Analysis at 13. In the FY 2016 Analysis, the Commission stated that to 

comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a), the FY 2018 Plan must “identify all program activities in 

the FY 2018 Integrated Financial Plan and explain how the FY 2018 Plan covers each 

one... .”16 The Commission also directed that the FY 2018 Plan relate each program activity 

to one or more performance goals or indicators. Id.

In the FY 2018 Plan, the Postal Service explains that the FY 2017 and FY 2018 targets for 

each performance indicator are aligned with the FY 2018 IFP, which includes the Postal 

Service’s planned revenue and expenses for FY 2018. FY 2017 Annual Report at 13. The 

Postal Service states that it set all performance indicator targets “to be achievable given the 

planned finances in the IFP.” Id. The Postal Service explicitly defines “program activity” as a 

budget item contributing to the Controllable Income (Loss) performance indicator for the 

Financial Health performance goal. Id. It identifies program activities contributing to the 

Controllable Income (Loss) as controllable expenses such as compensation and benefits; 

transportation; depreciation; supplies and services; and rent and utilities. Id. The FY 2018 

Plan includes planned IFP revenue and expenses for FY 2018, as well as actual revenues 

and expenses for FY 2017 that list these program activities. Id. at 21. Also, the Postal 

Service states that it developed the IFP budget to be consistent with planned workhours, 

which are used to calculate targets for the Deliveries per Total Workhours % Change 

(DPTWH % Change) performance indicator. Id. at 13.

The Public Representative comments that the FY 2018 Plan does not comply with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2803(a) because the Postal Service does not explain how it covers each of the program 

 

16 Id. at 14. Alternatively, the Postal Service could identify all program activities in the applicable congressional budget submission, explain how 

the FY 2018 Plan covers each one, and provide a crosswalk relating the program activities between the FY 2018 IFP and congressional budget 

submission. Id.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 10 -

activities listed in the FY 2018 congressional budget. PR Comments at 8. In its FY 2016 

Analysis, the Commission explained that the Postal Service may demonstrate compliance 

with section 2803(a) by identifying all program activities in either the congressional 

budget or the IFP. FY 2016 Analysis at 14. The Postal Service identified the program 

activities in the FY 2018 IFP and related them to the Financial Health performance goal. See 

FY 2017 Annual Report at 13, 21.

Unlike past years, the FY 2018 Plan explicitly discusses the IFP, defines “program activity,” 

and identifies the program activities in the FY 2018 IFP. The Postal Service complied with 

the Commission’s directive to relate the program activities to the performance goals by 

linking them to the Financial Health performance indicators.

The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a) by “covering 

each program activity set forth in the Postal Service budget... .” To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 

2803(a) next year, the FY 2019 annual performance plan (FY 2019 Plan) must again identify 

all program activities in the FY 2019 IFP and explain how the FY 2019 Plan covers each one 

by relating each program activity to one or more performance goals or indicators.17

Second, the FY 2018 Plan must “establish performance goals to define the level of 

performance to be achieved by a program activity.” 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1). Section 

2803(a)(1) requires the FY 2018 Plan to set forth the performance goals and establish 

targets for each performance indicator used to evaluate performance during FY 2018. See 

FY 2016 Analysis at 10. In FY 2015, the Postal Service began measuring employee 

engagement using two performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse survey: the 

Survey Response Rate and the Grand Mean Engagement Score. See Chapter 3, section C.3.b., 

infra. However, annual performance plans for FY 2016 and FY 2017 omitted targets for 

these performance indicators, as well as targets for most performance indicators 

measuring progress toward the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal.

18

The FY 2018 Plan improved over past annual performance plans by setting FY 2018 targets 

for each public performance indicator the Postal Service will use to evaluate performance 

during FY 2018.

19 Although no target is set for the Grand Mean Engagement Score, the 

Postal Service explains in the FY 2018 Plan that it does not set targets for this performance 

indicator because targets do not incent managers to encourage honest survey feedback. 

 

17 Alternatively, the Postal Service could identify all program activities in the applicable congressional budget submission, explain how the 

FY 2019 Plan covers each one, and provide a crosswalk relating the program activities between the FY 2019 IFP and congressional budget 

submission.

18 See FY 2016 Annual Report at 15; FY 2015 Annual Report at 14.

19 The Postal Service also uses three non-public performance indicators for Competitive products that measure progress toward the HighQuality Service performance goal. See Chapter 2, section C.3., infra.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 11 -

FY 2017 Annual Report at 20 n.3. This explanation improves the transparency of annual 

performance plans by providing further insight into how the Postal Service sets targets for 

its performance goals. The Commission appreciates that the FY 2018 Plan provides the 

rationale for not setting a FY 2018 target for the Grand Mean Engagement Score.

The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1) because the

FY 2018 Plan sets targets for each performance indicator the Postal Service will use in 

FY 2018 or explains why a target is not set. In future annual performance plans, if the Postal 

Service does not set a target for a performance indicator, it should continue to provide a 

reasoned explanation for not setting a target.

Third, the FY 2018 Plan must “express [performance] goals in an objective, quantifiable, 

and measurable form unless an alternative form is used under [section 2803](b)[.]” See 

39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(2). Section 2803(a)(2) requires the FY 2018 Plan to express 

performance goals as quantitative targets that can be compared with objectively measured 

results for each performance indicator unless an alternative form is used under section 

2803(b). FY 2016 Analysis at 10. In past years, the Postal Service did not provide 

measurable targets for the Grand Mean Engagement Score in either annual performance 

plans or in CHIR responses. See id. at 11. In its FY 2016 Analysis, the Commission stated that 

to comply with section 2803(a)(2), the FY 2018 Plan must include measurable FY 2018 

targets for each performance indicator, including at least one of the performance indicators 

related to the Postal Pulse survey. Id. at 12.

The FY 2018 Plan addresses this issue by setting a measurable FY 2018 target for the 

Survey Response Rate performance indicator. As previously discussed, the Postal Service 

explains why it does not set a measurable target for the Grand Mean Engagement Score.

Fourth, the FY 2018 Plan must “briefly describe the operational processes, skills and 

technology, and the human, capital, information, or other resources required to meet the 

performance goals[.]” See 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(3). The FY 2018 Plan meets this requirement 

by explaining what resources are necessary to meet each performance goal. For example, to 

meet the High-Quality Service goal in FY 2018, the Postal Service states it will continue to 

implement operational and technological initiatives as well as improve the training of field 

personnel in mail handling. FY 2017 Annual Report at 17.

Fifth, the FY 2018 Plan must “establish performance indicators to be used in measuring or 

assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program activity.” See

39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(4). The FY 2018 Plan meets this requirement because each performance 

goal has at least two performance indicators that evaluate outputs, service levels, and 

outcomes. For example, the Financial Health performance goal uses two performance 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 12 -

indicators to measure financial performance and overall efficiency. FY 2017 Annual Report

at 20-25.

Sixth, the FY 2018 Plan must “provide a basis for comparing actual program results with 

the established performance goals[.]” See 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(5). The FY 2018 Plan meets 

this requirement by setting forth performance indicators that will provide a basis for 

comparing FY 2018 results with the targets established in the FY 2018 Plan.

Seventh, the FY 2018 Plan must “describe the means to be used to verify and validate 

measured values.” See id. § 2803(a)(6). Section 2803(a)(6) requires the Postal Service to 

explain how it verifies and validates targets and results for each performance indicator 

using objective measurement systems. The FY 2018 Plan meets this requirement by, for 

example, explaining that it uses a third-party contractor to measure service performance 

for several mail categories. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 15.

The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803.

2. FY 2017 Report

The FY 2017 Report improved significantly compared to previous years because the Postal 

Service addressed two major legal issues related to compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 2804 that 

had been problematic in past annual performance reports. In particular, the Postal Service 

made changes this year to address comparability between FY 2017 targets and results, as 

well as to provide comparable results from the past three fiscal years.

a. Target and Result Comparability

Annual performance reports must “set forth the performance indicators established in the 

Postal Service performance plan, along with the actual program performance achieved 

compared with the performance goals expressed in the plan for that fiscal year.” 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(b)(1). Section 2804(b)(1) requires results expressed in the annual performance 

reports to be comparable with targets set in the annual performance plan for that fiscal 

year. FY 2016 Analysis at 16. Thus, to comply with section 2804(b)(1), the FY 2017 Report

must set forth the performance indicators and targets in the FY 2017 Plan and compare the 

FY 2017 results with FY 2017 targets set for each performance indicator in the FY 2017 

Plan. The Commission also directed that the FY 2017 Report express results for each 

performance indicator that are comparable to the targets the Postal Service set for 

FY 2017. Id. at 18.

Determining compliance with section 2804(b)(1) has been challenging because previous 

annual performance reports omitted or changed performance indicators and targets from 

those that were previously set in applicable annual performance plans. See FY 2016 

Analysis at 16-18. For example, in some cases, the Postal Service provided targets in CHIR 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 13 -

responses, but did not include them in the applicable annual performance report. Id. In the 

FY 2016 Analysis, the Commission observed that inconsistencies between targets presented 

in annual performance plans and annual performance reports have been an ongoing issue. 

Id. at 18. In other cases, results in past annual performance reports were not comparable to 

the targets the Postal Service set in the annual performance plan for that fiscal year. Id.

at 17-18. The Commission recommended that the Postal Service not change performance 

indicators or targets after setting them in annual performance plans. Id. at 18.

The Postal Service addressed these issues in the FY 2017 Report by including the same 

performance indicators and targets set in the FY 2017 Plan. For each public20 performance 

indicator, the FY 2017 Report sets forth FY 2017 targets from the FY 2017 Plan and 

compares them with the FY 2017 results.

21 The Postal Service did not change any 

performance indicators or targets mid-year. Results expressed in the FY 2017 Report are 

comparable to the targets the Postal Service set for FY 2017. The Commission appreciates 

that the Postal Service adopted its recommendation of not changing performance 

indicators or targets once they are set in the annual performance plan.

The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1). To 

comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 2018 annual performance report 

(FY 2018 Report) must set forth the same performance indicators and targets in the FY 2018 

Plan and compare FY 2018 results with FY 2018 targets for each performance indicator. The 

FY 2018 Report must express results for each performance indicator that are comparable to 

the targets the Postal Service set in the FY 2018 Plan.

b. Comparable Three-Year Results

Annual performance reports must also “include actual results for the three preceding fiscal 

years” as required by 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c). The Commission previously found that “actual 

results” under section 2804(c) must also be comparable across the three preceding fiscal 

years. See FY 2016 Analysis at 18. The Commission stated that to comply with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(c), the FY 2017 Report must include comparable results for each performance 

indicator for, at a minimum, FYs 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Id. at 22. If comparable 

results were unable to be provided, the Commission directed that the FY 2017 Report

explain how to compare results between the old and new methodologies. Id.

 

20 The Postal Service uses three non-public performance indicators for Competitive products that measure progress toward the High-Quality 

Service performance goal. See Chapter 2, section C.3., infra.

21 See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14. Last year, the Postal Service provided FY 2017 targets for two performance indicators in CHIR responses: 

First-Class Package Service and the Postal Pulse survey number of business units entering into action plans. See FY 2016 Analysis at 28, 54. The 

Postal Service confirms that it is no longer using these as performance indicators. See Responses to CHIR No. 6, questions 1, 4.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 14 -

Recent annual performance reports did not include comparable results from the past three

fiscal years for some performance indicators.22 Providing comparable three-year results 

also was a potential issue in FY 2017 for two reasons. First, the Postal Service replaced 

some performance indicators. For the High-Quality Service goal, the Postal Service replaced 

the composite performance indicators measuring First-Class Mail and Marketing Mail. 

FY 2016 Analysis at 20. For the Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce goal, the Postal 

Service replaced the prior workplace safety performance indicator with the Total Accident 

Rate. Id. The Postal Service addressed the result comparability issue for these performance 

indicators by providing three years of comparable results using the new performance 

indicators.23

Second, providing three years of comparable results was a potential issue in FY 2017 

because the Postal Service changed the methodology for calculating results of some 

existing performance indicators. FY 2016 Analysis at 20-21. For the Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance goal, the Postal Service changed the methodologies for 

calculating results of two performance indicators: Customer Insights (CI) Composite Score 

and Delivery. Id. In the FY 2016 Analysis, the Commission directed that to comply with 

section 2804(c), the FY 2017 Report must include results for these performance indicators 

calculated using both the old and new methodologies. Id. at 21. The Commission stated that 

if the FY 2017 Report does not include comparable results for the CI Composite Score, the 

Postal Service should explain why it is not feasible to do so. Id.

The FY 2017 Report does not contain comparable results for the CI Composite Score and the 

Delivery performance indicators. However, in the FY 2017 Report, the Postal Service 

explains why results for these performance indicators are not easily or directly comparable 

across years. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 17. The FY 2017 Report also contains results of 

their subcomponents, which are comparable across the past three fiscal years. Id. at 14, 17.

For the Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal, the Postal Service 

changed the survey for measuring employee engagement from the VOE to the Postal Pulse 

survey in FY 2015. FY 2017 Annual Report at 14 n.6. In the FY 2016 Analysis, the 

Commission directed that to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c), the FY 2017 Report must 

include comparable results for at least one performance indicator related to the Postal 

Pulse survey. FY 2016 Analysis at 65. The FY 2017 Report addresses this issue by including 

three years of comparable results for the Survey Response Rate performance indicator. See 

FY 2017 Annual Report at 14.

 

22 See FY 2016 Analysis at 19-20; FY 2016 Annual Report at 15; FY 2015 Annual Report at 14.

23 See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14. For its non-public performance indicators for the High-Quality Service performance goal, the Postal Service 

provided three years of comparable results under seal. Library Reference USPS–FY17–NP37, file “USPS-FY17-NP37.Preface.pdf;” see Chapter 2, 

section C.3., infra.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 15 -

The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report “include[s] actual results for the three

preceding fiscal years” and thus complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for the High-Quality Service, 

Excellent Customer Experiences, and Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance 

goals.

For the Financial Health performance goal, the Postal Service changed the methodology for 

calculating the DPTWH % Change performance indicator in FY 2016. The FY 2017 Report

expresses FY 2014 and FY 2015 results using the old methodology and FY 2016 and 

FY 2017 results using the new methodology. February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 

13. These results are not comparable because to be comparable, results must be calculated 

and expressed using the same methodology. Also, the FY 2017 Report does not explain how 

to compare results between the old and new methodologies.

The FY 2017 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for the Financial Health 

performance goal. To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2018 Report must 

include comparable DPTWH % Change results calculated and expressed using the same 

methodology for, at a minimum, FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.

In FY 2018, the Postal Service is adding new performance indicators or changing the 

methodology for calculating results of existing performance indicators. See Chapter 2, 

section C.4., infra. The Commission clarifies that for new performance indicators added 

during the previous year, annual performance reports only need to include results for the 

fiscal year covered by the annual performance report. For example, for FY 2018 the Postal 

Service is adding three new performance indicators for the Excellent Customer Experiences 

goal. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14, 17.

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2018 Report must include comparable 

FY 2018 results for new performance indicators. For all other performance indicators, annual 

performance reports must include comparable results from the past three fiscal years as 

required by 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c). Specifically, the Postal Service must provide comparable 

results if it replaces a performance indicator or changes the methodology for calculating 

results of an existing performance indicator. To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the 

FY 2018 Report must include comparable results for each performance indicator for, at a 

minimum, FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.

To be comparable, results for each fiscal year must be calculated and expressed using the 

same performance indicator or methodology. If comparable results cannot be provided, the 

FY 2018 Report must explain why results are not directly comparable across these fiscal 

years. In that case, the FY 2018 Report must either explain how to compare results between

the old and new methodologies or explain why making this comparison is not feasible.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 16 -

c. Other Annual Performance Report Requirements

The FY 2017 Report must also meet the other requirements of 39 U.S.C. § 2804. Annual 

performance reports must review the Postal Service’s success in achieving its performance 

goals during FY 2017. 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(1). The FY 2017 Report states whether the Postal 

Service met targets for each performance goal in FY 2017. The Postal Service provided this 

information both in a table comparing targets and results and in the text of the FY 2017 

Report. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14, 16-17, 19, 22, 25.

Annual performance reports must “evaluate the performance plan for the current fiscal 

year relative to the performance achieved towards the performance goals in the fiscal year 

covered by the report[.]” 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(2). Section 2804(d)(2) requires the FY 2017 

Report to evaluate the FY 2018 Plan relative to the performance achieved toward the 

performance goals during FY 2017. In other words, the Postal Service must compare 

FY 2018 targets with FY 2017 results for each performance indicator the Postal Service will 

use during FY 2018. The FY 2017 Report provides this information in a table comparing 

results and targets for each performance indicator. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14.

Annual performance reports must “include the summary findings of those program 

evaluations completed during the fiscal year covered by the report.” 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(4). 

“Program evaluations” are “assessment[s], through objective measurement and systematic 

analysis, of the manner and extent to which Postal Service programs achieve intended 

objectives.” Id. § 2801(6). The FY 2017 Report includes summary findings of program 

evaluations completed during FY 2017 by evaluating how programs helped the Postal 

Service meet targets in FY 2017. For example, the Postal Service states it met the FY 2017 

Delivery performance indicator target for the Excellent Customer Experiences goal by 

increasing the percentage of mail that is properly scanned and tracking and reporting 

problem delivery units to decrease change-of-address complaints. FY 2017 Annual Report

at 17.

The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2804(d)(1), (2), and 

(4).

If a performance goal has not been met, annual performance reports must explain why the 

Postal Service did not meet the goal and describe the plans and schedules for achieving the 

goal. 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3). Because the Postal Service either did not meet or only partially 

met each performance goal in FY 2017, the FY 2017 Report must explain why and describe 

plans and schedules for achieving each goal in FY 2018. See Table III-1, infra. The FY 2017
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 17 -

Report provides this information for the High-Quality Service and Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance goals.24

The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) for the 

High-Quality Service and Excellent Customer Experiences performance goals.

For the Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce and Financial Health performance goals, 

the FY 2017 Report does not include all the information required by 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3). 

The FY 2017 Report describes plans and schedules for meeting the Safe Workplace and 

Engaged Workforce goal in FY 2018, but does not explain why the Postal Service did not 

meet this goal in FY 2017. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 19-20. Conversely, the FY 2017 

Report explains why the Postal Service did not meet the Financial Health performance goal 

in FY 2017, but does not describe plans and schedules for meeting this goal in FY 2018. See 

Chapter 3, section D.3.(a)(2), infra.

The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) for 

the Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce and Financial Health performance goals. The 

Commission reiterates that “plans and schedules” for meeting performance goals under 

39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3)(B) must be designed to meet applicable performance indicator targets. 

These plans and schedules must also include specific timelines if they fall outside of the fiscal 

year covered by the annual performance plan. See FY 2015 Analysis at 15. If the Postal Service 

does not meet FY 2018 target(s), the FY 2018 Report must describe specific plans for 

improving performance that are designed to meet FY 2019 target(s). These plans must also 

include timelines for implementing programs that will help meet FY 2019 target(s).

3. Non-Public Performance Indicators

The Postal Service uses three non-public performance indicators to measure progress 

toward the High-Quality Service performance goal. February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, 

question 1. These performance indicators measure service performance for some 

Competitive products.25 The Postal Service filed under seal targets for FY 2017 and 

FY 2018 and results from FY 2014 through FY 2017 for these non-public performance 

indicators.26

 

24 The Postal Service explained under seal why it did not meet two of the three targets set for its non-public performance indicators and its 

plans and schedules for meeting targets in FY 2018. See Chapter 2, section C.3., infra.

25 Id.; see FY 2016 Analysis at 25 n.27.

26 Library Reference USPS–FY17–NP37, February 1, 2018, file “USPS-FY17-NP37.Preface.pdf.”
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 18 -

Because the Postal Service provided FY 2018 targets, the Commission finds that the FY 2018 

Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1), which requires annual performance plans to set 

targets for each performance indicator.

In its filing under seal, the Postal Service compared FY 2017 targets with FY 2017 results 

and included three years of comparable results from FY 2014 through FY 2017 for each 

non-public performance indicator. The Postal Service explains under seal why it missed 

FY 2017 targets for two non-public performance indicators and its plans and schedules for 

meeting FY 2018 targets. Id.

The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1), (c), and 

(d)(3) with respect to the non-public performance indicators.

Annual performance plans and annual performance reports do not need to include 

information on non-public performance indicators. However, to ensure compliance with 

39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804 in future years, the Postal Service must file under seal with the

Annual Compliance Report (ACR) targets and three years of comparable results for each 

non-public performance indicator.

To ensure that the FY 2019 Plan and FY 2018 Report comply with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804, 

respectively, the Postal Service must file under seal with the FY 2018 ACR: (1) FY 2018 and 

FY 2019 targets; and (2) comparable results from FY 2015 through FY 2018 for each nonpublic performance indicator. If the Postal Service does not meet a FY 2018 target, the Postal 

Service must explain why and describe the plans and schedules for meeting FY 2019 targets.

The Postal Service may include this information with the Annual Report to Congress or 

submit this information in a non-public library reference.

4. FY 2018 Performance Indicator Changes

The Commission previously recommended that the Postal Service describe any 

performance indicator or methodology changes in the Annual Report to Congress and 

analyze the impact of methodology changes on results. See FY 2016 Analysis at 18. The 

FY 2017 Report adopts this recommendation by explaining changes to performance 

indicators and the methodology for calculating them. First, the Postal Service states that in 

FY 2018, it is adding three new performance indicators for the Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance goal. FY 2017 Annual Report at 14, 18. Second, the Postal Service 

explains that in FY 2018, it is changing the methodology for calculating some existing 

performance indicators for the High-Quality Service and Excellent Customer Experiences 

goals. Id. at 14 nn. 3-5, 16, 18. Third, the Postal Service identifies areas where the 

methodology change will affect the comparability of results. Id. Fourth, the Postal Service 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 19 -

notes that the DPTWH % Change performance indicator was referred to as “DPTWH % 

SPLY” in the FY 2016 annual performance report. Id. at 24 n.5.

The Commission appreciates that the Postal Service adopted the Commission’s 

recommendation by describing performance indicator and methodology changes in the 

FY 2018 Plan and the FY 2017 Report, and analyzing the impact of these changes on results. 

These explanations promote transparency by helping interested persons understand when 

performance indicators and methodologies change and how they impact results. In the 

FY 2019 Plan and FY 2018 Report, the Postal Service should continue to describe future 

performance indicator and methodology changes as well as analyze the impact of these 

changes on results.

The Commission recognizes that changes to performance indicators and the methodology 

for calculating results can be necessary for driving innovation and growth. However, as the 

Commission discussed in the FY 2016 Analysis, these changes hamper the Commission’s 

ability to fulfill its statutory responsibility under 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d) to evaluate whether 

the Postal Service has met its performance goals. See FY 2016 Analysis at 20. They also 

decrease transparency and make it difficult to evaluate progress year-over-year and over 

time. Id.

After implementing a change, the Postal Service will need time to evaluate whether the 

change was beneficial or effective. Implementing a change for a three-year period will also 

help future annual performance reports comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) by generating 

three years of comparable results.

The Commission reiterates its recommendation that the Postal Service not change 

performance indicators, targets, or methodologies once they are established in the annual 

performance plan. See FY 2016 Analysis at 18. To ensure meaningful comparisons across 

fiscal years, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service limit the number of 

performance indicator or methodology changes made. The Postal Service should implement a 

performance indicator or methodology change for three consecutive fiscal years before 

revising it unless the change is clearly not beneficial or effective.

If the Postal Service decides to add a new performance indicator or change the methodology 

for an existing performance indicator, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

provide the rationale for these changes in future annual performance plans and annual 

performance reports.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 20 -

CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF

PERFORMANCE GOALS

The Postal Service’s four performance goals in FY 2017 were:

 High-Quality Service

 Excellent Customer Experiences

 Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce

 Financial Health27

In this chapter, the Commission evaluates whether the Postal Service met each 

performance goal in FY 2017 as required by 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d). The Commission 

considers the Postal Service to have met a performance goal if the results of each 

performance indicator for that goal meet or exceed targets established in the applicable 

annual performance plan. FY 2016 Analysis at 5. Results for most performance indicators 

improved between FY 2016 and FY 2017. However, the Postal Service missed one or more 

targets for each performance goal.

The Commission finds that the Postal Service either did not meet or only partially met its 

performance goals in FY 2017.

If a performance goal has not been met, annual performance reports must explain why the 

Postal Service did not meet the goal and describe the plans and schedules for achieving the 

goal. 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3). Table III-1 lists each performance goal, whether the goal was 

met in FY 2017, reasons provided by the Postal Service for not meeting the goal, and the 

Postal Service’s plans and schedules for achieving the performance goal in future years.

 

27 FY 2017 Annual Report at 13. These are the same performance goals the Postal Service used in FY 2016, but reworded slightly. The four 

performance goals in FY 2016 were: Deliver High-Quality Service, Provide Excellent Customer Experiences, Ensure a Safe Workplace and 

Engaged Workforce, and Sustain Controllable Income. FY 2016 Annual Report at 13.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 21 -

Table III-1

FY 2017 Progress Toward Performance Goals

Performance 

Goal

Goal Met

in FY 2017

Postal Service’s Reasons for Not 

Meeting Goal

Postal Service’s FY 2018 Plans and 

Schedules for Meeting the Goal

High-Quality 

Service Partially

Temporary disruptions in mail distribution, 

network transportation, and delivery 

processes; delays resulting from natural 

disasters and weather events 

Implement technological initiatives such 

as improved software to generate better 

daily operational plans; improve training 

of field personnel in mail handling; 

implement operational changes such as 

increasing the amount of mail processed 

ahead of schedule 

Excellent 

Customer 

Experiences

Partially

Business Service Network (BSN): customers 

did not receive prompt information about 

the status of their packages

Point of Sale (POS): primary drivers of 

customer satisfaction at retail locations are 

staff efficiency, staff knowledge, and 

acceptable wait times in line

Enterprise Customer Care (eCC): customers 

waited a long time before being contacted 

about their issue, or were not contacted at 

all

BSN: implement integrated technology 

platform during FY 2018, Quarter 1 to 

address package status inquiries for 

customers

POS: develop employee communication 

and training to address retail location 

management; streamline package pickup processes

eCC: increase emphasis on prompt and 

reliable initial contact and issue 

resolution

Safe Workplace 

and Engaged 

Workforce

Not Met FY 2017 Report does not explain why goal 

was not met.

Safe Workplace: focus on prevention 

strategies and take a proactive approach 

to safety; emphasize leadership and 

maintain a culture of safety

Engaged Workforce: continue to mail 

surveys to bargaining employees at both 

their work and home addresses instead 

of only home addresses; increase 

employee engagement training

Financial Health Not Met

Deliveries per Total Workhours (DPTWH) % 

Change: rapid decrease in volume during 

FY 2017; Postal Service’s large network 

made it difficult to adjust workhours

Controllable Income (Loss): shortfall in 

revenue due to higher-than-expected FirstClass Mail diversion and unexpected 

decline in Marketing Mail volume

DPTWH % Change: Postal Service 

describes general plans for reducing 

workhours, but not specific plans or 

timelines for meeting FY 2018 target 

Controllable Income (Loss): modest 

revenue growth from Shipping and 

Packages due to volume growth and 

price increases

Sources: FY 2017 Annual Report at 16-25; February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, questions 4-7; Responses to CHIR No. 19, questions 4, 5; 

Postal Service Reply Comments at 5, 7.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 22 -

The FY 2017 Report provides a thorough explanation of why it partially met the Excellent 

Customer Experiences performance goal. The Postal Service identifies the specific 

performance indicators that missed FY 2017 targets and provides reasons why based on 

the underlying customer survey. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 17. The Postal Service also 

tailors plans for meeting FY 2018 targets to address the issues that caused the Postal 

Service to miss targets in FY 2017. See id.

The Commission finds the Postal Service’s explanation of why it partially met the Excellent 

Customer Experiences goal an improvement over past years. If the Postal Service partially 

meets or does not meet the Excellent Customer Experiences goal in FY 2018, the Commission 

recommends that the Postal Service provide a similar explanation by identifying each 

performance indicator that did not meet its FY 2018 target and providing a reason based on 

the underlying customer survey.

For the other performance goals, the Postal Service could improve the transparency and 

utility of future annual performance reports by including a more thorough explanation of 

why a goal or target was not met. When performance goal(s) are not met, the Postal 

Service should identify the performance indicator(s) that did not meet target(s) as well as 

the reason(s) why based on the underlying data in future annual performance reports.

A. High-Quality Service

1. Background

For most Market Dominant products, the Postal Service sets a service standard for the 

number of days allowed for delivery of a mailpiece considered to be on-time. Service 

performance results are expressed as the percentage of mail meeting the applicable 

service standard. The Postal Service uses the percentage of selected and combined mail 

products delivered on-time to assess whether its performance meets the High-Quality 

Service28 performance goal.29 Seven public30 performance indicators measured progress 

toward this goal in FY 2017:

 

28 In FY 2016, this performance goal was called “Deliver High-Quality Service.” See FY 2016 Annual Report at 13.

29 The Postal Service also reports service performance on all Market Dominant products in the ACR. 39 U.S.C. § 3562(a)(2)(B)(i)(ii). Service 

performance measurement reporting in the ACR is independent of service performance measurement reporting in the annual performance 

plans and annual performance reports under 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. The reporting of these service performance measurements in the FY 

2017 Annual Report does not meet the same class- or group-specific granular reporting criteria as those service performance measurements 

required in the Commission’s rules. See 39 C.F.R. §§ 3055.20 through 3055.24. The Single-Piece First Class Mail and the Presorted First-Class 

Mail performance indicators in the FY 2017 Annual Report combine service performance results for different products. By contrast, the ACR 

requires the Postal Service to disaggregate service performance results by mail subject to the Overnight, 2-Day, or 3-5-Day service standards 

by First-Class Mail product. See, e.g., 39 C.F.R. § 3055.20(a).

30 The Postal Service also uses three non-public performance indicators to measure service performance for some Competitive products. 

February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 1; see FY 2016 Analysis at 25 n.27. The Postal Service filed under seal targets for FY 2017 and 

FY 2018 and results from FY 2014 through FY 2017 for these non-public performance indicators. Library Reference USPS–FY17–NP37, file 

“USPS-FY17-NP37.Preface.pdf.” The Postal Service met one of these targets in FY 2017. Id.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 23 -

● Single-Piece First-Class Mail

o 2-Day

o 3-5-Day

● Presorted First-Class Mail

o Overnight

o 2-Day

o 3-5-Day

● First-Class Mail Letter and Flat (FCLF) Composite

● Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite

Results of the Single-Piece First-Class Mail performance indicators show the estimated 

percentage of Single-Piece First-Class Mail by service standard (2-Day and 3-5-Day) 

delivered on-time. FY 2017 Annual Report at 15. The Postal Service combined the on-time 

score for parcels with an on-time score for letters, postcards, and flats by weighting the 

two scores by the estimated volume of each mail type. Id. In FY 2017, the Single-Piece 

First-Class Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day) performance indicators measured the service 

performance of Single-Piece First-Class Mail Parcels received through September 8, 

201731 and service performance of Single-Piece First Class Mail letters, postcards, and flats 

for the entire fiscal year (through September 30, 2017). FY 2017 Annual Report at 15. This 

discrepancy in measurement periods is due to the transfer of the First-Class Mail Parcels 

Retail (Single-Piece) price category from the Market Dominant to the Competitive product 

list.32 Consequently, the Postal Service classified all mailed Single-Piece First-Class Mail 

Parcels as Competitive products beginning in September 2017. FY 2017 Annual Report

at 15.

The Presorted First-Class Mail performance indicators measure the performance of

commercial Presorted First-Class Mail by using the estimated percentage of total mail 

delivered on-time by service standard (Overnight, 2-Day, and 3-5-Day). Id.

In FY 2017, the Postal Service introduced two new composite performance indicators. 

First, the FCLF Composite replaced the First-Class Mail Composite, which the Postal 

Service used as a performance indicator through FY 2016. Id. The FCLF Composite is the 

weighted average, by volume, of Single-Piece First-Class Mail and Presorted First-Class 

Mail across all service standards. Id. Unlike the First-Class Mail Composite, the FCLF 

Composite does not include First-Class Mail Parcels, which the Postal Service states 

 

31 Id.; Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 1.

32 See Docket No. MC2015-7, Order Conditionally Approving Transfer, July 20, 2017 (Order No. 4009); Docket No. CP2017-230, Order 

Approving Price Adjustment for First-Class Package Service Product, August 9, 2017 (Order No. 4032).
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 24 -

represented less than 1 percent of overall First-Class Mail in FY 2017. Id. After the transfer 

of Single-Piece First-Class Mail Parcels to the Competitive product list, First-Class Mail no 

longer includes any parcel product. The Postal Service asserts that service performance 

for First-Class Mail Parcels is similar to that of First-Class Mail Letters and Flats. Id.

Second, the Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite replaced the Standard Mail

Composite, which the Postal Service used as a performance indicator through FY 2016.33

The Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite results show the percentage of all USPS 

Marketing Mail letters, USPS Marketing Mail flats, and Periodicals delivered within the 

established service standard. FY 2017 Annual Report at 15. The former Standard Mail 

Composite performance indicator only measured USPS Marketing Mail entered at 

destination network distribution center (DNDC) or destination sectional center facility 

(DSCF) entry points. Id. By contrast, the new Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite 

measures all measured USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals regardless of entry point. Id.

The Postal Service explains that the Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite results are 

lower than the Standard Mail Composite results because the Marketing Mail and 

Periodicals Composite measures additional products in both USPS Marketing Mail and 

Periodicals, as well as mailpieces that travel through the entire postal network, rather 

than destination entry mail only. Id.

In the FY 2017 Plan, the Postal Service stated, “First-Class Mail Packages performance will 

be measured using a composite score of commercial and retail two-day and three-to-five 

day.” FY 2016 Annual Report at 17. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service confirms that the 

Postal Service is not using First-Class Mail Packages as a performance indicator because 

the First-Class Mail Parcels Retail (Single-Piece) price category was transferred to the 

Competitive product list in FY 2017. Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 1.

In FY 2017, results for each High-Quality Service performance indicator improved 

between FY 2016 and FY 2017.34 The Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite result 

(91.44 percent) exceeded the target (91.00). FY 2017 Annual Report at 14, 16. However, 

the Postal Service missed FY 2017 targets set for the other performance indicators. Id. The 

Postal Service attributes the missed FY 2017 targets to “temporary disruptions in any of 

the mail distribution, network transportation or delivery processes.”35 The Postal Service 

explains that the “delays were sometimes the result of natural disasters and weather 

events.” FY 2017 Annual Report at 16.

 

33 Id. On November 15, 2016, the Commission approved the Postal Service’s request to change the name of “Standard Mail” to “USPS 

Marketing Mail.” Docket No. R2017-1, Order on Price Adjustments for First-Class Mail, Standard Mail, Periodicals, and Package Services 

Products and Related Mail Classification Changes, November 15, 2016, at 39 (Order No. 3610).

34 See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14-15; Table I-1, supra.

35 Id. The Postal Service explained that these disruptions have less of an impact on USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals performance due to 

the differences in service standards and networks. February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 3.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 25 -

In the FY 2018 Plan, FY 2018 targets for the Single-Piece First-Class Mail and Presorted

First-Class Mail performance indicators are the same as FY 2017 targets. See id. at 14, 16. 

The FY 2018 Plan also maintains the same target for the FCLF Composite, but increases the 

FY 2018 target for the Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite from 91.00 to 91.80. Id.

In order to improve performance, the Postal Service asserts it “will implement improved 

software to generate better daily operational plans.” Id. at 16. It states that improved 

procedures and the deployment of new technologies will improve efficiency. Id. The Postal 

Service also plans to continue to develop and deploy more precise tools, including 

Informed Visibility, to more frequently scan and track mail. Id. The Postal Service notes 

that it plans to improve training for personnel to improve the efficiency of mail handling 

and delivery. Id. The Postal Service also describes plans to “increase operational 

maintenance and the presence of maintenance personnel” to reduce inefficiencies due to 

equipment failure. Id. These plans are discussed in more detail below. See Chapter 3, 

section A.3.d., infra.

2. Comments

a. Initial Comments

The Public Representative concludes that the Postal Service did not meet the High-Quality 

Service performance goal in FY 2017. PR Comments at 6. She observes that results 

improved for every performance indicator for the second year in a row. Id. at 4. Despite 

this increase, she asserts that the Postal Service missed all targets in FY 2017. Id. at 5. She 

notes that the FY 2017 result for the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) performance 

indicator improved the most, but was also the furthest away from meeting the FY 2017 

target. Id. at 4-5.

The Public Representative contends that the Postal Service failed to provide a reasonable 

explanation for missing FY 2017 targets. Id. at 5. She states that although the Postal 

Service identifies temporary disruptions as a cause of the missed targets, “it does not 

specify whether these disruptions were in distribution, network transportation or 

delivery processes.” Id. She asserts that the Postal Service did not explain whether the 

disruptions were unique to FY 2017. Id. She recommends that the Postal Service set 

realistic targets for the High-Quality Service performance indicators. Id. at 6.

PostCom also filed comments regarding the High-Quality Service performance goal. See 

PostCom Comments. PostCom suggests that the Postal Service’s performance indicators 

represent “opaque and scant” reporting of service performance data. PostCom Comments 

at 1. PostCom criticizes the measures as “highly edited and aggregated.” Id. at 2. PostCom 

labels as inadequate the use of composites as the only indicators for major product 

categories. Id. at 3.

PostCom states that the aggregation of data “masks what may be important difference[s] 

in service performance[s]” between pieces at different entry points and pieces with other 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 26 -

distinguishing dimensions. Id. at 2. PostCom states that the Postal Service already collects 

the information and uses it internally for diagnostic and analytic purposes. Id. PostCom 

states that the composite indicators specifically are dominated by letter-shaped mail, 

rendering flats service performance meaningless. Id. at 3.

PostCom further suggests that the Postal Service’s plan for improving performance “is 

utterly lacking in specifics.” Id. at 4. PostCom calls for the Postal Service to explain how 

and to what degree its planned actions will affect service. Id.

b. Reply Comments

In its reply comments, the Postal Service asserts that a second year of improvement for 

each High-Quality Service performance indicator demonstrates that its efforts to improve 

performance are working. Postal Service Reply Comments at 2. The Postal Service 

acknowledges the gap between results and the “aggressive ‘stretch’” target for the SinglePiece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) performance indicator. Id. However, it contends that 

because the differential decreased in FY 2017, the Postal Service’s efforts to continue the 

upward trend of improvement have been effective. Id.

Regarding its explanation for why it did not meet the FY 2017 targets, the Postal Service 

explains that it does maintain data on how weather and other natural events impact 

service performance. Id. at 3. However, it asserts that identifying the exact number of 

impacted mailpieces would not be feasible to implement. Id. The Postal Service responds 

to the Public Representative’s comments regarding setting realistic targets, stating that 

the “stretch targets” are ultimately achievable and inspire continued improvement. Id.

Regarding PostCom’s comments on aggregated composite indicators, the Postal Service 

states that the use of composite indicators “does not impede the Postal Service’s 

conscientious efforts to continuously address service performance issues.” Id. at 4-5. In 

response to comments regarding the specifics of its FY 2018 Plan, the Postal Service 

references its February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, questions 4-7. Id. at 5. The Postal 

Service states that the responses show that the FY 2018 Plan “is anything but lacking in 

specifics.” Id.

3. Commission Analysis

In FY 2017, the Postal Service met one of the seven targets set for the High-Quality Service 

performance indicators. In the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan, the Postal Service makes 

four improvements to its discussion of the High-Quality Service performance goal 

compared to prior years. First, the Postal Service clearly describes how it calculates results 

for each performance indicator. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 15. Second, it explains how

the FCLF Composite and the Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite differ from the 

performance indicators they replaced. See id. Third, unlike the FY 2016 Report, the FY 2017 

Report explains why the Postal Service missed targets in FY 2017. See id. at 16. Fourth, the 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 27 -

FY 2018 Plan describes methodology changes that will affect the comparability of results 

in FY 2018. See id.

The Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met the High-Quality Service 

performance goal in FY 2017. The Commission finds that the discussion of the High-Quality 

Service performance goal in the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan improved compared to 

past years. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to provide these 

types of explanations in future annual performance plans and annual performance reports.

In this section, the Commission discusses performance indicator changes; makes 

observations on the results, targets, and performance indicators; and explores the Postal 

Service’s plans for meeting FY 2018 targets.

a. Performance Indicator Changes

Annual performance reports must include comparable results for the three preceding 

fiscal years. 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c); see Chapter 2, section C.2.b., supra. In FY 2017, the Postal 

Service replaced the composite performance indicators measuring First-Class Mail and 

USPS Marketing Mail with the FCLF Composite and the Marketing Mail and Periodicals 

Composite, respectively, which could have affected the comparability of results in the 

FY 2017 Report. See FY 2016 Analysis at 20 (discussing changes to the High-Quality Service 

performance indicators). The Commission stated that for the FY 2017 Report to comply 

with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c), the Postal Service must provide comparable results for each 

performance indicator for, at a minimum, FYs 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. FY 2016 

Analysis at 22. If comparable results could not be provided, the Commission directed that 

the FY 2017 Report explain how to compare results between the old and new 

methodologies. Id. The Postal Service addressed this issue by providing three years of 

comparable results using the new performance indicators.36

The Postal Service is changing the methodology for calculating results for the Single-Piece 

First-Class Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day) performance indicators. In FY 2018, results for these 

performance indicators will only include data for letters, postcards, and flats. Id. at 16. 

They will not include data for First-Class Mail Parcels because the Postal Service currently 

classifies them as Competitive products. Id. The Postal Service confirms that it will 

calculate results of all other performance indicators in the same manner as in FY 2017. Id.

As discussed in Chapter 2, to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2018 Report 

must include comparable results for each performance indicator for, at a minimum, 

FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. To be comparable, results for each fiscal year must be 

calculated and expressed using the same performance indicator or methodology. For the 

Single-Piece First-Class Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day) performance indicators, the FY 2018 

Report must express results for FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 using data for letters, 

 

36 See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14 nn. 1-2.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 28 -

postcards, and flats only and excluding parcels. If comparable results cannot be provided, the 

FY 2018 Report must explain why results are not directly comparable across these fiscal 

years. In that case, the FY 2018 Report must either explain how to compare results between 

the old and new methodologies or explain why making this comparison is not feasible.

b. Observations on Results and Targets

Table III-2 compares FY 2016 and FY 2017 results for each High-Quality Service 

performance indicator. In FY 2017, results for each performance indicator improved over 

FY 2016. This was the second consecutive year that all High-Quality Service performance 

indicator results improved over the previous fiscal year. In particular, results of the 

Single-Piece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) and Presorted First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) 

performance indicators showed a significant year-over-year improvement. As a result, the 

FY 2017 FCLF Composite performance indicator result also showed a significant yearover-year improvement from FY 2016.

Table III-2

High-Quality Service Performance Indicators

Comparison of FY 2016 and FY 2017 Results

High-Quality Service 

Performance Indicator

FY 2017 

Percentage 

Point

Increase

Percent On-Time

FY 2017 FY 2016

Single-Piece

First-Class Mail

2-Day +0.06 94.72% 94.66%

3-5-Day +1.91 85.57% 83.66%

Presorted

First-Class Mail

Overnight +0.30 96.46% 96.16%

2-Day +0.53 95.58% 95.05%

3-5-Day +1.48 93.16% 91.68%

First-Class Mail Letter and Flat Composite +0.95 93.29% 92.34%

Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite +1.43 91.44% 90.01%

Source: FY 2017 Annual Report at 14.

The Single-Piece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) performance indicator improved the most 

compared to FY 2016. However, it also had the lowest FY 2017 result (85.57), which was 

approximately 5.8 percentage points below the next lowest result (91.44 for Marketing 

Mail and Periodicals Composite). As the Commission discusses in greater detail in the FY 

2017 ACD, the Postal Service should continue to focus its efforts on identifying problem 

areas and continuing to improve service performance, particularly for Single-Piece FirstClass Mail (3-5-Day). See FY 2017 ACD at 142.

Table III-3 compares FY 2017 results with FY 2017 targets for each High-Quality Service 

performance indicator. The Postal Service only met one target in FY 2017. The 

improvement needed for all High-Quality Service performance indicators to have met 

their respective FY 2017 targets ranges from 0.34 to 9.68 percentage points. In particular, 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 29 -

the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) performance indicator continues to have the 

largest gap between the target and result.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 30 -

Table III-3

High-Quality Service Performance Indicators

Comparison of FY 2017 Results with FY 2017 Targets

High-Quality Service 

Performance Indicator

FY 2017

On-Time 

Result Target Percentage Point Performance Gap

Single-Piece

First-Class Mail

2-Day 94.72% 96.50% 1.78

3-5-Day 85.57% 95.25% 9.68

Presorted

First-Class Mail

Overnight 96.46% 96.80% 0.34

2-Day 95.58% 96.50% 0.92

3-5-Day 93.16% 95.25% 2.09

First-Class Mail Letter and Flat Composite 93.29% 96.00% 2.71

Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite 91.44% 91.00% Target Exceeded

Source: FY 2017 Annual Report at 14.

FY 2018 targets for each High-Quality Service performance indicator are the same as 

FY 2017 targets except for the Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite. See FY 2017 

Annual Report at 14, 16. The Public Representative recommends that the Postal Service set 

realistic targets in annual performance plans. PR Comments at 6. She asserts that the 

Postal Service is particularly unlikely to meet the FY 2018 target for the Single-Piece FirstClass Mail (3-5-Day) performance indicator because the Postal Service would have to 

increase its on-time performance by 11 percent. Id. She observes that results for this 

performance indicator improved by only 2 percent in FY 2017, and that the Postal Service 

did not explain what changes it will make to achieve “unprecedented improvement” for 

this performance indicator. Id.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service responds that setting ambitious service 

performance targets “inspire[s] the type of continuous improvement that has been 

documented over the past two fiscal years.” Postal Service Reply Comments at 3. It 

contends that the positive trend of service performance improvement shows that the 

Postal Service should continue challenging itself with aggressive targets that are 

ultimately achievable. Id.

Results of all High-Quality Service performance indicators improved for the second year in 

a row. Despite this improvement, the Postal Service only partially met the High-Quality 

Service performance goal in FY 2017 because only one FY 2017 target was met. Annual 

performance plans have set the same respective targets for the Single-Piece First-Class 

Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day) and Presorted First-Class Mail (Overnight, 2-Day, and 3-5-Day) 

performance indicators since FY 2014. See FY 2016 Analysis at 4. However, the Postal 

Service has not met the High-Quality Service performance goal since FY 2014 because it 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 31 -

has missed almost every target set for these performance indicators.37 Consequently, it 

appears that the High-Quality Service targets are not realistic or achievable.

The Postal Service contends that setting ambitious targets drives performance and 

inspires the type of continuous improvement shown over the last two fiscal years. Postal 

Service Reply Comments at 3. Meeting targets may also help drive performance by 

acknowledging efforts to improve. Conversely, failing to meet targets may discourage 

further improvement if the gap between the target and result is too high. Specifically, the 

Single-Piece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) performance indicator result must improve 

substantially in order for the Postal Service to meet the FY 2018 target.

Given that the FY 2017 result for the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) performance 

indicator is substantially further from the target than any other performance indicator and 

that the Postal Service sets the target each year, the Commission recommends that the Postal 

Service revisit this performance indicator target in the FY 2019 Plan if the Postal Service 

does not meet the FY 2018 target.

If the Postal Service considers reaching the same target to be realistic, the Postal Service 

should explain how it will achieve such significant improvement for that indicator. As an 

alternative, the Postal Service could set “stretch targets” to achieve after a period of time 

(e.g., three years) and set more realistic and achievable targets for the upcoming fiscal 

year.

c. Performance Indicator Observations

In the FY 2017 Report, the Postal Service asserts that of the mailpieces used to calculate 

the FY 2017 Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite result, approximately two-thirds 

are USPS Marketing Mail letters and the remaining one-third is USPS Marketing Mail flats 

and Periodicals. FY 2017 Annual Report at 15. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service 

provided the volumes of Periodicals, USPS Marketing Mail letters, and USPS Marketing 

Mail flats used to calculate the FY 2017 Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite result. 

February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 2. Table III-4 shows these volumes.

 

37 See FY 2014 Analysis at 3, 17; FY 2015 Analysis at 4, 25; FY 2016 Analysis at 3, 29. The Postal Service met the Presorted First-Class Mail 

(Overnight) target in FY 2014. See FY 2014 Analysis at 3.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 32 -

Table III-4

Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite

Products and Volumes Used to Calculate FY 2017 Result

Product Volume

USPS Marketing Mail letters 39,311,374,279

USPS Marketing Mail flats 12,867,887,434

Periodicals 2,940,504,221

Total 55,119,765,934

Source: February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 2.

Figure III-1 shows the percentage of measured volumes from each product used to 

calculate the FY 2017 Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite result.

Figure III-1

Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite

Percentages of Measured Volumes Used to Calculate FY 2017 Result

Periodicals USPS Marketing Mail flats USPS Marketing Mail letters

Source: February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 2.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 33 -

Table III-4 shows that the total number of USPS Marketing Mail mailpieces (letters and 

flats) far exceeds the total number of Periodicals mailpieces used to calculate the FY 2017 

result. Figure III-1 shows that USPS Marketing Mail represents more than 94 percent of 

the volumes used to calculate the result. Thus, the Marketing Mail and Periodicals 

Composite performance indicator is driven by USPS Marketing Mail letters. As a result, the

Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite performance indicator likely does not reflect 

service performance of USPS Marketing Mail flats and Periodicals, and the composite 

provides little insight into the service performance for these products. Service 

performance for letters typically outperforms that of flat-shaped mail.38 Because letters 

generally have better performance results than flats, the performance results skew 

upward due to the high percentage of letters in the data used in the performance 

indicator.

PostCom raises a similar concern with the FCLF Composite performance indicator, which 

measures service performance for Single-Piece First-Class Mail and Presorted First-Class 

Mail letters and flats. PostCom states that “flats are overwhelmingly outnumbered by 

letters[,]” which PostCom contends renders flats service performance “meaningless.” 

PostCom Comments at 3. The Postal Service responds that it “pays close attention to the 

individual scores for Overnight, Two-Day, and Three-to-Five Day First-Class Mail Flats, all 

of which have increased for the second consecutive year.” Postal Service Reply Comments 

at 4. The Postal Service states that its use of composite performance indicators “does not 

impede” its efforts to address flats performance. Id. at 5.

The Commission acknowledges that the Postal Service has the discretion to choose the 

performance indicators that measure progress toward its performance goals. However, 

the Commission agrees that the FCLF and the Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite 

performance indicators may provide little insight into the performance of flats given the 

weighting by volume and the disparity in flat and letter volumes. By combining letters and 

flats in the composite measures, the “measured” volumes reflect service performance of 

letters rather than flats. The relatively stronger performance of letters raises results for 

the entire composite. The generally lower performance results for flats are masked as flats 

volume comprises a low percentage of the composite data.

In the FY 2018 Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service provide the 

volumes of First-Class Mail letters and flats used to measure the FCLF Composite 

performance indicator. The Postal Service should provide the volumes of USPS Marketing 

Mail letters, USPS Marketing Mail flats, and Periodicals mailpieces used to measure the 

Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite performance indicator. The Commission also 

 

38 See FY 2017 ACD at 144, 150, 152; Docket No. ACR2016, Annual Compliance Determination Report, Fiscal Year 2016, March 28, 2017, 

at 130, 137, 139 (FY 2016 ACD); Docket No. ACR2015, Annual Compliance Determination Report, Fiscal Year 2015, March 28, 2016, at 162-163

(FY 2015 ACD).
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 34 -

recommends utilizing at least one performance indicator that reflects solely the performance 

of flats.

d. Plans for Improving Performance

In the FY 2018 Plan, the Postal Service asserts that it will meet FY 2018 targets by 

implementing operational, technological, and other initiatives to improve the mail delivery 

process. FY 2017 Annual Report at 16. PostCom contends that the FY 2018 Plan is 

inadequate because “it is utterly lacking in specifics.” PostCom Comments at 4. PostCom 

urges the Commission to require the Postal Service to explain how and to what degree, the 

planned actions will improve service. Id. In response, the Postal Service states that 

PostCom’s concerns about the FY 2018 Plan’s specificity are alleviated by the February 1 

Responses to CHIR No. 9. Postal Service Comments at 5. The Postal Service states that the 

responses provide the specifics that PostCom finds lacking. Id.

First, the Postal Service states that it will implement improved software to generate better 

daily operational plans. Id. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service explains that employees 

use weekly software enhancements to drive operational performance. February 1 

Responses to CHIR no. 9, question 4. For example, the Performance to Plan Dashboard 

“allows operations for a more accurate run plan and promotes operating plan compliance, 

which in turn improves service.” Id. The Postal Service also notes its Container Tracker 

System, which enables more real time visibility. Id.

The Postal Service asserts that it is also developing software to improve parcel routing and 

handling. February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 6. This software would move 

parcel volume “from geographically concise high-density package delivery areas to 

relatively small dynamic package-only routes.” Id. The Postal Service states that this would 

improve delivery efficiencies and allow the leveraging of the existing vehicle fleet during 

non-regular carrier hours. Id.

Second, the Postal Service states that it will continue to develop and deploy more precise 

tools, such as Informed Visibility, to scan and track mail at every step of the mail-handling 

process. FY 2017 Annual Report at 16. The Postal Service asserts that the continued 

development of Informed Visibility will “improve all aspects of Postal Service operations.” 

February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 5. It explains that better visibility helps 

pinpoint areas of opportunity in mail flow and reduce inefficiencies, such as waiting for 

mail processing. Id. It notes tools within Informed Visibility—such as Incoming Inventory, 

Yard Status, and Bundle Visibility—enable the tracking of sensitive volume. Id.

The Postal Service states that Informed Visibility will allow front line managers to process 

mail to equipment capacities, allowing for an increase in advanced mail. Id. question 7.a. It 

states that Informed Visibility, Surface Visibility, and Enterprise Transportation Analytics 

will allow managers to know when volumes will arrive, helping to ensure that late arrival 

mail is captured. Id. question 7.b. The Postal Service also plans to use Informed Visibility to 

enhance delivery point sequencing performance. Id. question 7.c.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 35 -

Third, the Postal Service notes that it is adding new technologies to improve efficiency. 

These include an employee scheduling tool to improve planning for workload and 

employee availability (Informed Visibility Employee Scheduler), and other tools within 

Informed Visibility “that can identify productivity and staffing deficiencies.” Id. question 6. 

The Postal Services plans to use Informed Mobility, a platform providing real time 

information to front line managers and supervisors, allowing informed decision-making 

on safety, service, and cost efficiencies. Id.

Fourth, the Postal Service states it will implement other operational changes, such as 

increasing the amount of mail that is processed ahead of schedule, ensuring that all late 

arrival mail is captured, and improving delivery point sequencing procedures to make 

delivery operations more efficient. FY 2017 Annual Report at 16.

The FY 2017 Report describes the Postal Service’s plans and schedules for meeting the 

High-Quality Service performance goal in FY 2018 as required by 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(d)(3)(B). See Chapter 2, section C.2.c., supra. The Postal Service provided further 

details in CHIR responses. The Commission supports the Postal Service’s planned 

software, technology, and operational improvements. Given that the Postal Service 

identified “temporary disruptions in any of the mail distribution, network transportation 

or delivery processes,” as the primary reason for missing its targets, these improvements 

appear to be reasonably designed to reduce or mitigate such disruptions.

The Commission finds that the Postal Service’s plans for improving performance demonstrate 

initiatives that should support continued service improvement. The Commission recommends 

that the FY 2018 Report provide a similar level of detail for plans and schedules to improve 

performance if the Postal Service does not meet the High-Quality Service performance goal in 

FY 2018.

B. Excellent Customer Experiences

1. Background

a. FY 2017 Performance Indicators

The Postal Service measures customer experiences by conducting surveys of residential, 

small/medium business, and large business customers.39 In FY 2017, the Postal Service 

measured progress toward the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal using 

four surveys: Business Service Network (BSN), Point of Sale (POS), Delivery, and Customer 

 

39 Residential customers live in United States households that receive mail delivery. Small/medium business customers have fewer than 250 

employees. Large business customers have more than 250 employees. Library Reference USPS–FY17–38, December 29, 2017, file “USPS-FY17-

38 Preface.pdf,” at 1 (Preface).
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 36 -

Care Center (CCC).40 The Postal Service provided copies of these surveys in the FY 2017 

ACR.41 Each survey is described below.

The BSN survey measures the customer experience of BSN customers by asking them to 

rate their level of satisfaction with their account representative.42 Customers who initiate 

a service request within the BSN receive an email invitation to take the BSN survey online. 

Preface at 2.

The POS survey measures customer experiences at retail locations that use POS 

equipment. After completing a retail transaction, customers receive a receipt that invites 

them to take the POS survey via website, telephone number, or QR Code. Id. The POS 

survey asks retail customers to evaluate their visit to the retail location, their interaction 

with the sales associate, and their wait time in line.43

The Delivery survey measures customer experiences with mail and package delivery. 

There are separate Delivery surveys for residential and small/medium business 

customers.44 Residential and small/medium business customers are randomly selected 

and mailed a survey invitation, which asks them to take the survey by phone or online. 

Preface at 2. The Delivery survey asks customers to evaluate their experience with their 

mail and package delivery, Post Office Box, and letter carrier. See n. 44, infra.

The CCC survey measures customers’ level of satisfaction with their call to the CCC.45 The 

CCC handles customer calls to the Postal Service’s toll free customer service line. 

Customers first interact with an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system, which resolves 

approximately two-thirds of the calls received annually. Primer of Four Surveys at 11. If 

the IVR system does not resolve the issue, customers then speak to a live agent. Id. In 

FY 2017, all customers who spoke to a live agent were invited to take the CCC survey. 

Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 6.a. Customers who only interacted with the IVR 

system were asked by phone on a random basis to complete the CCC survey. Id. The Postal 

Service clarifies that customers were only surveyed once, either in the IVR system or after 

their interaction with a live agent. Id.

 

40 In FY 2016, this goal was called “Provide Excellent Customer Experiences.” See FY 2016 Annual Report at 13.

41 See Library Reference USPS–FY17–38. The Commission’s rules require the ACR to include a copy of each customer survey, a description of 

the customer type targeted by the survey, the number of surveys initiated and received, and in the case of multiple choice questions, the 

number of responses received for each question, disaggregated by each of the possible responses. 39 C.F.R. § 3055.92.

42 FY 2017 Annual Report at 16; Preface at 2. The BSN is a nationwide network that provides support to qualified business customers for 

service issues, information, and requests. FY 2017 Annual Report at 16. The BSN has approximately 12,000 customers that are primarily large 

businesses and organizations. United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Postal Customer Satisfaction: A Primer of Four Surveys, 

RARC-WP-17-010, August 28, 2017, at 9 (Primer of Four Surveys).

43 Library Reference USPS–FY17–38, file “POS û USPS FY17 POS Survey.docx.”

44 Library Reference USPS–FY17–38, files “Delivery û USPS FY17 Residential Delivery Survey.docx” and “Delivery û USPS FY17 Small Business 

Delivery Survey.docx.”

45 FY 2017 Annual Report at 16; Preface at 2.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 37 -

The Postal Service used these customer surveys to develop four performance indicators 

that measure progress toward achievement of the Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance goal: BSN, POS, Delivery, and CCC. Results of the BSN, POS, and Delivery 

performance indicators are expressed as the percentages of customers who respond “Very 

Satisfied” or “Mostly Satisfied” to a question on the corresponding customer survey. 

FY 2016 Analysis at 34. The Delivery performance indicator results are composites that 

combine responses from both residential and small/medium business customers. Id. The 

CCC performance indicator results are expressed as the percentage of customers who 

selected the top four survey question responses. Id.

The Postal Service has used the BSN, POS, Delivery, and CCC performance indicators for 

the Excellent Customer Experiences goal since FY 2014. In FY 2017, the Postal Service 

added the Enterprise Customer Care (eCC) as another performance indicator for this 

performance goal. The eCC is a case management system the Postal Service uses to 

manage customer complaints.46 In FY 2017, the eCC performance indicator result was 

expressed as the percentage of cases that customers reopened, which the Postal Service 

calculates by identifying the number of cases that were resolved during any particular 

month and reopened within 90 days. FY 2017 Annual Report at 16-17. The Postal Service 

explains that a lower eCC performance indicator result is a better outcome because 

“reducing the number of times a customer reopens a previously submitted inquiry drives 

customer satisfaction.” Id. at 16.

In FY 2017, the BSN, POS, Delivery, CCC, and eCC performance indicators were 

components of the Customer Insights (CI) Composite Score, which the Postal Service uses 

as a performance indicator for measuring overall customer experience. The CI Composite 

Score is a weighted composite of the component performance indicators. To calculate the 

FY 2017 CI Composite Score result, each component performance indicator was weighed 

as follows: BSN (30 percent); POS, Delivery, and CCC (20 percent each); and eCC (10 

percent). FY 2017 Annual Report at 17. See Chapter 3, section B.3.b.(2), infra.

b. Comparison of FY 2017 Targets and Results

Table III-5 compares FY 2017 targets and results for each Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance indicator. Results for each performance indicator improved between 

FY 2016 and FY 2017. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14. However, the Postal Service did 

not meet FY 2017 targets for the CI Composite Score, BSN, POS, and eCC performance 

indicators. As Table III-5 shows, FY 2017 results for these performance indicators fell 

slightly short of FY 2017 targets.

 

46 Docket No. ACR2014, United States Postal Service Responses to Questions 6, 7, 9, 10, 20-25, 29, 30, 34, and 35 of Chairman’s Information 

Request No. 13, March 13, 2015, question 24.a., file “ChIR13.24a.Complaint-Guidelines.pdf,” at 10.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 38 -

Table III-5

Excellent Customer Experiences Performance Indicators

FY 2017 Targets and Results

Performance Indicator FY 2017 Target FY 2017 Result

. Target Not Met

Customer Insights Composite 

Score 89.00a

88.30a

Business Service Network 96.73% 96.25%

Point of Sale 90.42% 88.53%

Delivery 82.67a83.22a

Customer Care Center 86.80% 86.80%

Enterprise Customer Care 3.44% 3.78%b

a

Because CI Composite Score and Delivery performance indicator results are calculated by weighting and 

aggregating various survey results, they are not presented as percentages.

b The Postal Service explains that a lower eCC performance indicator result is a better outcome because 

“reducing the number of times a customer reopens a previously submitted inquiry drives customer 

satisfaction.” FY 2017 Annual Report at 16.

Source: FY 2017 Annual Report at 14.

The FY 2017 Report explains why the Postal Service did not meet FY 2017 targets using 

data from the underlying surveys. For the BSN performance indicator, the Postal Service 

states that the primary reason customers contacted their BSN representative was to ask 

about the status of a package. FY 2017 Annual Report at 17. The Postal Service notes it is 

developing an integrated technology platform that will allow BSN representatives to find a 

customer’s package. Id.

For the POS performance indicator, the Postal Service states that POS survey data show 

that the primary drivers of customer satisfaction at retail locations are staff efficiency, 

staff knowledge, and acceptable wait times in line. Id. It notes that it developed 

communications to its employees that addressed management issues at retail locations. Id.

The Postal Service asserts that it improved retail customer experience by conducting 

office-level reviews to streamline the package pick-up process. Id.

For the eCC performance indicator, the Postal Service explains that eCC data show that 

some customers had long wait times before being contacted about their issue, or were not 

contacted at all. Id. The Postal Service notes that customers have a more positive 

experience if they are contacted within one business day of submitting their issue. Id. For 

this reason, the Postal Service states it is increasing emphasis on prompt initial contact 

and issue resolution. Id.

c. FY 2018 Plan

In the FY 2018 Plan, the Postal Service describes several changes to the Excellent 

Customer Experiences performance indicators and methodology for calculating results. 

First, the Postal Service is adding three new performance indicators: Large Business, 

Business Mail Entry Unit (BMEU), and USPS.com. FY 2017 Annual Report at 14, 18. Second, 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 39 -

the Postal Service is changing the methodology for calculating the CI Composite Score to 

include these new performance indicators as components. Id. Third, the Postal Service is 

changing the methodology for calculating results of three other component performance 

indicators: Delivery, CCC, and eCC. Id. These changes are discussed in more detail below. 

See Chapter 3, section B.3.b., infra.

The FY 2018 Plan sets FY 2018 targets for each Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance indicator the Postal Service will use in FY 2018. FY 2017 Annual Report at 14. 

The Postal Service describes these targets as “aggressive.” Postal Service Reply Comments 

at 6. To meet FY 2018 targets, the FY 2018 Plan states the Postal Service will develop new 

scanning and case tracking platforms and improve employee training. FY 2017 Annual 

Report at 18.

The FY 2018 Plan also describes specific plans to improve the BSN, POS, and eCC 

performance indicator results, which did not meet FY 2017 targets. To improve the BSN 

performance indicator result, the Postal Service asserts that it will implement an 

integrated technology platform during the first quarter of FY 2018 to address package 

status inquiries for BSN customers. Id. To improve the POS performance indicator result, 

the Postal Service notes that it will distribute a handout encouraging customers to 

respond to the survey. Id. The Postal Service states that it will also deploy redesigned 

training for new sales associates focused on enhancing the customer experience. Id. To 

improve the eCC performance indicator result, the Postal Service asserts that it “will 

prioritize prompt and reliable issue resolution by exploring new trainings, processes and 

technological upgrades.” Id.

2. Comments

The Public Representative comments that although FY 2017 results for some component 

performance indicators met or exceeded targets, the CI Composite Score did not meet the 

FY 2017 target. PR Comments at 6. Thus, she concludes that the Postal Service did not 

meet the Excellent Customer Experiences goal in FY 2017. Id.

The Postal Service acknowledges that the CI Composite Score fell short of its “stretch” 

target “by less than one percentage point.” Postal Service Reply Comments at 6. It points 

out that results improved across all customer experience categories. Id. For example, it 

notes that the FY 2017 Delivery performance indicator result improved by almost 7 

percentage points. Id. The Postal Service asserts that it intends to continue this progress 

and will work to identify ways to reach its “aggressive customer experience targets in 

FY 2018.” Id.

3. Commission Analysis

Results for each Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicator improved 

between FY 2016 and FY 2017. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14, 16. Although the Postal 

Service met FY 2017 targets for the Delivery and CCC performance indicators, it did not 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 40 -

meet FY 2017 targets for the CI Composite Score, BSN, POS, and eCC performance 

indicators.

The FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report make several changes to the discussion of the 

Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal that address issues from past years. 

First, annual performance plans for FY 2016 and FY 2017 omitted targets for the 

component performance indicators.47 The FY 2018 Plan addresses this issue by setting 

FY 2018 targets for each Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicator. See 

FY 2017 Annual Report at 14.

Second, the FY 2016 Report did not provide comparable results from the past three fiscal 

years. See FY 2016 Analysis at 19. The FY 2017 Report addresses this issue by providing 

three years of comparable results for each Excellent Customer Experiences performance 

indicator except for the CI Composite Score and Delivery. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14. 

The FY 2017 Report explains why the Postal Service views the results for these 

performance indicators as not easily or directly comparable across years. See id. The 

FY 2017 Report also contains results of their subcomponents, which are comparable across 

the past three fiscal years. Id. at 14, 17.

Third, the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report explain the methodology for calculating 

results of the CI Composite Score and eCC performance indicators. FY 2017 Annual Report

at 16-17. Fourth, the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report identify performance indicator and 

methodology changes that will affect the comparability of results in FY 2018. Id. at 14 

nn. 3-5, 16-18.

The Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met the Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance goal in FY 2017. The Commission finds that the discussion of the 

Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal in the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report 

improved compared to past years. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

retain these changes in future annual performance plans and annual performance reports.

In the sections below, the Commission analyzes the FY 2017 results and the planned 

FY 2018 performance indicator and methodology changes and makes related observations 

and recommendations.

a. FY 2017 Results

Table III-6 shows results for the Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicators 

from FY 2014 to FY 2017. In each fiscal year between FY 2014 and FY 2017, the results for 

each performance indicator improved, except for Delivery. The Delivery performance 

indicator results declined between FY 2014 and FY 2016. However, in FY 2017, the 

Delivery result improved by approximately 7 percentage points over FY 2016.

 

47 See FY 2016 Annual Report at 15; FY 2015 Annual Report at 14.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 41 -

Table III-6

Provide Excellent Customer Experiences

Performance Indicator Results, FY 2014 to FY 2017

Performance Indicator FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2015 FY 2014

Customer Insights Composite Scorea88.30 87.62 85.73 84.65

Business Service Network 96.25% 95.13% 94.32% 94.05%

Point of Sale 88.53% 86.38% 86.28% 81.59%

Deliverya

83.22 76.26 77.49 79.55

Customer Care Center 86.80% 85.18% 76.00% 74.00%

Enterprise Customer Careb3.78% 5.19% Not Used Not Used

n/a – not available

a Because CI Composite Score and Delivery performance indicator results are calculated by weighting and aggregating 

various survey results, they are not expressed as percentages.

b

The eCC performance indicator result is expressed as the percentage of cases that were resolved in any particular 

month and reopened within 90 days. FY 2017 Annual Report at 16-17. Therefore, a lower percentage reflects year-overyear improvement.

Source: FY 2017 Annual Report at 14.

In FY 2017, the Postal Service changed the methodology for calculating the Delivery 

performance indicator result. See FY 2016 Analysis at 42-45. In its FY 2016 Analysis, the 

Commission observed that if the FY 2016 Delivery performance indicator result had been 

calculated using the new methodology, the result would have increased by eight points. Id.

at 45. The Commission calculated the FY 2017 Delivery performance indicator result using 

the former methodology. Under the former methodology, the FY 2017 result would have 

been 74.38, almost nine points lower than the FY 2017 result under the new methodology. 

Thus, the improvement in the Delivery performance indicator result between FY 2016 and 

FY 2017 was due entirely to the methodology change rather than improved customer 

experiences with delivery. Based on the former methodology, customer experiences with 

delivery declined almost two points between FY 2016 and FY 2017.

This issue demonstrates the necessity of having comparable methodologies to 

meaningfully and accurately evaluate performance results across fiscal years. See FY 2014 

Analysis at 12. Comparable methodologies also avoid having to determine whether an 

increase in results is due to a methodology change or improvement in performance.

To ensure meaningful and accurate comparisons across fiscal years, the FY 2018 Report

must include comparable results for each performance indicator, including Delivery, or 

provide an explanation as described in more detail below. See Chapter 3, section B.3.b.(4), 

infra.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 42 -

b. FY 2018 Performance Indicator and Methodology 

Changes

In FY 2018, the Postal Service is making several changes to the Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance indicators and methodologies for calculating results. It is adding 

three new performance indicators, changing the methodology for calculating the CI 

Composite Score result, and changing the methodology for calculating results of three 

components of the CI Composite Score. Each change is discussed below.

(1) New Performance Indicators

The three new performance indicators are: Large Business, BMEU, and USPS.com. FY 2017 

Annual Report at 14, 18. These performance indicators will also be components of the CI 

Composite Score. See id. at 18. The Large Business performance indicator will measure 

customer experiences of large businesses. The Postal Service will calculate results based 

on the Large Business survey, an online survey of a panel of respondents from large 

businesses. Id. The Postal Service states it will conduct the Large Business survey 

quarterly in FY 2018. Id. It notes that this survey assesses satisfaction with all experiences 

that businesses have had with the Postal Service. Id. It asserts that it will target individuals 

with influence over shipping solutions. Id.

The Commission previously recommended that the Postal Service use the Large Business 

survey as a performance indicator for the Excellent Customer Experiences goal.48 The 

Postal Service acknowledges that it needs to improve large business customer 

experiences.49 As discussed in the FY 2017 ACD, large business customer satisfaction with 

Market Dominant products declined for the second year in a row. FY 2017 ACD at 173. 

Customer satisfaction results for large business customers were far lower than those of 

residential and small/medium business customers. Id. The Commission directed the Postal 

Service to take appropriate steps to improve customer satisfaction. Id.

The Commission finds that the Large Business performance indicator will help the Postal 

Service track the effectiveness of programs designed to accomplish improvements in large 

business customer satisfaction.

The BMEU performance indicator will measure business customers’ satisfaction with their 

BMEU. FY 2017 Annual Report at 18. A BMEU is the area of a postal facility where business 

customers mail bulk, presorted, and permit mail.50 The Postal Service will calculate results 

based on the BMEU survey, which the Postal Service sends to customers who have 

finalized a postage statement every 30 days. Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 2.b.

 

48 FY 2015 Analysis at 46; FY 2016 Analysis at 40.

49 Docket No. ACR2017, United States Postal Service FY 2017 Annual Compliance Report, December 29, 2017, at 59.

50 United States Postal Service, Glossary of Postal Terms (Publication 32), July 2013, at 30.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 43 -

The new Large Business and BMEU performance indicators, along with the BSN 

performance indicator, will help ensure that large business customer satisfaction is 

reflected in the CI Composite Score, which measures overall customer experiences. These 

performance indicators will also ensure that the Postal Service evaluates several facets of 

the large business customer experience ranging from mail entry (BMEU), mail delivery 

(Large Business), and customer service (BSN). The Postal Service may use data from these 

performance indicators to understand key drivers of results to better design and 

implement customer experience improvements.

The Commission finds that adding both the Large Business and BMEU performance 

indicators is an improvement because both additions should provide a more complete view of 

business customer experiences.

The USPS.com performance indicator will evaluate customer satisfaction with the 

USPS.com website. FY 2017 Annual Report at 18. Results of this performance indicator will 

be based on a survey presented to a random sample of users who visit at least three pages 

on USPS.com. Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 2.b. The Postal Service asserts that the 

digital experience accounts for around 1.7 billion interactions annually, and these 

interactions were previously not measured for the Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance goal. Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 1.a. USPS.com is the most 

frequently visited website in the federal government.51

Because millions of customers interact with the Postal Service through its website, the 

Commission finds that adding the USPS.com performance indicator is an improvement 

because it ensures that the Postal Service consider digital customer experiences when 

measuring customer satisfaction.

(2) CI Composite Score

The CI Composite Score is a performance indicator that measures overall customer 

experience. The result is a weighted composite of the component performance indicators. 

From FY 2014 through FY 2016, the Postal Service calculated the CI Composite Score 

result using the same methodology. In FY 2017, the Postal Service changed the CI 

Composite Score methodology by adding eCC as a component performance indicator. In 

FY 2018, the Postal Service is again changing the methodology for calculating the CI 

Composite Score by adding three new component performance indicators: Large Business, 

BMEU, and USPS.com. See Chapter 3, section B.3.b.(1), supra. Table III-7 illustrates how the 

CI Composite Score methodology changed between FY 2014 and FY 2018.

 

51 See “About the United States Postal Service,” (available at: http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/leadership/about-usps.htm).
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 44 -

Table III-7

Customer Insights Composite Score

Component Performance Indicator Weights

Component Performance Indicator

Weight of Customer Insights Composite Score

FY 2014, FY 2015, 

and FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

Business Service Network 40% 30% 10%

Point of Sale 20% 20% 10%

Delivery 20% 20% 20%

Customer Care Center 20% 20% 20%

Enterprise Customer Care Not Included 10% 15%

Large Business Not Included Not Included 10%

Business Mail Entry Unit Not Included Not Included 10%

USPS.com Not Included Not Included 5%

Source: FY 2017 Annual Report at 17-18.

As Table III-7 shows, the weight of the BSN component performance indicator declined 

from 40 percent in FY 2016 to 10 percent in FY 2018. The Postal Service explains that it 

reduced the BSN component weight because it added the Large Business and BMEU as 

new component performance indicators. Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 1.b. Although 

the BSN component weight declined, business customer experiences will still represent 30 

percent of the CI Composite Score in FY 2018 through the BSN, Large Business, and BMEU 

component performance indicators.

In FY 2017, the CI Composite Score result was calculated using a mapping scale. The Postal 

Service explains that it mapped the result for each component performance indicator to a 

scale with values ranging from 1 to 15. FY 2017 Annual Report at 17. It then took the 

weighted average of these scaled results and then mapped this number to another scale 

ranging from 75 to 99. Id.

By contrast, in FY 2018, the CI Composite Score result “will be a simple weighted average 

of the component [results].” FY 2017 Annual Report at 18. To calculate the CI Composite 

Score result, the Postal Service will multiply the FY 2018 result for each component 

performance indicator by its respective weight to reach the weighted contribution for that 

component. See Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 3.c. The Postal Service will then sum 

the weighted contributions for each component to calculate the FY 2018 CI Composite 

Score result. See id.

The FY 2017 Report does not explain why the Postal Service changed the CI Composite 

Score methodology for FY 2018 or how the Postal Service determined the weight for each 

component performance indicator. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service explains that it 

updated the CI Composite Score methodology for FY 2018 “to provide a more complete 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 45 -

view of the customer experience across the Postal Service’s customer groups and 

touchpoints.” Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 1.a. The Postal Service states that it 

increased the representation of business and digital experiences because “[t]he business 

customer represents roughly 80 percent of Postal Service revenue, and the digital 

experience accounts for about 1.7 billion interactions annually, which were previously 

unaccounted for in the CI Composite.” Id. It notes that it adjusted weights for all 

component performance indicators to account for new surveys and to balance both the 

business and consumer perspective. Id.

In its Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 1.a., the Postal Service provided a reasoned 

explanation for changing the CI Composite Score methodology. This change works in 

conjunction with the methodology changes the Postal Service is making to the component 

performance indicators (Delivery, CCC, and eCC). See Chapter 3, section B.3.b.(3), infra. As

discussed below, the FY 2018 eCC performance indicator result will be calculated based on 

responses to a customer survey similar to the other component performance indicators. 

This will enable the Postal Service to calculate the FY 2018 CI Composite Score result as a 

simple weighted average of the component performance indicator results.

If the Postal Service decides to add a new performance indicator or change the methodology 

for an existing performance indicator, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

provide the rationale for these changes in future annual performance plans and annual 

performance reports.

The CI Composite Score measures experiences of both business and non-business 

customers, but the Postal Service has different interactions with these two customer 

groups. The Postal Service interacts with millions of non-business customers annually by 

delivering mail to residences as well as providing services at postal retail facilities and 

through its website. Although fewer in number, business customers represent 

approximately 80 percent of the Postal Service’s revenue. Responses to CHIR No. 13, 

question 1.a. The CI Composite Score may not fully capture the importance of both high 

revenue customers (businesses) and high interaction customers (non-businesses). A 

separate Business Composite would allow the Postal Service to capture and track overall 

business customer satisfaction.

The Commission recommends the Postal Service add a Business Composite performance 

indicator consisting of the Large Business, BMEU, BSN, and Delivery (Small/Medium 

Business) components.

(3) Component Performance Indicators

In FY 2018, the Postal Service is changing the methodology for calculating results of the 

Delivery, CCC, and eCC performance indicators. First, in FY 2017, the Delivery 

performance indicator result was a weighted composite consisting of component scores 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 46 -

based on satisfaction with the customer’s letter carrier and P.O. Box.52 In FY 2018, the 

Delivery performance indicator result will instead be calculated based on a single overall 

question about satisfaction with mail and package delivery.53 The Commission observes 

that the FY 2018 methodology for calculating the Delivery performance indicator result is 

similar to the one used from FY 2014 to FY 2016. During this time period, the Postal 

Service calculated the Delivery performance indicator results based on one question about 

overall satisfaction. FY 2016 Analysis at 43. The Postal Service weighed responses from 

residential and small/medium business customers equally.54 In FY 2018, the Postal 

Service will calculate the Delivery performance indicator result based on the same 

question about overall satisfaction, but will not weigh responses from residential and 

small/medium business customers separately. The FY 2018 methodology yields almost 

identical results as the methodology used from FY 2014 to FY 2016.

Second, the FY 2017 CCC performance indicator result was based on customer satisfaction 

with live agents only. FY 2017 Annual Report at 14 n.4. The FY 2018 result will be a 

weighted composite of both overall satisfaction with live agents (weighted 25 percent) 

and with the IVR system (weighted 75 percent). FY 2017 Annual Report at 18. The IVR 

system resolves approximately two-thirds of the CCC calls received annually. Primer of 

Four Surveys at 11.

The Commission finds that the FY 2018 CCC performance indicator methodology change is an 

improvement because it evaluates customer satisfaction with both live agents and the IVR 

system, which resolves most of the CCC calls.

Third, the FY 2017 eCC performance indicator result was expressed as the percentage of 

cases resolved in any particular month and reopened by the customer within 90 days.

FY 2017 Annual Report at 16-17. In the FY 2016 Analysis, the Commission identified 

several issues with the eCC performance indicator methodology. It observed that the eCC 

performance indicator measures different experiences compared to the other component 

performance indicators. FY 2016 Analysis at 47. In FY 2017, the eCC performance indicator 

measured the percentage of reopened cases, while the other component performance 

indicators measured customer satisfaction based on responses to customer surveys. Id.

Also, the Commission noted that it was unclear how the Postal Service will use the eCC 

result (expressed in single digits) to calculate the CI Composite Score result (expressed in 

double digits). See id. at 47-48.

 

52 FY 2017 Annual Report at 16, 18. In its FY 2016 Analysis, the Commission analyzes the methodology for calculating the FY 2017 Delivery 

result. See FY 2016 Analysis at 43-46.

53 FY 2017 Annual Report at 18. The Postal Service Office of Inspector General recently issued a report analyzing the Delivery survey and 

performance indicator. See United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Delivering the Best Customer Experience, RARC-WP-18-

003, December 13, 2017.

54 See Docket No. ACR2014, United States Postal Service Responses to Questions 1-5, 8 and 9 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 5, 

February 10, 2015, question 1.b., Library Reference USPS–FY14–47, Excel file "ChIR5.Q1b.Calculation Worksheet.xlsx," tab “Delivery.”
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 47 -

The eCC performance indicator methodology change addresses the issues identified in the 

FY 2016 Analysis. In FY 2018, the eCC performance indicator result will be based on 

responses to a customer survey similar to the other component performance indicators. 

FY 2017 Annual Report at 18. The eCC performance indicator will measure customers’ 

overall satisfaction with the quality of service the customer received in response to the 

issue that prompted the customer to open a case.55 The eCC performance indicator results 

will also be expressed in double digits similar to the other Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance indicators, with higher results representing year-over-year improvements. 

Consequently, the Postal Service will be able to calculate the FY 2018 CI Composite Score 

result as a simple weighted average of the component performance indicator results. See 

Chapter 3, section B.3.b.(2), supra.

The Commission finds that the FY 2018 eCC performance indicator methodology change is an 

improvement compared to FY 2017.

(4) Comparability Issues

In summary, the Postal Service is adding three new Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance indicators and changing the methodology for calculating results of some 

existing performance indicators. Overall, the new performance indicators and 

methodology changes are an improvement to how the Postal Service measures progress 

toward the Excellent Customer Experiences goal. However, these changes raise two issues. 

First, as discussed in Chapter 2, the Commission is concerned about the continual changes 

to performance indicators and methodologies. See Chapter 2, section C.4., supra. Second, 

performance indicator and methodology changes may affect compliance with 39 U.S.C. 

§§ 2804(b)(1) and 2804(c) in FY 2018. 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) requires results expressed 

in the annual performance reports to be comparable with targets set in the annual 

performance plan for that fiscal year.56

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 2018 Report must set forth the same 

Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicators and targets as in the FY 2018 Plan 

and compare FY 2018 results with FY 2018 targets for each performance indicator. FY 2018 

results must be comparable to the targets set in the FY 2018 Plan. Specifically, the FY 2018 

Report must provide comparable FY 2018 results for the new performance indicators (Large 

Business, USPS.com, and BMEU). The FY 2018 Report must also express comparable FY 2018 

results for the CI Composite Score, Delivery, CCC, and eCC performance indicators using the 

new methodologies.

 

55 See id. The Postal Service provided a copy of the eCC survey in a CHIR response. Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 2.a., file 

“eCC_FY18_Survey.”

56 FY 2016 Analysis at 16; see Chapter 2, section C.2.a., supra.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 48 -

39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) requires annual performance reports to include comparable results for 

the three preceding fiscal years.57 This requirement does not apply to new indicators. 

Consequently, the FY 2018 Report does not need to include comparable results from past 

fiscal years for the Large Business, USPS.com, and BMEU performance indicators because 

they were added in FY 2018.58

For all other Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicators, the FY 2018 Report 

must include comparable results for each performance indicator for, at a minimum, FYs 

2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year. Because the Postal 

Service changed the methodology for calculating results of the CI Composite Score, Delivery, 

CCC, and eCC performance indicators, the FY 2018 Report must express results for FYs 2015, 

2016, 2017, and 2018 using the same methodology. If comparable results cannot be 

provided, the FY 2018 Report must explain why results are not directly comparable across 

these fiscal years. In that case, the FY 2018 Report must either explain how to compare 

results between the old and new methodologies or explain why making this comparison is 

not feasible.

In the FY 2017 Report, the Postal Service asserts that the Delivery performance indicator 

results “are not directly comparable from year-to-year because the weighting of 

residential and [small medium business] customers changes.” FY 2017 Annual Report at 

17. However, the Commission was able to make the FY 2017 Delivery performance 

indicator result comparable to results from FY 2014 to FY 2016 by calculating the FY 2017 

result using the former methodology. See Chapter 3, section B.3.a., supra. As previously 

discussed, the new methodology for calculating the FY 2018 Delivery result is similar to 

the former methodology used from FY 2014 to FY 2016.

To provide comparable results in the FY 2018 Report, the Commission recommends that the 

Postal Service take a similar approach by calculating the Delivery performance indicator 

results for FYs 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 using the new (FY 2018) methodology.

C. Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce

1. Background

The Postal Service uses three performance indicators to evaluate progress toward its 

performance goal to ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce.59 The Total 

Accident Rate measures progress toward improving employee safety. To measure levels of 

 

57 FY 2016 Analysis at 18; see Chapter 2, section C.2.b., supra.

58 The Postal Service did include prior year results for the eCC and Large Business performance indicators, which were new performance 

indicators for FY 2017 and FY 2018, respectively. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14. The Commission appreciates that the Postal Service 

provided prior year results for these performance indicators and recommends that the Postal Service continue to include them in the FY 2018 

Report.

59 In FY 2016, this goal was called “Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce.” See FY 2016 Annual Report at 13.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 49 -

employee engagement, the Postal Service uses two performance indicators related to the 

Postal Pulse survey: the Survey Response Rate and the Grand Mean Engagement Score.

Total Accident Rate. In FY 2017, the Postal Service began using the Total Accident Rate as a 

performance indicator to measure progress toward improving employee safety. The Total 

Accident Rate is calculated by multiplying the total number of accidents for the year by the 

approximate number of workhours per employee (2,000), multiplied by 100.60 This 

number is then divided by the number of exposure hours. The Total Accident Rate formula 

is:

Total Number of Accidents x 200,000

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Exposure Hours

Id.

The Total Accident Rate result yields an annual accident frequency per 100 employees. 

FY 2017 Annual Report at 18. A lower result is a better outcome. The Total Accident Rate 

uses the same formula as the former Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Illness and Injury Rate (OSHA I&I Rate), which the Postal Service used as its employee 

safety performance indicator until FY 2016. Id. Unlike the OSHA I&I Rate, the Total 

Accident Rate includes accidents that do not result in medical expenses, days away from 

work, or restrictions from performing full work duties. Id. at 18-19. The Total Accident 

Rate also includes accidents that result in only property damage, as well as all motor 

vehicle accidents.61

The Total Accident Rate result improved for the second year in a row, declining from 

16.08 in FY 2016 to 15.58 in FY 2017.62 The Postal Service states that the total number of 

accidents decreased between FY 2016 and FY 2017 despite a slight increase in the number 

of employees. FY 2017 Annual Report at 19. However, the Postal Service did not meet the 

FY 2017 target of 15.00. Id.

The FY 2018 Total Accident Rate target is the same as FY 2017. Id. at 14, 19. The Postal 

Service explains that it will improve workplace safety by focusing more on prevention 

 

60 FY 2017 Annual Report at 18; February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 8.

61 Docket No. ACR2016, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-5 and 7 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 27, 

March 15, 2017, questions 4.a and 4.b. Specifically, the Total Accident Rate includes: accidents that resulted in damage of $500 or more to 

Postal Service property regardless of whether an injury was involved; motor vehicle accidents that result in death, injury, or only property 

damage, regardless of cost, who was injured (if anyone), or what property was damaged; and injury, illness, or death of a Postal Service 

employee on Postal Service premises or on the job. Id. The Total Accidents Rate excludes other accidents that do not involve Postal Service 

employees; damage of $500 or more to customer property without injury, unless such damage involves a motor vehicle accident; and fire 

damage of $100 or more without injury, unless such damage involves a motor vehicle accident. Id.

62 February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 8. As discussed below, these results differ from those presented in the FY 2017 Annual Report. 

See Chapter 3, section C.3.a.(1), infra.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 50 -

strategies and taking a more proactive approach toward employee safety through efforts 

designed to address the most frequent workplace hazards, such as dog bites, extreme 

weather, distracted driving, and improper lifting. Id. at 19. The Postal Service states it will 

focus on the importance of leadership and maintaining a culture of safety. Id. It describes 

safety initiatives such as establishing effective accident reduction plans in plants and post 

offices and addressing motor vehicle accidents through training, engineering controls, and 

consistent communication. Id.

Postal Pulse survey. The Postal Service measures employee engagement using the Postal 

Pulse survey, which evaluates overall satisfaction and 12 elements of employee 

engagement.63 The Postal Service administered the Postal Pulse survey to its entire 

workforce in August and September of FY 2017. FY 2017 Annual Report at 19. Figure III-2

is a copy of the FY 2017 Postal Pulse survey.

 

63 Id. The Postal Pulse survey was developed by Gallup, Inc. and is also called the “Gallup Q12” survey. See “Gallup Q12 and Employee 

Engagement FAQs: Frequently Asked Questions About Employee Engagement and the Engagement Survey” (available at: 

https://liteblue.usps.gov/emp-engagement/pdf/Employee-Engagement-FAQs.pdf).
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 51 -

Figure III-2

FY 2017 Postal Pulse Survey

Source: Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 3, file “Postal Pulse Survey.pdf.”
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 52 -

As shown in Figure III-2, the Postal Pulse survey asks participants to rate their level of 

agreement with 13 statements concerning the workplace on a scale of 1 to 5, with higher 

numbers reflecting either a greater level of employee satisfaction or stronger agreement 

with a survey statement. The first question (Question 0) ask employees to rate their level 

of satisfaction with the Postal Service as a place to work. The remaining questions 

(Questions 1-12) measure elements of employee engagement. Engaged employees are 

“involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and contribute to their 

organization in a positive manner.”64

In FY 2017, the Postal Service measured progress toward improving employee 

engagement using two performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse survey: the 

Survey Response Rate and the Grand Mean Engagement Score.

65 The Survey Response 

Rate is “the percentage of employees who responded to the survey questions.” FY 2017 

Annual Report at 19. The FY 2017 Survey Response Rate result was 46 percent, a 

significant improvement from the FY 2016 result of 30 percent. Id. However, the Postal 

Service did not meet the FY 2017 target of 51 percent. Id.

The mean score is the average score for each question on the Postal Pulse survey. The 

Grand Mean Engagement Score is the average of the mean scores for Questions 1-12, 

expressed on a scale of 1 to 5. Id. at 20. In FY 2017, the Grand Mean Engagement Score 

result was 3.25, which was a slight improvement over the FY 2016 result of 3.24. Id.

The FY 2018 Survey Response Rate target is 75 percent. Id. To meet this target, the FY 

2018 Plan states that employees will receive increased training in engagement, and the 

Postal Service will provide on-site coaching for select leaders to reinforce principles of 

creating engaged workplaces. Id. The Postal Service also describes a pilot version of 

engagement training with craft employees, starting with those who have taken on lead 

roles such as safety captain. Id. The goal of this pilot training is to raise engagement 

awareness and encourage participation in the feedback process. Id.

The Postal Service explains that it does not set targets for the Grand Mean Engagement 

Score because setting such targets would “not incent managers to encourage honest 

survey feedback.” Id. at 20 n.3. It states that driving high response rates is important 

because it increases the availability and number of employee feedback reports. Id. The 

Postal Service notes that employee feedback allows local leaders to receive employee 

engagement data specific to their teams and create action plans for improving employee 

engagement. Id.

 

64 United States Postal Service, "Brief Guide to the 12 Elements of Engagement" at 1 (available at: https://liteblue.usps.gov/empengagement/pdf/Brief-Engagement-Guide.pdf).

65 In past years, the Postal Service also measured employee engagement using the number of business units participating in action planning. 

FY 2016 Analysis at 54. The Postal Service confirms that it is no longer using this as a performance indicator for the Safe Workplace and 

Engaged Workforce performance goal. Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 4.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 53 -

2. Comments

The Public Representative notes that the Postal Service missed the FY 2017 targets for 

both the Total Accident Rate and the Survey Response Rate, although results for both 

performance indicators increased between FY 2016 and FY 2017. PR Comments at 7. 

Thus, she concludes that the Postal Service did not meet the Safe Workplace and Engaged 

Workforce performance goal in FY 2017. Id. In its reply comments, the Postal Service 

acknowledges the Public Representative’s comments on employee safety and explains 

why the Total Accident Rate result improved between FY 2016 and FY 2017. Postal 

Service Reply Comments at 6-7.

The Public Representative also comments that the FY 2018 Total Accident Rate target 

appears achievable, but that the FY 2018 Survey Response Rate target is likely 

unattainable. PR Comments at 7. The Postal Service responds that the Survey Response 

Rate result improved by 16 percentage points from FY 2016 because the paper copies of 

the Postal Pulse Survey were mailed to both the work and home addresses of bargaining 

employees. Postal Service Reply Comments at 7. Based on this significant improvement, 

the Postal Service contends that the FY 2018 Survey Response Rate target is achievable. Id. 

The Commission discusses this issue in more detail below. See Chapter 3, section C.3.b.(1), 

infra.

3. Commission Analysis

The Postal Service uses three performance indicators to evaluate its achievement of the 

Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal: the Total Accident Rate, the 

Survey Response Rate, and the Grand Mean Engagement Score. Results for each of these 

performance indicators improved between FY 2016 and FY 2017. However, the Postal 

Service did not meet FY 2017 targets set for the Total Accident Rate and the Survey 

Response Rate.66

The Commission finds that the Postal Service did not meet the Safe Workplace and Engaged 

Workforce performance goal in FY 2017.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the FY 2017 Report does not explain why the Postal Service did 

not meet the Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal in FY 2017 as 

required by 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3). See Chapter 2, section C.2.c., supra.

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) next year, if the Postal Service misses one or more 

FY 2018 targets for the Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal, the 

FY 2018 Report must explain why this goal was not met and describe the Postal Service’s 

plans and schedules for achieving the goal in future years.

 

66 The Postal Service explains that it does not set targets for the Grand Mean Engagement Score because doing so “does not incent managers 

to encourage honest survey feedback.” FY 2017 Annual Report at 20 n.3.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 54 -

In this section, the Commission examines issues related to workplace safety and employee 

engagement. The Commission makes observations and recommendations for improving 

performance in future years.

a. Safe Workplace

In the sections below, the Commission discusses the Total Accident Rate performance 

indicator and explores issues related to motor vehicle accidents.

(1) Total Accident Rate

Annual performance reports must include comparable results for the three preceding 

fiscal years. 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c); see Chapter 2, section C.2.b., supra. In FY 2017, the Postal 

Service replaced the former employee safety performance indicator (the OSHA I&I Rate) 

with the Total Accident Rate. See FY 2016 Analysis at 21-22. The Commission stated that 

for the FY 2017 Report to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c), the Postal Service must provide 

comparable results for each performance indicator for, at a minimum, FYs 2014, 2015, 

2016, and 2017. FY 2016 Analysis at 22. If comparable results could not be provided, the 

Commission directed that the FY 2017 Report explain how to compare results between the 

old and new methodologies. Id. The Postal Service addressed this issue in the FY 2017 

Report by providing three years of comparable results using the new Total Accident Rate 

performance indicator. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 14.

The Total Accident Rate results are expressed as the approximate number of accidents per 

100 employees. Id. at 18. Table III-8 shows the total number of accidents, exposure hours, 

and results from FY 2014 through FY 2017.

Table III-8

Total Accident Rate Results

FY 2014 through FY 2018

Year Total Number of Accidents Exposure Hours Total Accident Rate Result

FY 2014 87,670 1,099,470,792 15.95

FY 2015 91,108 1,120,514,360 16.26

FY 2016 92,465 1,149,939,707 16.08

FY 2017 90,051 1,156,314,192 15.58

Source: February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 8.

As Table III-8 shows, the Total Accident Rate results improved for the second year in a 

row. Between FY 2016 and FY 2017, the total number of accidents decreased despite an 

increase in exposure hours. The Postal Service attributes this improvement to several 

factors. Responses to CHIR No. 16, question 2. First, the Postal Service states it focused on 

leading safety indicators such as hazard abatement, inspection, and joint safety committee 

meetings to create a more proactive approach to preventing accidents. Id. Second, the 

Postal Service notes that it continued to emphasize the importance of the Counseling at 

Risk Employee program to address safety concerns and train newer employees and 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 55 -

employees involved in more than one accident. Id. Third, the Postal Service states it 

implemented a program giving employees a single point of contact for all safety concerns 

during the peak holiday season, which resulted in a nearly 23 percent reduction in 

accidents over the holidays. Id. The Commission commends the Postal Service’s efforts to 

improve the Total Accident Rate result for the second year in a row and its reduction of 

the total number of accidents despite an increase in exposure hours.

The Total Accident Rate results reported for FYs 2014 through 2017 differ slightly 

between the FY 2017 Report and the Postal Service’s CHIR responses.67 The Postal Service 

explains that results in the FY 2017 Report represent the data captured as of September 

30, 2017. Responses to CHIR No. 16, question 3.a. It states that the Total Accident Rate 

results fluctuate due to accidents added later in time that occurred before the end of the 

fiscal year. Id. It notes that results remain fluid and show slight deviations from end-ofyear reporting. Id.

The Commission reiterates its recommendation that the Postal Service use a workplace 

safety performance indicator for which results are final and not revised after the end of the 

fiscal year. See FY 2016 Analysis at 57.

(2) Motor Vehicle Accidents

The Total Accident Rate includes both motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle accidents. 

Figure III-3 shows the number of motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle accidents from 

FY 2014 through FY 2017.

 

67 Compare FY 2017 Annual Report at 14 with February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 8.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 56 -

Figure III-3

Motor Vehicle and Non-Motor Vehicle Accidents

FY 2014 through FY 2017

Sources: February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 9.a.i; Responses to CHIR No. 16, question 5.

As Figure III-3 shows, motor vehicle accidents represent approximately 30 percent of the 

total number of accidents during the fiscal year.68 However, the Total Accident Rate 

performance indicator does not distinguish between motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle 

accidents. A separate motor vehicle accident performance indicator could help the Postal 

Service better monitor and measure the outcome of its plans to reduce the number of 

motor vehicle accidents.

The Commission reiterates its recommendation that the Postal Service establish another 

workplace safety performance indicator measuring the number of motor vehicle accidents or 

motor vehicle accident rate. See FY 2016 Analysis at 60.

 

68 The sum total of motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle accidents differs from the total number of accidents provided by the Postal Service. 

See FY 2017 Annual Report at 19; February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 8. It appears that these numbers differ because accidents that 

occurred before the end of the fiscal year may be added later. See Chapter 3, section C.3.a.(1), supra.

67,055

24,413

67,907

26,944

67,139

28,979

64,740

29,386

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Motor Vehicle Accidents Non Motor Vehicle Accidents
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 57 -

Figure III-3 shows that the number of motor vehicle accidents has steadily increased 

between FY 2014 and FY 2017. The Postal Service attributes the increase in motor vehicle 

accidents between FY 2016 and FY 2017 to a number of factors, including an increase in 

newer or less experienced drivers, an increase in the number of miles driven, and an 

increase in drivers struck by non-postal vehicles while stopped to make delivery. February 

1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 9.a.ii. The Postal Service provided data on the number 

of motor vehicle accidents by cause code from FY 2015 through FY 2017 in CHIR 

responses. These data show that most motor vehicle accidents fell under two cause codes. 

“Collision/Sideswipe – Vehicle in Motion” includes accidents where a postal vehicle driver

makes contact with a moving vehicle. Responses to CHIR No. 16, question 6.a. 

“Collision/Sideswipe – Stationary Vehicle or Object” includes accidents where a postal 

vehicle driver makes contact with a stationary vehicle or object. Id. question 6.b. In both 

cases, the postal vehicles were in motion. Id. questions 6.a.ii, 6.b.ii. Figure III-4 shows the 

number of motor vehicle accidents reported under these two cause codes between 

FY 2015 and FY 2017.

Figure III-4

Motor Vehicle Accidents, Collisions or Sideswipes

FY 2015 through FY 2017

Sources: February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 9.a.i.; Docket No. ACR2016, Responses of the United States Postal Service to 

Questions 7-11 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 19, March 1, 2017, question 7, Excel file “ChIR.19.Q.7.MVA by Cause.xlsx”

(Docket No. ACR2016, Responses to CHIR No. 19).

10,662

11,678

10,429

14,251

14,853

8,730

Stationary Vehicle or Object Vehicle in Motion

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

0

5000

10000

15000
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 58 -

Figure III-4 shows that number of postal vehicle drivers colliding with or sideswiping 

moving vehicles declined significantly between FY 2016 and FY 2017. In Docket

No. ACR2016, the Postal Service stated that to help drivers become more aware of their 

surroundings, mirror stations were installed to help drivers see other drivers 

approaching. Docket No. ACR2016, Responses to CHIR No. 19, question 7.c. The Postal 

Service stated that many facilities have a “hot spot” board that warns carriers about road 

hazards, blind spots, and other situations that might increase the risk of motor vehicle 

accidents. Id. These hot spot boards help prevent accidents caused by clearance issues and 

road conditions. Id. It appears that these efforts have contributed to the decline in 

collisions or sideswipes with other moving vehicles.

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue using mirror stations and hot 

spot boards to help prevent accidents.

Figure III-4 shows that the number of postal vehicle drivers colliding with or sideswiping 

stationary vehicles or objects also declined between FY 2016 and FY 2017. However, the 

number of collisions or sideswipes with stationary vehicles or objectives did not decline as

substantially as the number of collisions or sideswipes with moving vehicles. The Postal 

Service explains that to reduce the number of motor vehicle accidents in FY 2018, it will 

focus on initial driver training and refresher training. February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, 

question 9.a.iii. It describes a new professional driving academy that will increase the 

length of training, employ more hands-on experience with each vehicle, and use virtual 

reality tools such as driver simulators and iPad activities. Id. Once drivers are behind the 

wheel, the Postal Service states that it will increase its focus on quality driver observations 

by management, which will help address unsafe driving practices before accidents occur. 

Id.

b. Engaged Workforce

In FY 2017, the Postal Service measured employee engagement using two performance 

indicators related to the Postal Pulse survey: the Survey Response Rate and the Grand 

Mean Engagement Score. In the FY 2016 Analysis, the Commission identified several issues 

with these performance indicators that could have affected compliance with 39 U.S.C. 

§§ 2803 and 2804. Regarding the annual performance plan, the Commission stated that 

the FY 2017 Plan did not set forth FY 2017 targets for the performance indicators related 

to the Postal Pulse survey. FY 2016 Analysis at 64. Also, the Postal Service did not set a 

measurable FY 2017 target for the Grand Mean Engagement Score. Id. The Commission 

stated that to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a), the FY 2018 Plan must set targets for each 

performance indicator used to evaluate performance during FY 2018 and include at least 

one measurable FY 2018 target for the performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse 

survey. Id.

For the annual performance report, the Commission stated that the FY 2016 Report neither 

set forth the FY 2016 targets for the Postal Pulse survey performance indicators nor 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 59 -

included comparable results from the past three fiscal years. Id. at 64-65. The Commission 

stated that to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804, the FY 2017 Report must compare all FY 2017 

targets with FY 2017 results and include comparable results for FYs 2014, 2015, 2016, 

and 2017 for at least one performance indicator related to the Postal Pulse survey. Id.

The Postal Service addressed these issues in the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report. The 

FY 2018 Plan sets a FY 2018 target for the Survey Response Rate and explains why the 

Postal Service does not set measurable targets for the Grand Mean Engagement Score. 

FY 2017 Annual Report at 14, 20 n.3. The FY 2017 Report compares the FY 2017 Survey 

Response Rate target and result. See id. at 14. Although the Postal Service set a FY 2017 

target for the number of business units participating in action planning, the Postal Service 

confirms that it is no longer using this as a performance indicator for the Safe Workplace 

and Engaged Workforce performance goal.69 The FY 2017 Report also includes three years 

of comparable results for the Survey Response Rate performance indicator. See FY 2017

Annual Report at 14.

The Commission finds that the Postal Service’s discussion of employee engagement in the 

FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan improved compared to past years.

Below the Commission examines the Survey Response Rate and the Grand Mean 

Engagement Score in further detail.

(1) Survey Response Rate

The Survey Response Rate is “the percentage of employees who responded to the survey 

questions.” FY 2017 Annual Report at 19. The Postal Service explains how the Postal Pulse 

survey was administered during FY 2017. All employees had the option of taking the 

Postal Pulse survey through a link posted on LiteBlue. February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 

9, question 11.a. Non-bargaining employees received an email invitation to take the survey 

online. Id. Bargaining employees received paper copies of the survey at both their work 

and home addresses. Id. The survey instructions encouraged employees to take the survey 

at work to receive time on-the-clock to take the survey. Id. Bargaining employees with a 

Postal Service or Postal Inspection Service email address also received online invitations 

to take the survey. Id. For employees with multiple options to take the survey, only the 

first response was counted. Id.

The Postal Service states that it administered 621,332 surveys in FY 2017. Id., question 

11.b. After the survey closed, the Postal Service reduced this number by the number of 

employees who separated from the Postal Service and did not take the survey. Id. This 

process reduced the number of potential survey participants to 603,260. Id. The Postal 

Service received 279,669 responses, for a Survey Response Rate result of 46 percent in 

FY 2017. Id.

 

69 Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 4; see FY 2016 Analysis at 54.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 60 -

The Commission finds that the Postal Service’s explanation clarifies how the Postal Pulse 

survey was administered and how the Postal Service calculates the Survey Response Rate 

results. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service include this information in 

future annual performance reports.

Figure III-5 shows the Survey Response Rate results from FY 2014 through FY 2017. As 

Figure III-5 shows, the Survey Response Rate declined significantly from 47 percent in 

FY 2015 to 30 percent in FY 2016. The Postal Service explains that in FY 2016, it mailed 

surveys to bargaining employees at their home addresses only. Postal Service Reply 

Comments at 7. In FY 2017, the Survey Response Rate result was 46 percent, which is 16 

percentage points more than the FY 2016 result. The Postal Service attributes this 

increase to the decision to mail surveys to bargaining employees at both their home and 

work addresses in FY 2017. Id. The Commission commends the Postal Service for 

significantly improving the Survey Response Rate between FY 2016 and FY 2017.

Figure III-5

Survey Response Rate Results

FY 2014 through FY 2017

Source: FY 2017 Annual Report at 14. The FY 2014 result expresses the Survey Response Rate for the VOE survey. Id. at 14 n.6. Results for 

FY 2015, FY 2016, and FY 2017 express Survey Response Rates for the Postal Pulse survey. Id.

The FY 2018 Survey Response Rate target is 75 percent, 29 percentage points above the 

FY 2017 result. Id. at 14. In the FY 2017 Report, the Postal Service states that the FY 2018 

target for the Survey Response Rate is “a stretch goal in excess of results to date to 

emphasize the importance of this measure.” Id. at 14 n.6. The Public Representative 

comments that it is unclear whether the Postal Service believes that the FY 2018 Survey 

Response Rate target is attainable. PR Comments at 7. She asserts that she views 

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

5 0

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Survey Response Rate
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 61 -

ambitious targets favorably, but unachievable targets as problematic. Id. She recommends 

that the Postal Service set reasonable targets each year and then surpass them. Id.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service responds that the Survey Response Rate result 

improved by 16 percentage points in FY 2017. Postal Service Reply Comments at 7. Based 

on this increase, the Postal Service contends that the FY 2018 target is achievable and 

states that it will continue the trend of improvement throughout FY 2018. Id.

The Postal Service explains that the FY 2018 Survey Response Rate target is “a stretch goal 

in excess of results to date to emphasize the importance of this measure.” FY 2017 Annual 

Report at 14 n.6. The Commission observes that the Postal Service already emphasizes the 

importance of the Survey Response Rate by using it as a performance indicator to measure 

employee engagement.

If the Postal Service does not meet the FY 2018 Survey Response Rate target, the Commission 

recommends that the Postal Service set a more realistic and achievable target in the FY 2019 

Plan.

If the Postal Service sets an aggressive target for FY 2019, the Commission suggests that 

the Postal Service explain how it will achieve such significant improvement. As an 

alternative, the Postal Service could set “stretch” targets to achieve after a period of time 

(e.g., three years) and set more realistic and achievable targets for the upcoming fiscal 

year.

(2) Grand Mean Engagement Score

The Grand Mean Engagement Score is the average of the mean scores for Questions 1 

through 12 on the Postal Pulse survey, expressed on a scale of 1 to 5. Table III-9 depicts 

the Grand Mean Engagement Score results, as well as the mean scores for each question on 

the Postal Pulse survey, for FYs 2015, 2016, and 2017.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 62 -

Table III-9

FY 2015, FY 2016, and FY 2017 Postal Pulse Survey

Mean Scores and Grand Mean Engagement Scores

Postal Pulse Survey Question

FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2015

Question-Specific Mean Score

Q0. How satisfied are you with the Postal Service as a place to work? 3.49 3.52 3.44

Grand Mean Engagement Score

(Average of Mean Scoresafor Questions 1-12) 3.25 3.24 3.16

Question-Specific Mean Score

Q1. I know what is expected of me at work. 4.22 4.22 4.20

Q2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right. 3.53 3.55 3.52

Q3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. 3.68 3.68 3.63

Q4. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good 

work. 2.75 2.70 2.60

Q5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person. 3.37 3.33 3.29

Q6. There is someone at work who encourages my development. 2.98 2.93 2.86

Q7. At work, my opinions seem to count. 2.81 2.84 2.71

Q8. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is 

important. 3.50 3.54 3.42

Q9. My fellow employees are committed to doing quality work. 3.38 3.46 3.40

Q10. I have a best friend at work. 3.02 2.94 2.84

Q11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my 

progress.

2.73 2.71 2.62

Q12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow. 3.03 3.04 2.92

a

The mean score is the average score for each question using the 5-point survey scale, with 5 being the highest score and 1 being the lowest.

Sources: February 1 Responses to CHIR No. 9, question 12; Docket No. ACR2016, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 2 

and 6 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 19, February 27, 2017, questions 6.a., 6.b.

Table III-9 shows that both the Grand Mean Engagement Score and mean scores for most 

questions improved between FY 2015 and FY 2017. The mean score for Question 1 was 

the highest and was also the only question to have a mean score more than four points. 

This indicates that Postal Service employees are clear about what is expected of them at 

work. High scores for questions 0, 2, 3, and 8 indicate that Postal Service employees are 

satisfied overall with the Postal Service as a place to work, feel that their job is important, 

and have the resources to do their work right and perform their best every day.

The lowest scores on the Postal Pulse survey were for Questions 4 and 11, which involve 

feedback and employee recognition. Regular feedback is important so that employees 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 63 -

understand how well they are doing, where their work is leading them, and what areas 

they can improve.70 Similarly, recognition for doing good work is important for creating a 

culture of appreciation and reinforcing positive behavior. Id. The Postal Service should 

consider whether changes to its performance evaluation process and additional 

supervisor training may help improve the lowest scoring questions.

D. Financial Health

1. Background

In FY 2017, the Postal Service used two performance indicators to measure progress 

toward its Financial Health71 goal: the Deliveries per Total Workhours (DPTWH) % 

Change and Controllable Income (Loss). Although not used as performance indicators, the 

Postal Service also included results for Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and labor 

productivity. FY 2017 Annual Report at 26.

DPTWH % Change. From FY 2011 to FY 2015, the Postal Service measured productivity 

improvements using the Deliveries per Workhour (DPWH) performance indicator, which 

evaluated the Postal Service’s productivity improvement efforts by comparing the total 

number of deliveries of all types with the total number of workhours used in all employee 

categories.72 In FY 2016, the Postal Service replaced the DPWH performance indicator 

with the DPTWH % Change, which measures the percentage change in the DPTWH from 

the current year over the prior year.73 The Postal Service calculates the DPTWH by 

multiplying the total possible deliveries by the number of delivery days and dividing that 

product by total workhours.74

The FY 2017 target for the DPTWH % Change was an increase of 0.6 percent over the 

FY 2016 result. FY 2017 Annual Report at 25. The FY 2017 result was a decrease of 0.5 

percent and, therefore, was 1.1 percentage points lower than the FY 2017 target. Id. The 

Postal Service explains that a “rapid decrease in volume during the year contributed to 

[the Postal Service] missing the DPTWH target” and that the Postal Service’s large network 

makes it difficult to adjust workhours when faced with sudden, unexpected changes in 

volume. Id. The Postal Service explains that its large network of interdependent offices are 

governed by national collective bargaining agreements and many local agreements. 

Responses to CHIR No. 19, question 4.a. The Postal Service states these agreements make 

 

70 United States Postal Service, "Brief Guide to the 12 Elements of Engagement" at 2 (available at: https://liteblue.usps.gov/empengagement/pdf/Brief-Engagement-Guide.pdf).

71 In FY 2016, this goal was called “Sustain Controllable Income.” See FY 2016 Annual Report at 13.

72 See Docket No. ACR2011, Annual Compliance Determination, March 28, 2012, at 46; FY 2015 Analysis at 4, 57.

73 FY 2017 Annual Report at 24; Responses to CHIR No. 19, question 1. In FY 2016, this performance indicator was referred to as “DPTWH, % 

SPLY.” FY 2017 Annual Report at 24 n.5.

74 FY 2017 Annual Report at 24. For a detailed explanation of the DPTWH % Change calculation, see FY 2016 Analysis at 70-71.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 64 -

it “challenging for the organization to implement quick fixes to sudden and unexpected 

volume changes, such as those experienced in FY 2017.” Id.

For example, the Postal Service notes that Presorted First-Class Mail letter volume had 

been steady in FY 2015, and experienced only a slight decline in FY 2016, only to 

experience substantial and rapid decline from FY 2016, Quarter 4 through FY 2018, 

Quarter 1. Id. The Postal Service states that volume declines for the past six consecutive 

quarters were “sudden and unexpected.” Id. The Postal Service has experienced a similar 

decrease in USPS Marketing Mail volume, with declining volume for the past four 

consecutive fiscal quarters. Id.

The Postal Service recognizes its challenge to make adjustments to handle unexpected 

changes in volume without negatively affecting service performance. Id., question 4.c. It 

states that, in real time, it is “difficult to extrapolate whether observed [volume] 

differences are manifestations of a longer trend, or patterns that will subside or reverse in 

the next reporting period.” Id. The Postal Service describes postal volumes and operations 

as “dynamic” in nature, which presents the challenge of balancing the Postal Service’s 

various objectives. Id.

The FY 2018 target for the DPTWH % Change represents a 2.1 percent increase over the 

FY 2017 result. FY 2017 Annual Report at 25. The Postal Service states it will meet the 

FY 2018 target by capturing workhour reductions from declining mail volume, and from 

operational initiatives to improve efficiency. Id. The Postal Service notes that these 

initiatives are described in other sections of the FY 2017 Report. Id. For example, the Postal 

Service states that it plans to deploy new technologies to improve the efficiency of package 

handling and delivery to improve service performance. Id. at 16. The Postal Service states 

that the implementation of such technologies will also have the effect of improving the 

DPTWH % Change. See Responses to CHIR No. 19, question 5.

Controllable Income (Loss). The results of this performance indicator are calculated as the 

Postal Service’s total revenue minus controllable expenses and one-time accounting 

adjustments. FY 2017 Annual Report at 13. Revenue includes funds received from the sale 

of postage, mailing and shipping services, passports, Post Office Box rentals, gains from 

the sale or outlease of property, and interest and investment income. Id. at 22.

Controllable expenses consist of compensation and benefits; transportation; depreciation; 

supplies and services; and rent, utilities, and other controllable expenses. Id. at 13, 22-23. 

Controllable expenses exclude non-controllable expenses, or expenses that do not reflect 

the Postal Service’s operational decisions and are subject to large fluctuations that are 

outside of the Postal Service’s control. Id. at 23. Non-controllable expenses include:

 Re-evaluations of the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund (RHBF) 

normal cost by the Office of Personnel Management
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 65 -

 Amortization of the Postal Service’s unfunded liabilities for its portion of 

the Federal Employees Retirement System and Civil Service Retirement 

System

 Non-cash expenses related to changes in liability for participating in the 

federal workers’ compensation program

Id. at 24.

In FY 2017, the Controllable Income (Loss) result was $(0.8) billion, which was $0.9 billion 

lower than the FY 2017 target of $0.1 billion. Id. at 21. The Postal Service explains that this 

result was primarily attributable to a shortfall in revenue. Id. at 22. It states that FY 2017 

revenue of $69.7 billion was $1.0 billion less than planned largely because of “higher-thanexpected First-Class Mail diversion and an unexpected drop in Marketing Mail” volume. Id.

First-Class Mail revenue for FY 2017 was $25.6 billion, which was $0.4 billion below the 

FY 2017 target set in the FY 2017 IFP, “due to continued and accelerated migration of 

consumers to electronic communication and transactional alternatives.” Id. USPS 

Marketing Mail revenue in FY 2017 was $16.6 billion, $1.1 billion below the FY 2017 

target set in the FY 2017 IFP. Id. The Postal Service attributes the USPS Marketing Mail 

revenue shortfall to an unexpected 2.6 billion mailpiece decline.75

The Controllable Income (Loss) target for FY 2018 is $(1.4) billion “driven by modest 

revenue growth, inflationary and contractual cost increases, and an anticipated increase in 

the controllable portion of the RHBF normal cost of $0.7 billion.” Id. at 23. The Postal 

Service states that it expects revenue to increase by $0.5 billion in FY 2018 due to volume 

and market price increases in Shipping and Packages offsetting volume decreases in 

First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, and Periodicals. Id.

The Postal Service also expects controllable expenses to increase by $1.1 billion between 

FY 2017 and FY 2018. Id. at 21. Compensation and benefits expenses are expected to 

increase by $0.2 billion primarily due to contractually required wage increases. Id. at 23. 

The Postal Service plans to mitigate the increase in compensation and benefits expenses 

by employing a larger portion of newer, less expensive employees and reducing 

workhours through increased efficiency. Id. In addition to the $0.7 billion increase to the 

RHBF normal cost expense, planned increases in controllable expenses also include a $0.1 

billion increase transportation expenses due to growth in package volume and inflationary 

pressures; and a $0.1 billion increase in rent, utilities, and other expenses increases due to 

normal inflationary pressures. Id.

 

75 The Postal Service states the decline was unexpected, “given the relative stability of Marketing Mail volumes in recent years, the overall 

health of the economy and the impact of the 2016 election, which provided a boost in volume in the first weeks of FY2017.” Id. at 22.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 66 -

2. Comments

The Public Representative comments that the Postal Service did not meet FY 2017 targets 

for either the DPTWH % Change or Controllable Income (Loss). PR Comments at 8. Thus, 

she concludes that the Postal Service did not meet the Financial Health performance goal 

in FY 2017. Id. However, she states that the Postal Service’s explanations for failing to 

meet Financial Health targets is sufficient. Id. In its reply comments, the Postal Service 

agrees with the Public Representative that its explanation is sufficient. Postal Service 

Reply Comments at 7.

The Public Representative also raises concerns about the FY 2018 DPTWH % Change 

target. PR Comments at 7-8. These comments are discussed in more detail below. See 

Chapter 3, section D.3.a.(2), infra.

3. Commission Analysis

In FY 2017, the Postal Service missed both targets set for the DPTWH % Change and 

Controllable Income (Loss) performance indicators.

The Commission finds that the Postal Service did not meet the Financial Health performance 

goal in FY 2017.

Below, the Commission analyzes the DPTWH % Change and Controllable Income (Loss) 

performance indicators in more detail.

a. Deliveries per Total Workhour % Change

In the FY 2017 Report, the Postal Service improved the discussion of the DPTWH % Change 

compared to FY 2016. The FY 2016 Report did not clearly describe this performance 

indicator. See FY 2016 Annual Report at 22. By contrast, the FY 2017 Report explains what 

the DPTWH % Change is, what it measures, and how the Postal Service calculates results. 

See FY 2017 Annual Report at 24-25. In the FY 2017 Report, the Postal Service explains that 

it adjusts workhours to reflect changes in workload compared to the prior year, which 

ensures that results are comparable from year-to-year. Id. at 24. The FY 2017 Report also 

includes a table showing the methodology and components used for calculating results. Id.

at 25.

The Commission finds that these changes improve the transparency and utility of the 

FY 2017 Report by helping interested persons better understand the DPTWH % Change 

performance indicator and how the Postal Service calculates results.

Last year the Commission recommended that the Postal Service measure productivity 

improvements using the TFP index rather than the DPTWH % Change. See FY 2016 

Analysis at 73. In the FY 2017 Report, the Postal Service explains that it prefers the DPTWH 

% Change because, compared with the TFP index, it is easier to understand and target at 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 67 -

the area and district levels, and it can be calculated in a timelier manner. FY 2017 Annual 

Report at 26 n.6. Although the Postal Service continues to use the DPTWH % Change 

performance indicator, the FY 2017 Report also includes information on both the TFP 

index and labor productivity measures. Id. at 26. The Commission appreciates that the 

FY 2017 Report explains why the Postal Service prefers the DPTWH % Change 

performance indicator and includes information on TFP and other productivity measures.

Future annual performance reports should continue to include information on both the 

TFP index and other productivity measures.

Below the Commission makes observations and recommendations on the DPTWH % 

Change methodology and the FY 2018 performance plan.

(1) Methodology

The Postal Service calculates the DPTWH % Change using the total number of delivery 

days, delivery points, and workhours.76 The Postal Service explains that total workhours 

are the sum of actual workhours from the official National Workhour Reporting System, 

adjusted for earned workload impacts. Responses to CHIR No. 19, question 2.a. It states 

that total workhours represent actual hours worked, and are collected primarily by the 

Postal Service’s Time and Attendance Collection System, although a small amount of 

workhour records are collected by the use of manual time clocks. Id., question 2.b.

The Postal Service explains that it adjusts workhours “to recognize the impact of earned 

hours from changes in mail mix and the impact of Sunday delivery.” FY 2017 Annual 

Report at 25 n.1. The Commission observed that adjusting for Sunday deliveries was an 

improvement over the former performance indicator but that it was unclear whether the 

Postal Service would use full or partial year Sunday delivery data to calculate the FY 2017 

result. FY 2016 Analysis at 73. The Commission stated that calculating the DPTWH % 

Change using Sunday delivery data from the entire fiscal year may improve the accuracy of 

the FY 2017 result. Id.

The Postal Service clarifies that it removes hours from the current fiscal year that are 

directly caused by changes in year-over-year workload, as well as hours caused by Sunday 

delivery increases over the prior year. Responses to CHIR No. 19, question 3.a. The Postal 

Service explains that it makes this adjustment so that the current year total workhours can 

be used for comparison. Id. The Postal Service confirms that it used full year Sunday 

delivery stops to calculate the FY 2017 DPTWH % Change result. Id., question 3.b.

The Commission finds that using full instead of partial year Sunday delivery stops is an 

improvement to the methodology for calculating the DPTWH % Change results. The 

 

76 FY 2017 Annual Report at 24. The Commission explains in detail how to calculate the DPTWH % Change (formerly called DPTWH % SPLY) 

performance indicator in its FY 2016 Analysis. See FY 2016 Analysis at 70-71.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 68 -

Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to use full year Sunday delivery 

stops when calculating the DPTWH % Change results.

Annual performance reports must include comparable results from the past three fiscal 

years. 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c); see Chapter 2, section C.2.b, supra.

To ensure comparability of results, the FY 2018 Report must calculate and express the 

DPTWH % Change results using the same methodology (including full year Sunday delivery 

data) for, at a minimum, FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. If comparable results cannot be 

provided, the FY 2018 Report must explain why results are not directly comparable across 

these fiscal years. In that case, the FY 2018 Report must either explain how to compare 

results between the former and new methodologies or explain why making this comparison is 

not feasible.

(2) FY 2018 Performance Plan

(a) FY 2018 Target

The FY 2018 Plan sets the FY 2018 DPTWH % Change target at 2.1 percent. FY 2017 

Annual Report at 25. The FY 2018 target is 1.5 percentage points more than the FY 2017 

target of 0.6, and 2.6 percentage points above the FY 2017 result. See id. at 14. The Postal 

Service asserts that it designs all of its targets “to be achievable given the planned finances 

in the IFP.” Id. at 13. It characterizes its workhour reduction targets as “stretch goals to 

continue to drive efficiency gains” across the postal network. Responses to CHIR No. 19, 

question 5.

The Public Representative comments that the FY 2018 target is more than twice the 

highest percentage increase since FY 2014. PR Comments at 7-8. She contends that targets 

are not meant to be long-term goals and that targets should be achievable during the fiscal 

year covered by the annual performance plan. Id. at 8.

The DPTWH % Change results have declined from 0.6 percent in FY 2014 to (0.5) percent 

in FY 2017. Given this downward trend in results, it is unclear how the Postal Service will 

meet the FY 2018 target. The Postal Service contends that setting stretch targets for other 

performance indicators drives performance and inspires continuous improvement. See 

Postal Service Reply Comments at 3. The Postal Service should consider whether it could 

continue to drive performance and inspire improvement if it set ambitious but more 

achievable targets. Meeting targets may also drive performance by providing a way to 

acknowledge achievement through efforts to improve. Conversely, consistently failing to 

meet targets may discourage further improvement if the gap between the target and result 

is too high.

If the FY 2018 DPTWH % Change target is not met in FY 2018, the Commission recommends 

that the Postal Service set a more realistic and achievable target in the FY 2019 Plan.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 69 -

If the Postal Service considers reaching a stretch target to be realistic, the Postal Service 

should explain how it will achieve such significant improvement during FY 2019. As an 

alternative, the Postal Service could set “stretch” targets to achieve after a period of time 

(e.g., three years) and setting more realistic and achievable targets for the upcoming fiscal 

year.

(b) Plans for Improving Performance

To meet the FY 2018 target, the Postal Service states that it will “capture [workhour] 

reductions from declining mail volume and from operational initiatives to improve 

efficiency.” FY 2017 Annual Report at 25. In an effort to reduce workhours, the Postal 

Service states that it implemented a new workhour scheduler software, enabling 

managers to “more quickly realign complement bids to take into consideration workload 

fluctuations.” Responses to CHIR No. 19, question 5. The Postal Service also has offered 

select employee groups a voluntary early retirement. Id. The Postal Service asserts that it 

will aggressively streamline its equipment sets to match workload and volume. Id. It notes 

that these measures should reduce mail processing workhours and reduce plant and 

equipment maintenance workhours. Id.

To ensure future efficiency gains, the Postal Service states it plans to deploy additional 

automation and implement new technologies to improve mail and package handling 

efficiency in FY 2018. Id. These plans include deploying new in-plant material handling 

systems, new Automated Delivery Unit Sorting machines, and new software and operating 

procedures to increase carrier vehicle package loading efficiencies. Id.

The Postal Service states that it intends to deploy new technologies to achieve workhour 

targets by the end of FY 2018. Id. However, it acknowledges that these plans are not 

specifically focused toward meeting the DPTWH % Change target. Id. Rather, the Postal 

Service explains that these plans “are directed towards achieving a whole host of benefits 

that accrue with workhour improvements[,]” including progress toward meeting the 

FY 2018 DPTWH % Change target. Id. It states that “beyond the wide range of efforts to 

control workhours...specific plans or timelines exclusively designed to meet [the DPTWH 

% Change] target are not identified.” Id.

The Commission appreciates that the Postal Service’s vast network presents challenges in 

matching workhours to workload, particularly when faced with sudden or unexpected 

volume changes. The planned improvement efforts articulated by the Postal Service are 

encouraging, and it appears likely that these efforts will improve workhour efficiency 

generally. However, the plans for improving performance raise a legal compliance issue. If 

the Postal Service does not meet a performance goal, annual performance reports must 

both explain why the goal was not met and describe plans and schedules for meeting the 

goal. 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3). Because the Postal Service missed the DPTWH % Change 

target in FY 2017, the FY 2017 Report was required to describe plans and timelines for 

meeting the FY 2018 DPTWH % Change target.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 70 -

The Postal Service acknowledges that its plans for reducing workhours are not targeted 

specifically toward meeting the FY 2018 DPTWH % Change target. Thus, it is unclear how 

the Postal Service plans to meet the DPTWH % Change target (and, by extension, the 

Financial Health performance goal) in FY 2018.77 The Postal Service also does not identify 

timelines for meeting the FY 2018 DPTWH % Change target.

The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) 

for the Financial Health performance goal. To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) next year, 

if the Postal Service does not meet the FY 2018 DPTWH % Change target, the FY 2018 Report 

must describe specific plans designed to meet the FY 2019 DPTWH % Change target. The 

FY 2019 Plan must also include timelines for implementing programs that will help meet this 

target.

b. Controllable Income (Loss)

In the FY 2017 Report, the discussion of the Controllable Income (Loss) improved 

compared to FY 2016. The FY 2017 Report provides a thorough explanation of each 

component that makes up the Controllable Income (Loss). It includes a helpful table 

showing revenue and expenses from the IFP and describes each category of revenue and 

controllable expenses. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 21-23. These descriptions explain 

why the FY 2017 Controllable Income (Loss) target was not met and provide the rationale 

for setting the FY 2018 target. See id. The FY 2017 Report also includes a section on 

non-controllable expenses, which also impact the Postal Service’s financial results. See id. 

at 23-24.

The Commission finds that this information improves the transparency and utility of the 

FY 2017 Report by helping interested persons better understand the components of the 

Controllable Income (Loss) and how the Postal Service calculates targets and results. The 

Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to include this information in 

future annual performance plans and annual performance reports.

Figure III-6 shows the Controllable Income (Loss) results from FY 2014 through FY 2017. 

As Figure III-6 shows, results were higher during FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016 when the 

exigent surcharge on Market Dominant products was in effect. The Postal Service states 

that the $0.8 billion loss in FY 2017 was primarily attributable to a shortfall in revenue. 

FY 2017 Annual Report at 22. As the Commission explains in its financial analysis of the 

Postal Service’s FY 2017 financial results, revenue from Market Dominant mail declined 

7.7 percent from FY 2016.78 Two factors were principally responsible for this decline: (1) 

price increases based on the consumer price index were not enough to offset revenue loss

 

77 To meet the Financial Health goal in FY 2018, the Postal Service must meet or exceed FY 2018 targets for both the DPTWH % Change and 

Controllable Income (Loss). See FY 2016 Analysis at 5.

78 Docket No. ACR2017, Financial Analysis of United States Postal Service Financial Results and 10-K Statement Fiscal Year 2017, April 5, 2018, 

at 12 (FY 2017 Financial Analysis).
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 71 -

from declining volumes; and (2) FY 2017 was the first full fiscal year after the exigent 

surcharge expired. Id. The Commission analyzes the Postal Service’s FY 2017 financial 

results in detail in the FY 2017 Financial Analysis. See id.

Figure III-6

Controllable Income (Loss) Results

FY 2014 through FY 2017

Source: FY 2017 Annual Report at 21.

The Postal Service states that it designs all performance indicator targets to be achievable 

given the planned finances in the IFP. FY 2017 Annual Report at 13. The FY 2017 Report

includes a table listing the components of the Controllable Income (Loss). Id. at 21. This 

table, which is shown below in Table III-10, includes planned revenue and expenses for 

FY 2017 and FY 2018, as well as results from FY 2014 through FY 2017. Id.

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Controllable income (Loss) 

 (in billions)
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 72 -

Table III-10

Integrated Financial Plan

Revenue and Expenses (in Billions)

FY 2018

IFP Target

FY 2017

Result

FY 2017

IFP Target

FY 2016

Result

FY 2015

Result

FY 2014

Result

First-Class Mail 24.8 25.6 26.0 26.6 27.2 27.6

USPS Marketing Mail 16.2 16.6 17.7 17.6 16.9 16.9

Shipping and Packages 21.4 19.5 19.0 17.3 15.0 13.5

International Mail 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.9

Periodicals 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6

Othera3.8 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.9

Revenueb 70.2 69.7 70.7 69.4 66.8 66.4

Exigent Surchargec0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.1 1.4

Total Revenue with Exigent Surcharge 70.2 69.7 70.7 70.5 68.9 67.8

Compensation and benefitsd50.7 50.5 50.7 53.2 51.8 50.4

RHBF normal coste3.5 2.8 2.9 – – –

Transportation 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.6 6.6

Depreciation 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8

Supplies and services 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.6

Rent, utilities and otherf5.4 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.8 5.0

Controllable Expenses 71.6 70.5 70.6 69.9 67.7 66.4

Controllable Income (Loss) (1.4) (0.8) 0.1 0.6 1.2 1.4

RHBF pre-funding – – – (5.8) (5.7) (5.7)

RHBF normal cost actuarial revaluationd– (0.5) – – – –

RHBF unfunded liability amortization (1.2) (1.0) (2.9) – – –

FERS unfunded liability amortization (0.9) (0.9) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) –

CSRS unfunded liability amortization (1.7) (1.7) (1.2) – – –

Workers’ comp. fair value and other 

non-cash adjustments – 2.2 – (1.3) (0.4) (1.2)

Change in accounting estimateh– – – 1.1 – –

Net Income (Loss) (5.2) (2.7) (4.2) (5.6) (5.1) (5.5)

a Includes investment and interest income.

b Excludes a FY 2016 change in accounting estimate of $1.1 billion due to a reevaluation of prepaid postage and the exigent surcharge in 

FY 2014, FY 2015, and FY 2016. Includes investment income.

c The exigent surcharge on Market Dominant products was removed on April 10, 2016. See Docket No. R2013-11, Order on Removal of the 

Exigent Surcharge and Related Changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, March 29, 2016 (Order No. 3186).

d Excludes RHBF pre-funding, normal cost, amortization and actuarial revaluation; non-cash adjustments to workers’ compensation liabilities; 

and FERS and CSRS unfunded liabilities amortization, which are excluded from controllable expenses. Includes RHBF premiums (FY 2014–

FY 2016) and workers’ compensation cash expenses.

e Total RHBF normal cost in FY 2017 was $3.3 billion, of which $2.8 billion was classified as a controllable expense. The remaining $0.5 billion 

was classified as an RHBF normal cost actuarial revaluation.

f Includes interest expense.

h During FY 2016, the Postal Service revised the technique used to estimate deferred revenue – prepaid postage liability for Forever stamps. 

As a result of the change, deferred revenue – prepaid postage was decreased by nearly $1.1 billion. In accordance with GAAP, the change 

was accounted for as a change in accounting estimate.

Source: FY 2017 Annual Report at 21.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 73 -

The FY 2018 target for the Controllable Income (Loss) is $(1.4) billion, which is based on 

the Postal Service’s projections about modest revenue growth, inflationary and 

contractual cost increases, and an anticipated increase in the controllable portion of the 

RHBF normal cost. Id. at 23. The Postal Service’s projections appear reasonable. 

Contractually required increases in labor costs will drive an increase in the compensation 

and benefits category,79 although the Postal Service plans to mitigate these costs by 

employing a larger portion of newer, less expensive employees. FY 2017 Annual Report

at 23. The projected modest revenue growth is driven by a relatively large expected 

increase in Shipping and Packages revenue due to volume growth and market price 

increases. Id.

In FY 2017, revenues from First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail were less than 

planned in the FY 2017 IFP. See id. at 21-22. Future annual performance reports should 

describe efforts to mitigate the potential impact of lower-than-expected revenues or 

higher-than-expected controllable expenses. The Postal Service should identify the steps it 

will take to reach its targets even when actual revenue and expenses deviate from 

projections.

 

79 See FY 2017 Financial Analysis at 19.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 74 -

CHAPTER 4: STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

A. Background

In FY 2017, the Postal Service issued its Five-Year Strategic Plan for FYs 2017 to 2021.80

The Postal Service explains that its vision for these fiscal years is to continue to “deliver

valued products and services that help people connect, businesses grow, and communities 

thrive in the digital economy.” Strategic Plan at 6. To realize this vision, the Postal Service 

established four strategic goals:

 Deliver a World-Class Customer Experience

 Equip, Empower, and Engage Employees

 Innovate Faster to Deliver Value

 Invest in Our Future Platforms

Id.

To achieve these strategic goals, the Postal Service states that it “implemented a portfolio of 

strategic initiatives and a rigorous portfolio management process.” FY 2017 Annual Report

at 27. The Postal Service asserts that its process of managing its portfolio of strategic 

initiatives “is based on well-established methods to apply strategic and financial rigor to 

decision-making and to navigate significant organizational changes.” Id.

In FY 2017, the Postal Service implemented a portfolio of 15 strategic initiatives to achieve 

its strategic goals.Id. at 28. The FY 2017 Report lists FY 2017 and FY 2018 strategic 

initiatives and explains how they changed between FY 2017 and FY 2018. Id.

Table IV-1 compares FY 2017 and FY 2018 strategic initiatives and links each one to a 

strategic goal. The “Change from FY 2017” column identifies how the strategic initiative 

changed between FY 2017 and FY 2018:

 Continued — Strategic initiative continued into FY 2018 with minimal 

changes from FY 2017.

 Moved — Strategic initiative was closed and its activities were 

incorporated into the relevant business unit’s normal operations.

 

80 See Future Ready: United States Postal Service Five-Year Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2017 to 2021 (available at: 

http://about.usps.com/strategic-planning/five-year-strategic-plan-2017-2021.pdf) (Strategic Plan).
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 75 -

 Refined — Strategic initiative was modified to achieve greater alignment 

with organizational goals and the current business environment.

 Combined — Strategic initiative was combined with one or more similar 

strategic initiatives to more accurately reflect the current business 

environment and provide greater alignment organizationally.

As shown in Table IV-1, the Postal Service moved four strategic initiatives, continued four 

strategic initiatives, and refined one strategic initiative. The Postal Service also combined 

six FY 2017 strategic initiatives into three strategic initiatives for FY 2018. The Postal 

Service will implement eight strategic initiatives in FY 2018.

Table IV-1

Comparison of FY 2017 and FY 2018 Strategic Initiatives

Strategic 

Goal FY 2017 Strategic Initiatives

Change 

from 

FY 2017

FY 2018 Strategic Initiatives

Deliver a

World-Class 

Customer 

Experience

Build a World-Class Customer 

Experience Combined Build a World-Class Customer Experience Create a World-Class Social Media 

Platform

Build a World-Class International 

Platform Continued Build a World-Class International Platform

Equip, 

Empower, 

and Engage 

Employees

Build a Culture of Engagement Refined Build a World-Class Employee 

Experience

Deliver a Safe Workplace Moved

Innovate 

Faster to 

Deliver Value

Accelerate Innovation to Maximize 

Business Value Continued Accelerate Innovation to Maximize Business Value

Develop an Innovation Framework Moved

Accelerate Innovation to Maximize 

Customer Value Combined

Accelerate Innovation to Create 

Customer Value and Maximize Revenue 

Implement Informed Delivery and Profit

Invest in Our 

Future 

Platforms

Optimize Network Platform Continued Optimize Network Platform

Optimize Delivery Platform

Optimize Retail and Customer Service Combined Delivery Structure Rationalization

Platform

Build a World-Class Package Platform Continued Build a World-Class Package Platform

Build a Bench of Effective Leaders Moved

Effectively Leverage Complement Moved

Source: FY 2017 Annual Report at 27-28.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 76 -

Last year, the Postal Service clarified that the strategic goals differ from the four 

performance goals discussed in annual performance plans and annual performance 

reports.81 Besides illustrating the change between FY 2017 and FY 2018 strategic 

initiatives, the FY 2017 Report also explains how each strategic initiative relates to the four 

performance goals. Tables IV-2 and IV-3 list the FY 2017 and FY 2018 strategic initiatives 

and show how each one relates to the performance goals.

Table IV-2

FY 2017 Strategic Initiatives and Related Performance Goals

FY 2017 Strategic Initiatives High-Quality 

Service

Excellent Customer 

Experiences

Safe Workplace and 

Engaged Workforce

Financial 

Health

Build a World-Class Customer 

Experience • • •

Create a World-Class Social 

Media Platform • • •

Build a World-Class 

International Platform • •

Build a Culture of 

Engagement • • • •

Deliver a Safe Workplace • • • •

Accelerate Innovation to 

Maximize Business Value • • • •

Develop an Innovation 

Framework • • • •

Accelerate Innovation to 

Maximize Customer Value •

Implement Informed Delivery • • • •

Optimize Network Platform •

Optimize Delivery Platform • • •

Optimize Retail and Customer 

Service Platform • • •

Build a World-Class Package 

Platform • • •

Build a Bench of Effective 

Leaders • • • •

Effectively Leverage 

Complement • •

Source: FY 2017 Annual Report at 28.

 

81 Docket No. ACR2016, Response of the United States Postal Service to Question 1 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 25, March 10, 2017.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 77 -

Table IV-3

FY 2018 Strategic Initiatives and Related Performance Goals

FY 2018 Strategic Initiatives

HighQuality 

Service

Excellent 

Customer 

Experiences

Safe Workplace and 

Engaged Workforce

Financial 

Health

Build a World-Class Customer 

Experience • • •

Build a World-Class International 

Platform • • •

Build a World-Class Employee 

Experience • •

Accelerate Innovation to Maximize 

Business Value • • • •

Accelerate Innovation to create 

Customer Value and Maximize 

Revenue and profit

• • • •

Optimize Network Platform • •

Delivery Structure Rationalization • • • •

Build a World-Class Package Platform • • •

Source: FY 2017 Annual Report at 28.

The Postal Service explains that “[e]ach strategic initiative has a unique set of measures to 

track performance.” FY 2017 Annual Report at 27. It states that “[t]he portfolio of 

[strategic] initiatives is dynamic and changes as priorities and resources change, and as 

programs are completed or adjusted based on external events.” Id. In a filing under seal, the 

Postal Service briefly described each FY 2017 and FY 2018 strategic initiative and provided 

the performance measures the Postal Service used or will use to track performance in 

FY 2017 and FY 2018.82 The Postal Service also included FY 2017 and FY 2018 targets and 

results. Id.

B. Comments

The Public Representative comments that the FY 2017 Report contains a brief discussion of 

the Postal Service’s strategic initiatives. PR Comments at 8. She states that there is a table 

that compares FY 2017 and FY 2018 strategic initiatives and links each one to the strategic 

goals and performance goals. Id. She asserts that this table is an improvement over the 

table provided in the FY 2016 Report because the FY 2017 Report includes strategic 

initiatives for FY 2018 as the Commission recommended. Id. at 8-9.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service states that it appreciates the Public 

Representative’s acknowledgment that the FY 2017 Report improved compared to last year.

 

82 February 6 Response to CHIR No. 9, question 15; see Library Reference USPS–FY17–NP39, February 6, 2018.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 78 -

Postal Service Reply Comments at 8-9. It asserts that the strategic initiatives “are not a 

critical component of the Performance Report and Performance Plan.” Id. at 9.

C. Commission Analysis

The Postal Service adopted two key Commission recommendations on strategic initiatives. 

First, the Postal Service included information on strategic initiatives in the FY 2017 Report

and linked them to the performance goals. The Postal Service’s Annual Report to Congress

consists of three documents: the annual report, the annual performance report and annual 

performance plan, and the comprehensive statement on postal operations. See FY 2017 

Annual Report at 2. Since FY 2013, the Postal Service has included strategic initiatives in the 

comprehensive statement on postal operations rather than in annual performance reports 

and annual performance plans.83 In past analyses of annual performance reports and 

annual performance plans, the Commission recommended that the Postal Service discuss 

strategic initiatives in annual performance reports and annual performance plans instead 

of in the comprehensive statement on postal operations. See, e.g., FY 2016 Analysis at 81.

The Postal Service adopted the Commission’s recommendation by including information on 

strategic initiatives in the FY 2017 Report rather than in the FY 2017 comprehensive 

statement on postal operations. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 27-28.

Second, for each strategic initiative, the Postal Service included a unique performance 

measure that only measures performance for that strategic initiative. In past years, several 

strategic initiatives were tracked using the same performance measure. For example, the 

Postal Service used the same performance measure to track seven strategic initiatives in 

FY 2016.84 In its FY 2016 Analysis, the Commission recommended that the Postal Service 

use performance measures that link to only one strategic initiative. Id. at 81. The 

Commission explained that having unique performance measures for each strategic 

initiative would allow the Postal Service to make targeted changes when results indicate 

that a strategic initiative is not generating expected benefits. Id.

The Postal Service adopted this recommendation. For each strategic initiative for FY 2017 

and FY 2018, the Postal Service identifies under seal several performance measures that 

only measure performance for that strategic initiative. See n. 82, supra. These performance 

measures are uniquely linked to the strategic initiative they support, with no overlap with 

performance measures of other strategic initiatives. These performance measures are also 

tailored specifically to the strategic initiative they support.

The Commission finds that the discussion of strategic initiatives and related performance 

measures improved compared to past years.

 

83 See FY 2016 Annual Report at 71; FY 2015 Annual Report at 65; United States Postal Service FY 2014 Annual Report to Congress at 73; see

Library Reference USPS–FY14–17, December 29, 2014; United States Postal Service FY 2013 Annual Report to Congress at 67; see Library 

Reference USPS–FY13–17, December 29, 2013.

84 See FY 2016 Analysis at 78. These performance measures were called “cross-portfolio performance indicators.” Id.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 79 -

The Commission observes that strategic initiatives have evolved over time into programs 

that are less related to the performance goals and more related to the strategic goals. The 

Postal Service introduced strategic initiatives in FY 2010 to respond to the Commission’s 

request that the Postal Service provide more information on the performance of individual 

programs and how the programs relate to the performance goals.85 Since then, strategic 

initiatives appear to have evolved into programs that are designed to support the Postal 

Service’s strategic goals rather than the performance goals.

86 For example, the Postal 

Service states that the purpose of the strategic initiatives is to achieve the strategic goals. 

FY 2017 Annual Report at 27. Also, the performance measures, targets, and results for 

strategic initiatives are distinct metrics that differ from the performance goals and 

performance indicators and appear to function independently as projects.

The Postal Service filed performance measures, targets, and results for strategic initiatives 

under seal. It states that “[t]he portfolio of initiatives is dynamic and changes as priorities 

and resources change, and as programs are completed or adjusted based on external 

events.” FY 2017 Annual Report at 27. These factors make it difficult to analyze the strategic 

initiatives and make observations and recommendations “related to the protection or 

promotion of public policy objectives” in title 39 as required by 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d).

The Commission appreciates that the Postal Service included information on strategic 

initiatives in the FY 2017 Report as the Commission recommended. The Commission’s 

analysis under 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d) requires it to evaluate the Postal Service’s performance 

goals rather than its strategic goals.

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service evaluate the current connection between 

strategic initiatives and performance goals. If strategic initiatives continue to support the 

performance goals, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue including 

strategic initiatives in annual performance reports. In that case, the FY 2018 Report should 

explain how strategic initiatives relate to the Postal Service’s performance goals and 

performance indicators. The FY 2018 Report should also include a table similar to the one in 

the FY 2017 Report showing changes between FY 2018 and FY 2019 strategic initiatives and 

linking each one to the performance goals. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 28. The Postal 

Service should also briefly describe each strategic initiative without revealing non-public 

information.

If the Postal Service determines that there is minimal connection between strategic initiatives 

and performance goals, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service replace the 

 

85 Foundation for the Future: 2010 Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations at 51 (FY 2010 Comprehensive Statement); see Docket 

No. ACR2010, Library Reference USPS–FY10–17, December 29, 2010.

86 In its FY 2014 Analysis, the Commission describes how strategic initiatives have evolved since the Postal Service first introduced them in 

FY 2010. FY 2014 Analysis at 51.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2018 Performance Plan

- 80 -

discussion of strategic initiatives in the FY 2018 Report with a description of individual 

programs supporting the performance goals. The FY 2018 Report should explain how these 

individual programs will help achieve the performance goals and how the Postal Service 

evaluates the performance or effectiveness of these programs.

For example, in Chapter 3, the Commission directs the FY 2019 Plan to include timelines for 

implementing programs that will help meet the DPTWH % Change target. See Chapter 3, 

section D.3.a.(2), supra. The Postal Service could explain how these programs will help 

meet the target and how the Postal Service will evaluate the effectiveness of these 

programs.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2018 Performance Plan Page 1 of 9

Appendix: Commission Findings and 

Recommendations

Chapter 2 - Compliance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804:

 The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report have improved 

significantly compared to past years. The Commission recommends the Postal Service 

retain these changes in future annual performance plans and annual performance 

reports. Chapter 2 at 8.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a) by 

“covering each program activity set forth in the Postal Service budget... .” To comply 

with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a) next year, the FY 2019 Plan must again identify all program 

activities in the FY 2019 IFP and explain how the FY 2019 Plan covers each one by 

relating each program activity to one or more performance goals or indicators.87Id.

at 10.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1) 

because the FY 2018 Plan sets targets for each performance indicator the Postal 

Service will use in FY 2018 or explains why a target is not set. In future annual 

performance plans, if the Postal Service does not set a target for a performance 

indicator, it should continue to provide a reasoned explanation for not setting a target.

Id. at 11.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803. Id. at 12.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1). To 

comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 2018 Report must set forth the 

same performance indicators and targets in the FY 2018 Plan and compare FY 2018 

results with FY 2018 targets for each performance indicator. The FY 2018 Report must 

express results for each performance indicator that are comparable to the targets the 

Postal Service set in the FY 2018 Plan. Id. at 13.

 

87 Alternatively, the Postal Service could identify all program activities in the applicable congressional budget submission, explain how the 

FY 2019 Plan covers each one, and provide a crosswalk relating the program activities between the FY 2019 IFP and congressional budget 

submission.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2018 Performance Plan Page 2 of 9

 The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report “include[s] actual results for the three

preceding fiscal years” and thus complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for the High-Quality 

Service, Excellent Customer Experiences, and Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce 

performance goals. Id. at 14.

 The FY 2017 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for the Financial Health 

performance goal. To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2018 Report 

must include comparable DPTWH % Change results calculated and expressed using 

the same methodology for, at a minimum, FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Id. at 15.

 To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2018 Report must include 

comparable FY 2018 results for new performance indicators. For all other 

performance indicators, annual performance reports must include comparable results 

from the past three fiscal years as required by 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c). Specifically, the 

Postal Service must provide comparable results if it replaces a performance indicator 

or changes the methodology for calculating results of an existing performance 

indicator. To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2018 Report must 

include comparable results for each performance indicator for, at a minimum, 

FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Id.

 To be comparable, results for each fiscal year must be calculated and expressed using 

the same performance indicator or methodology. If comparable results cannot be 

provided, the FY 2018 Report must explain why results are not directly comparable 

across these fiscal years. In that case, the FY 2018 Report must either explain how to 

compare results between the old and new methodologies or explain why making this 

comparison is not feasible. Id.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2804(d)(1), 

(2), and (4). Id. at 16.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) for 

the High-Quality Service and Excellent Customer Experiences performance goals. Id.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(d)(3) for the Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce and Financial Health 

performance goals. The Commission reiterates that “plans and schedules” for meeting 

performance goals under 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3)(B) must be designed to meet 

applicable performance indicator targets. These plans and schedules must also include 

specific timelines if they fall outside of the fiscal year covered by the annual 

performance plan. See FY 2015 Analysis at 15. If the Postal Service does not meet 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2018 Performance Plan Page 3 of 9

FY 2018 target(s), the FY 2018 Report must describe specific plans for improving 

performance that are designed to meet FY 2019 target(s). These plans must also 

include timelines for implementing programs that will help meet FY 2019 target(s). Id. 

at 17.

 Because the Postal Service provided FY 2018 targets, the Commission finds that the 

FY 2018 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1), which requires annual 

performance plans to set targets for each performance indicator. Id.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1), 

(c), and (d)(3) with respect to the non-public performance indicators. Id. at 18.

 To ensure that the FY 2019 Plan and FY 2018 Report comply with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 

and 2804, respectively, the Postal Service must file under seal with the FY 2018 ACR: 

(1) FY 2018 and FY 2019 targets; and (2) comparable results from FY 2015 through 

FY 2018 for each non-public performance indicator. If the Postal Service does not meet 

a FY 2018 target, the Postal Service must explain why and describe the plans and 

schedules for meeting FY 2019 targets. Id.

 The Commission reiterates its recommendation that the Postal Service not change 

performance indicators, targets, or methodologies once they are established in the 

annual performance plan. See FY 2016 Analysis at 18. To ensure meaningful 

comparisons across fiscal years, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service

limit the number of performance indicator or methodology changes made. The Postal 

Service should implement a performance indicator or methodology change for three

consecutive fiscal years before revising it unless the change is clearly not beneficial or 

effective. Id. at 19.

 If the Postal Service decides to add a new performance indicator or change the 

methodology for an existing performance indicator, the Commission recommends that 

the Postal Service provide the rationale for these changes in future annual 

performance plans and annual performance reports. Id.

Chapter 3 – Evaluation of Performance Goals:

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service either did not meet or only partially met 

its performance goals in FY 2017. Chapter 3 at 20.

 The Commission finds the Postal Service’s explanation of why it partially met the 

Excellent Customer Experiences goal an improvement over past years. If the Postal 

Service partially meets or does not meet the Excellent Customer Experiences goal in 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2018 Performance Plan Page 4 of 9

FY 2018, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service provide a similar 

explanation by identifying each performance indicator that did not meet its FY 2018 

target and providing a reason based on the underlying customer survey. Id. at 22.

High-Quality Service:

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met the High-Quality Service 

performance goal in FY 2017. The Commission finds that the discussion of the 

High-Quality Service performance goal in the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan 

improved compared to past years. The Commission recommends that the Postal 

Service continue to provide these types of explanations in future annual performance 

plans and annual performance reports. Id. at 27.

 As discussed in Chapter 2, to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2018 

Report must include comparable results for each performance indicator for, at a 

minimum, FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. To be comparable, results for each fiscal 

year must be calculated and expressed using the same performance indicator or 

methodology. For the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day) performance 

indicators, the FY 2018 Report must express results for FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 

2018 using data for letters, postcards, and flats only and excluding parcels. If 

comparable results cannot be provided, the FY 2018 Report must explain why results 

are not directly comparable across these fiscal years. In that case, the FY 2018 Report 

must either explain how to compare results between the old and new methodologies or 

explain why making this comparison is not feasible. Id.

 Given that the FY 2017 result for the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day)

performance indicator is substantially further from the target than any other 

performance indicator and that the Postal Service sets the target each year, the 

Commission recommends that the Postal Service revisit this performance indicator

target in the FY 2019 Plan if the Postal Service does not meet the FY 2018 target. Id. 

at 30.

 In the FY 2018 Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service provide 

the volumes of First-Class Mail letters and flats used to measure the FCLF Composite 

performance indicator. The Postal Service should provide the volumes of USPS 

Marketing Mail letters, USPS Marketing Mail flats, and Periodicals mailpieces used to 

measure the Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite performance indicator. The 

Commission also recommends utilizing at least one performance indicator that reflects 

solely the performance of flats. Id. at 32.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2018 Performance Plan Page 5 of 9

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service’s plans for improving performance 

demonstrate initiatives that should support continued service improvement. The 

Commission recommends that the FY 2018 Report provide a similar level of detail for 

plans and schedules to improve performance if the Postal Service does not meet the 

High-Quality Service performance goal in FY 2018. Id. at 34.

Excellent Customer Experiences:

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met the Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance goal in FY 2017. The Commission finds that the discussion of 

the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal in the FY 2018 Plan and 

FY 2017 Report improved compared to past years. The Commission recommends that 

the Postal Service retain these changes in future annual performance plans and 

annual performance reports. Id. at 39.

 To ensure meaningful and accurate comparisons across fiscal years, the FY 2018 

Report must include comparable results for each performance indicator, including 

Delivery, or provide an explanation as described in more detail in Chapter 3. Id. at 40.

 The Commission finds that the Large Business performance indicator will help the 

Postal Service track the effectiveness of programs designed to accomplish 

improvements in large business customer satisfaction. Id. at 41.

 The Commission finds that adding both the Large Business and BMEU performance 

indicators is an improvement because both additions should provide a more complete 

view of business customer experiences. Id. at 42.

 Because millions of customers interact with the Postal Service through its website, the 

Commission finds that adding the USPS.com performance indicator is an improvement 

because it ensures that the Postal Service consider digital customer experiences when 

measuring customer satisfaction. Id.

 If the Postal Service decides to add a new performance indicator or change the 

methodology for an existing performance indicator, the Commission recommends that 

the Postal Service provide the rationale for these changes in future annual 

performance plans and annual performance reports. Id. at 44.

 The Commission recommends the Postal Service add a Business Composite 

performance indicator consisting of the Large Business, BMEU, BSN, and Delivery 

(Small/Medium Business) components. Id.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2018 Performance Plan Page 6 of 9

 The Commission finds that the FY 2018 CCC performance indicator methodology 

change is an improvement because it evaluates customer satisfaction with both live 

agents and the IVR system, which resolves most of the CCC calls. Id. at 45.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2018 eCC performance indicator methodology 

change is an improvement compared to FY 2017. Id. at 46.

 To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 2018 Report must set forth the 

same Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicators and targets as in the 

FY 2018 Plan and compare FY 2018 results with FY 2018 targets for each performance 

indicator. FY 2018 results must be comparable to the targets set in the FY 2018 Plan. 

Specifically, the FY 2018 Report must provide comparable FY 2018 results for the new 

performance indicators (Large Business, USPS.com, and BMEU). The FY 2018 Report 

must also express comparable FY 2018 results for the CI Composite Score, Delivery, 

CCC, and eCC performance indicators using the new methodologies. Id.

 For all other Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicators, the FY 2018 

Report must include comparable results for each performance indicator for, at a 

minimum, FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next 

year. Because the Postal Service changed the methodology for calculating results of 

the CI Composite Score, Delivery, CCC, and eCC performance indicators, the FY 2018 

Report must express results for FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 using the same 

methodology. If comparable results cannot be provided, the FY 2018 Report must 

explain why results are not directly comparable across these fiscal years. In that case, 

the FY 2018 Report must either explain how to compare results between the old and 

new methodologies or explain why making this comparison is not feasible. Id. at 47.

 To provide comparable results in the FY 2018 Report, the Commission recommends 

that the Postal Service take a similar approach by calculating the Delivery 

performance indicator results for FYs 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 using the new 

(FY 2018) methodology. Id.

Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce: 

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service did not meet the Safe Workplace and 

Engaged Workforce performance goal in FY 2017. Id. at 52.

 To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) next year, if the Postal Service misses one or 

more FY 2018 targets for the Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2018 Performance Plan Page 7 of 9

goal, the FY 2018 Report must explain why this goal was not met and describe the 

Postal Service’s plans and schedules for achieving the goal in future years. Id.

 The Commission reiterates its recommendation that the Postal Service use a 

workplace safety performance indicator for which results are final and not revised 

after the end of the fiscal year. Id. at 54.

 The Commission reiterates its recommendation that the Postal Service establish 

another workplace safety performance indicator measuring the number of motor 

vehicle accidents or motor vehicle accident rate. Id. at 55.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue using mirror stations 

and hot spot boards to help prevent accidents. Id. at 57.

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service’s discussion of employee engagement in 

the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan improved compared to past years. Id. at 58.

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service’s explanation clarifies how the Postal 

Pulse survey was administered and how the Postal Service calculates the Survey 

Response Rate results. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service include 

this information in future annual performance reports. Id. at 59.

 If the Postal Service does not meet the FY 2018 Survey Response Rate target, the 

Commission recommends that the Postal Service set a more realistic and achievable 

target in the FY 2019 Plan. Id. at 60.

Financial Health:

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service did not meet the Financial Health 

performance goal in FY 2017. Id. at 65.

 The Commission finds that changes to the discussion of the DPTWH % Change improve 

the transparency and utility of the FY 2017 Report by helping interested persons better 

understand this performance indicator and how the Postal Service calculates results.

Id.

 The Commission finds that using full instead of partial year Sunday delivery stops is an 

improvement to the methodology for calculating the DPTWH % Change results. The 

Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to use full year Sunday 

delivery stops when calculating the DPTWH % Change results. Id. at 66.
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2018 Performance Plan Page 8 of 9

 To ensure comparability of results, the FY 2018 Report must calculate and express the 

DPTWH % Change results using the same methodology (including full year Sunday 

delivery data) for, at a minimum, FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. If comparable 

results cannot be provided, the FY 2018 Report must explain why results are not 

directly comparable across these fiscal years. In that case, the FY 2018 Report must 

either explain how to compare results between the former and new methodologies or 

explain why making this comparison is not feasible. Id. at 67.

 If the FY 2018 DPTWH % Change target is not met in FY 2018, the Commission 

recommends that the Postal Service set a more realistic and achievable target in the 

FY 2019 Plan. Id.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(d)(3) for the Financial Health performance goal. To comply with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(d)(3) next year, if the Postal Service does not meet the FY 2018 DPTWH % 

Change target, the FY 2018 Report must describe specific plans designed to meet the 

FY 2019 DPTWH % Change target. The FY 2019 Plan must also include timelines for 

implementing programs that will help meet this target. Id. at 69.

 The Commission finds that information on the Controllable Income (Loss) performance 

indicator improves the transparency and utility of the FY 2017 Report by helping 

interested persons better understand the components of the Controllable Income 

(Loss) and how the Postal Service calculates targets and results. The Commission 

recommends that the Postal Service continue to include this information in future 

annual performance plans and annual performance reports. Id.

Strategic Initiatives:

 The Commission finds that the discussion of strategic initiatives and related 

performance measures improved compared to past years. Chapter 4 at 77.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service evaluate the current connection 

between strategic initiatives and performance goals. If strategic initiatives continue to 

support the performance goals, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

continue including strategic initiatives in annual performance reports. In that case, the 

FY 2018 Report should explain how strategic initiatives relate to the Postal Service’s 

performance goals and performance indicators. The FY 2018 Report should also 

include a table similar to the one in the FY 2017 Report showing changes between 

FY 2018 and FY 2019 strategic initiatives and linking each one to the performance 
Analysis of FY 2017 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2018 Performance Plan Page 9 of 9

goals. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 28. The Postal Service should also briefly describe 

each strategic initiative without revealing non-public information. Id. at 78.

 If the Postal Service determines that there is minimal connection between strategic 

initiatives and performance goals, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

replace the discussion of strategic initiatives in the FY 2018 Report with a description 

of individual programs supporting the performance goals. The FY 2018 Report should 

explain how these individual programs will help achieve the performance goals and 

how the Postal Service evaluates the performance or effectiveness of these programs.

Id. at 78-79.