POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

Analysis of the Postal 

Service’s FY 2018 Annual

Performance Report and 

FY 2019 Performance Plan

May 13, 2019

Postal Regulatory Commission

Submitted 5/13/2019 12:55:13 PM

Filing ID: 109068

Accepted 5/13/2019
- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

B. The FY 2019 Plan and FY 2018 Report............................................................................4

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

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

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

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

1. FY 2019 Plan ................................................................................................................9

2. FY 2018 Report........................................................................................................ 12

3. Non-Public Performance Indicators ................................................................ 19

4. FY 2019 Performance Indicator Changes ...................................................... 20

CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE GOALS...................................................................... 22

A. High-Quality Service............................................................................................................. 24

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 24

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 26

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 27

B. Excellent Customer Experiences ..................................................................................... 34

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 34

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 42

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 42

C. Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce..................................................................... 55

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 55

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 58

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 59

D. Financial Health ..................................................................................................................... 68

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 68

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 70

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 70

CHAPTER 4: STRATEGIC INITIATIVES...................................................................................................... 79

A. Background.............................................................................................................................. 79

B. Commission Analysis ........................................................................................................... 83

Appendix—Commission Findings and Recommendations
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Executive Summary

and FY 2019 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 28, 

2018, the Postal Service filed its fiscal year (FY) 2019 annual performance plan (FY 2019

Plan) and FY 2018 annual performance report (FY 2018 Report) in Docket No. ACR2018. 

The FY 2019 Plan reviews the Postal Service’s plans for FY 2019. The FY 2018 Report 

discusses the Postal Service’s progress during FY 2018 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 2019 Plan and 

FY 2018 Report. In Chapter 2, the Commission evaluates whether the FY 2019 Plan and 

FY 2018 Report comply with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. The Commission finds that the 

FY 2019 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803, and the FY 2018 Report meets most of the 

requirements of 39 U.S.C. § 2804.

Last year, the Commission found that the FY 2018 annual performance plan and FY 2017

annual performance report improved significantly compared to past years. The Postal 

Service retained many of these improvements in the FY 2019 Plan and FY 2018 Report. 

However, there are several legal compliance issues with the FY 2018 Report related to the 

comparability of FY 2018 targets and results, the comparability of the results from the past 

three fiscal years, and the explanations for why goals were not met. These issues are 

discussed in Chapter 2.

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

goal in FY 2018 as required by 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d). The Postal Service did not meet or only

partially met each performance goal in FY 2018. The Commission provides related 

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

meet the performance 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 and relate 

to the performance goals.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2019 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 2019 Plan 

and FY 2018 Report in its FY 2018 Annual Report to Congress, which the Postal Service filed 

as a library reference in Docket No. ACR2018.2

The FY 2018 Report discusses the Postal Service’s progress in meeting its performance 

goals during FY 2018. The FY 2019 Plan reviews the Postal Service’s plans for meeting its 

performance goals in FY 2019. 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 2018 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 2019, 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 2015 through FY 2018, and targets for FY 2018 and FY 2019. Results of 

some performance indicators were recast to be comparable across FYs 2015 through 

FY 2018.

 

1 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803, 2804, and 3652(g); 39 C.F.R. § 3050.43.

2 United States Postal Service FY 2018 Annual Report to Congress at 15-32; see Library Reference USPS–FY18–17, December 28, 2018 (FY 2018

Annual Report). This Analysis cites to pages from the FY 2018 Annual Report when referring to the FY 2018 Report and FY 2019 Plan.

3 FY 2018 Annual Report at 15. These are the same performance goals the Postal Service used in FY 2017. United States Postal Service FY 2017

Annual Report to Congress at 13; see Docket No. ACR2017, Library Reference USPS–FY17–17, December 29, 2017 (FY 2017 Annual Report).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 3 -

Table I-1

Performance Goals by Performance Indicators

Targets and Results

Performance 

Goal Performance Indicator

FY TARGETS

FY RESULTS 

2019 2018 2018 2017 2016 2015

High-Quality 

Servicea

Single-Piece 

First-Class Mailb

2-Day 96.50% 96.50% 93.78% 94.74% 94.71% 93.35%

3-5-Day 95.25% 95.25% 82.48% 85.57% 83.69% 76.58%

Presorted

First-Class Mail

Overnight 96.80% 96.80% 96.00% 96.46% 96.16% 95.74%

2-Day 96.50% 96.50% 94.92% 95.58% 95.05% 93.56%

3-5-Day 95.25% 95.25% 91.96% 93.16% 91.68% 87.78%

First-Class Mail Letter and Flat Composite 96.00% 96.00% 92.07% 93.29% 92.34% 89.44%

USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite 91.80% 91.80% 89.26% 91.44% 90.01% 86.77%

Excellent 

Customer 

Experiencesc

Customer Experience Composite Indexd 80.00 80.93 67.47 88.30 87.62 85.73

Business Service Networke 96.73% 96.73% 96.68% 96.25% 95.13% 94.32%

Point of Sale 90.42% 90.42% 87.98% 88.53% 86.38% 86.28%

Delivery 86.33 86.33 80.47 83.22 76.26 77.49

Customer Care Center 55.00 69.17% 39.19 86.80% 85.18% 76.00%

Enterprise Customer Caref 70.00 70.00 36.73% 35.83% N/A N/A

Business Mail Entry Unit 95.13% 95.00% 95.33% N/A N/A N/A

USPS.com 65.00% 66.33% 57.54% N/A N/A N/A

Large Business N/A 78.00% 72.34% N/A N/A N/A

Safe 

Workplace

and Engaged

Workforce

Total Accident Rateg 15.00 15.00 15.24 15.74 16.12 16.28

Survey Response Rate 51% 75% 42% 46% 30% 47%

Grand Mean Engagement Scoreh N/A N/A 3.34 3.25 3.24 3.16

Financial 

Health

Deliveries per Total Workhours % Change 1.4% 2.1% (0.5)% (0.5)% 0.1% 0.2%

Controllable Income (Loss) $ in billions ($3.10) ($1.40) ($2.0) ($0.81) $0.61 $1.19

N/A – Not used as a performance indicator for that fiscal year

a Table I-1 lists targets and results for public performance indicators measuring High-Quality Service for Market Dominant products. The Postal Service filed 

under seal information for performance indicators measuring High-Quality Service for certain Competitive products. See Library Reference USPS–FY18–

NP30, December 28, 2018.

b Single-Piece First-Class Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day) results were recast based on performance data for letters, postcards, and flats only, and excluding

parcels. See Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-4 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 10, February 14, 2019, question 3.a.ii. 

(Responses to CHIR No. 10).

c Results of these performance indicators are comparable except for the Customer Experience Composite Index, Delivery, and Customer Care Center

performance indicators. Methodologies and comparability issues for performance indicators measuring progress toward the Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance goal are discussed in Chapter 3, section B.3., infra.

d The Customer Experience Composite Index was formerly called the Customer Insights Composite Score. FY 2018 Annual Report at 19 n.2.

e Business Service Network results were recast based on customers’ overall satisfaction with the service provided by the Business Service Network

representative. See Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.b.

f Enterprise Customer Care results were recast based on customers’ overall experience with the quality of service received in response to the issue. See 

Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-14 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 2, January 28, 2019, question 7.b.ii. (Responses to 

CHIR No. 2). FY 2017 results reflect Quarter 4 data only. Id.

g The Total Accident Rate results in Table I-1 differ from those provided in the FY 2018 Annual Report because numbers change weekly due to late reporting.

See Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-9 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 13, February 21, 2019, question 5 (Responses 

CHIR No. 13).

h See Chapter 3, section C.3.b.(2)., infra. The Grand Mean Engagement Score was not used as a performance indicator in FY 2018. FY 2018 Annual Report at 

22. The Postal Service explained that it does not set targets for the Grand Mean Engagement Score because targets do not incentivize managers to 

encourage honest survey feedback. FY 2017 Annual Report at 20 n.3.

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 17, 26; Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 7.b.ii; Responses to CHIR No. 10, questions 3.a.ii., 3.b.; United States Postal 

Service Reply Comments Regarding FY 2018 Performance Report and FY 2019 Performance Plan, February 22, 2019, at 5 (Postal Service Reply Comments).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2019 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 performance 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 2019 Plan and FY 2018 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 2019 Plan and FY 2018 Report separately from the FY 2018 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. 4967 at 2-3.

Several CHIRs were issued seeking clarification of the FY 2019 Plan and FY 2018 Report.

7

 

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; 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; 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); Docket No. ACR2017, Postal 

Regulatory Commission, Analysis of the Postal Service’s FY 2017 Annual Performance Report and FY 2018 Performance Plan, April 26, 2018 

(FY 2017 Analysis).

5 See Annual Compliance Determination Report, Fiscal Year 2018, April 12, 2019 (FY 2018 ACD).

6 Notice Regarding the Postal Service FY 2018 Annual Performance Report and FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan, January 3, 2019 (Order 

No. 4967).

7 Chairman's Information Request No. 2, January 10, 2019 (CHIR No. 2); Chairman's Information Request No. 10, February 7, 2019 (CHIR No. 10); 

Chairman's Information Request No. 13, February 14, 2019 (CHIR No. 13); Chairman's Information Request No. 16, February 21, 2019 (CHIR 

No. 16); Chairman’s Information Request No. 21, March 5, 2019 (CHIR No. 21); Chairman's Information Request No. 26, April 5, 2019 (CHIR 

No. 26).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 5 -

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

submitted comments,

9 which the Postal Service addressed in reply comments. See Postal 

Service Reply Comments.

The Commission analyzes the FY 2019 Plan and FY 2018 Report in the following chapters:

 Chapter 2 analyzes the FY 2019 Plan and FY 2018 Report for compliance 

with legal requirements.

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

goals in FY 2018 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.

 

8 Responses to CHIR No. 2; Responses to CHIR No. 10; Responses to CHIR No. 13; Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-4

of Chairman’s Information Request No. 16, February 27, 2019 (Responses to CHIR No. 16); Responses of the United States Postal Service to 

Questions 1-2 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 21, March 12, 2019 (Responses to CHIR No. 21); Response of the United States Postal 

Service to Question 1 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 26, April 8, 2019 (Response to CHIR No. 26).

9 Public Representative Comments on the FY 2018 Performance Report and FY 2019 Performance Plan, February 8, 2019 (PR Comments).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 6 -

CHAPTER 2: COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL 

REQUIREMENTS

A. Legal Requirements

The FY 2019 Plan and FY 2018 Report must meet the requirements of 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 

2804.10 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[,]”

11 and must:

 Establish performance goals that define the performance level to be 

achieved by a program activity.

 Express the performance goals in an objective, quantifiable, and 

measurable form unless an alternative form is used.12

 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). Annual performance plans may aggregate, disaggregate, or 

consolidate program activities as long as doing so does not omit or minimize the 

 

10 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).

11 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.

12 See 39 U.S.C. § 2803(b). 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. Id. The alternative form must either: (1) include separate 

descriptive statements of a minimally effective program and a successful program, with sufficient precision and in such terms to allow for an 

accurate, independent determination of whether the program activity’s performance meets the criteria of either descriptive statement; 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 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 7 -

significance of any program activity constituting a major function or operation. Id.

§ 2803(c).

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

reports. First, annual performance reports must evaluate 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.”13 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 2019 Plan) relative to the performance achieved toward those goals in the year covered 

by the performance report (in this case, the FY 2018 Report). Id. § 2804(d)(2). Fifth, if the 

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

why the goal was not met and describe plans and schedules for achieving the performance 

goal.14 Sixth, 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 FY 2019 Plan meets the requirements of 

39 U.S.C. § 2803 because it “identifies all program activities in the FY 2019 Integrated 

Financial Plan [IFP] and explains how the FY 2019 Plan covers each one by relating each 

program activity to performance goals or indicators.” PR Comments at 8 (emphasis added). 

She asserts that the FY 2018 Report includes almost all information required by 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804 except for actual results for the three preceding fiscal years for the Excellent 

Customer Experiences performance indicators. Id.

The Postal Service measures overall progress toward the Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance goal using the Customer Experience (CX) Composite Index as one of the 

performance indicators. FY 2018 Annual Report at 19. The CX Composite Index is a 

weighted composite of several component performance indicators that also measure 

progress toward the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal.15 In its reply 

 

13 Id. § 2804(b)(1). If performance goals are specified in an alternative form by descriptive statements of a minimally effective program activity 

and a success program activity, annual performance reports must describe results of these program activities in relation to these categories, 

including whether the performance failed to meet the criteria of either category. Id. § 2804(b)(2); see id. § 2803(b).

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

further action. Id. § 2804(d)(3)(C).

15 See Chapter 3, section B.1.b., infra.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 8 -

comments, the Postal Service explains that because the CX Composite Index is a composite, 

each component performance indicator may change year-to-year based on the best 

available customer touchpoints. Postal Service Reply Comments at 6. For example, the 

USPS.com and Business Mail Entry Unit (BMEU) subcomponents were added to the CX 

Composite Index in FY 2018. Id. The Postal Service maintains that it “is striving to maintain 

comparability in performance measurement, while working to improve the effectiveness of 

performance evaluation.” Id.

The Postal Service asserts that the FY 2018 Report does meet the requirements of section 

2804 because it includes CX Composite Index results for FYs 2015 through 2017. Id. at 6. 

The Postal Service states that it has maintained comparability for the CX Composite Index 

for these fiscal years because each year’s results are relative to a 15-cell matrix.16 In a CHIR 

response, the Postal Service provides CX Composite Index results for FYs 2015 through 

FY 2018 mapped to a 15-cell matrix, which are shown in Table II-1. Responses to CHIR 

No. 21, question 1. Results for FYs 2015, 2016, and 2017 are highlighted in yellow. The 

FY 2018 result (67.47) is not highlighted because the Postal Service states that the result 

ended the year below the value for Cell Block 1 (68.46). Id.

Table II-1

Customer Experience Composite Index

Mapping of Results to 15-Cell Matrix, FY 2015 through FY 2018

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

FY 2018 68.46 69.35 70.30 73.88 77.38 80.90 81.95 83.01 83.94 84.89 85.88 86.89 87.90 88.93 90.02

FY 2017 80.00 83.00 86.00 87.70 88.30 89.00 90.00 92.00 93.00 94.00 95.00 96.00 97.00 98.00 99.00

FY 2016 85.70 85.80 85.90 86.00 86.35 86.70 87.45 88.20 88.95 90.00 91.00 92.00 93.00 94.00 95.00

FY 2015 72.00 76.00 79.00 82.00 84.00 86.70 89.20 91.60 93.60 95.00 96.00 97.00 98.00 99.00 99.50

Source: Responses to CHIR No. 21, question 1.

C. Commission Analysis

In the FY 2017 Analysis, the Commission found that the FY 2018 annual performance plan 

(FY 2018 Plan) and FY 2017 annual performance report (FY 2017 Report) improved 

significantly compared to past years. FY 2017 Analysis at 9. The FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 

Report addressed major issues identified by the Commission in past analyses. Id. at 8. The 

Postal Service also adopted some of the Commission’s recommendations, such as listing the 

same performance indicators and targets from the prior annual performance plan and 

describing changes to performance indicators and methodologies for calculating results. Id.

 

16 Id.; see Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.b. (explaining the methodology for calculating the CX Composite Index result).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 9 -

These efforts promoted clarity and consistency between annual performance plans and 

annual performance reports as well as improved transparency by helping interested 

persons identify and understand when performance indicators changed. Id.

The FY 2018 Plan and FY 2017 Report contained almost all information necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. Id. This helped facilitate the 

Commission’s review, significantly reduced the number of CHIRs, and resulted in a more 

thorough annual performance plan and annual performance report. Id. The FY 2018 Plan

was the first annual performance plan the Commission reviewed that met all the 

requirements of 39 U.S.C. § 2803. Id. at 9. The FY 2017 Report addressed two major legal

issues that had been problematic in past annual performance reports. Id. at 12. The 

Commission recommended that the Postal Service retain these changes in future annual 

performance plans and annual performance reports. Id. at 9.

This year, the Postal Service retained many of these changes in the FY 2019 Plan and 

FY 2018 Report. They contain almost all the information required for the Commission to 

evaluate compliance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804, which reduces the number of CHIRs 

and results in a more thorough annual performance plan and annual performance report. 

As discussed below, the FY 2019 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803 and the Commission’s 

directive to identify program activities and relate them to the performance goals.

The FY 2018 Report retains some improvements made last year, such as listing the same 

performance indicators and targets as the FY 2018 Plan17 and describing changes to 

performance indicators and methodologies for calculating results. See FY 2018 Annual 

Report at 17 nn. 4-7, 21. However, the FY 2018 Report contains several legal compliance 

issues related to the comparability of FY 2018 targets and results, the comparability of the 

results from the past three fiscal years, and the explanations for why goals were not met.

1. FY 2019 Plan

The FY 2019 Plan is the second annual performance plan the Commission has reviewed that 

meets all requirements of 39 U.S.C. § 2803. The Commission appreciates that the FY 2019 

Plan includes all information required for the Commission to evaluate compliance with 

39 U.S.C. § 2803.

First, the FY 2019 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 

 

17 Compare FY 2018 Annual Report at 17 with FY 2017 Annual Report at 14.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 10 -

IFP. See FY 2016 Analysis at 13. In the FY 2017 Analysis, the Commission stated that to 

comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a), the FY 2019 Plan must “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.”

18

In the FY 2019 Plan, the Postal Service explains that FY 2019 targets for each performance 

indicator are aligned with the FY 2019 IFP, which includes the Postal Service’s planned 

revenue and expenses for FY 2019. FY 2018 Annual Report at 15. 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 controllable income [loss] outlined in the IFP.” Id. Controllable Income 

(Loss) is a performance indicator for the Financial Health performance goal and is 

calculated as total revenue less controllable expenses and one-time accounting 

adjustments. Id. The FY 2019 Plan identifies the 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 2019

Plan includes information for each program activity in a table listing actual revenue and 

expenses for FY 2018 and planned revenue and expenses for FY 2019. See id. at 25. 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 for the Financial Health performance 

goal. Id. at 16.

The FY 2019 Plan discusses the IFP, defines “program activity,” and identifies the program 

activities in the FY 2019 IFP. The Postal Service complies with the Commission’s directive 

to relate the program activities to the performance goals because it links the program 

activities to the performance indicators under the Financial Health performance goal 

(Controllable Income (Loss) and DPTWH % Change).

Thus, the Commission finds that the FY 2019 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 2020 annual performance plan (FY 2020 Plan) must 

identify all program activities in the FY 2020 IFP and explain how the FY 2020 Plan covers 

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

Second, the FY 2019 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 

 

18 FY 2017 Analysis at 10. 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. Id. at 10 n.17.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 11 -

2803(a)(1) requires the FY 2019 Plan to set forth the performance goals and establish 

targets for each performance indicator to be used to evaluate performance during FY 2019. 

See FY 2016 Analysis at 10. The FY 2019 Plan sets FY 2019 targets for each public 

performance indicator the Postal Service will use to evaluate performance during 

FY 2019.19

Although no target is set for the Large Business Panel performance indicator, the FY 2019 

Plan explains that this performance indicator was removed in FY 2019 “to reduce customer 

segment survey redundancies... .” FY 2018 Annual Report at 21. The Postal Service points 

out that business customer experiences are already captured in the Business Service 

Network (BSN) and BMEU performance indicators. Id. This explanation improves the 

transparency of the FY 2019 Plan by providing further insight into how the Postal Service 

establishes and sets targets for performance indicators.

The Commission finds that the FY 2019 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1) because the 

FY 2019 Plan sets targets for each performance indicator the Postal Service will use in 

FY 2019 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, the Commission recommends that 

the Postal Service continue to provide a reasoned explanation for not setting a target.

Third, the FY 2019 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 2019 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. The FY 2019 Plan meets this requirement by setting a 

measurable FY 2019 target for each performance indicator the Postal Service will use in 

FY 2019. See FY 2018 Annual Report at 17.

Fourth, the FY 2019 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 2019 Plan meets this requirement 

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

meet the High-Quality Service performance goal in FY 2019, the Postal Service states it will 

implement operational, technological, and training initiatives; use an internal Service 

Performance Measurement system (SPM) as the official measurement for service 

 

19 See FY 2018 Annual Report at 17. The Postal Service uses several non-public performance indicators for Competitive products to measure 

progress toward the High-Quality Service performance goal. See Chapter 2, section C.3., infra. FY 2019 targets are included in a non-public 

annex filed with the FY 2018 Annual Compliance Report (ACR). See FY 2018 Annual Report at 17 n.1; Library Reference USPS–FY18–NP30.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 12 -

performance; and prioritize capital investments on key infrastructure upgrades. FY 2018

Annual Report at 19.

Fifth, the FY 2019 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 2019 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 

indicators to measure financial performance and overall efficiency. See FY 2018 Annual 

Report at 23-30.

Sixth, the FY 2019 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 2019 Plan meets 

this requirement by listing the performance indicators that will provide a basis for 

comparing FY 2019 results with the targets established in the FY 2019 Plan. See FY 2018 

Annual Report at 17.

Seventh, the FY 2019 Plan must “describe the means to be used to verify and validate 

measured values.” See 39 U.S.C. § 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 2019 Plan meets this requirement 

by, for example, explaining that it uses customer survey scores to verify and validate 

targets and results for the performance indicators measuring progress toward the 

Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal. See FY 2018 Annual Report at 19-21.

The Commission finds that the FY 2019 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803.

2. FY 2018 Report

The FY 2018 Report meets some requirements of 39 U.S.C. § 2804. The FY 2018 Report

reviews the Postal Service's success in achieving the performance goals in FY 2018, 

compares FY 2019 targets with FY 2018 results for each performance indicator, and 

includes summary findings of program evaluations completed during FY 2018 as required 

by sections 2804(d)(1), (2), and (4). See Chapter 2, section C.2.d., infra. However, there are 

several issues related to the comparability of FY 2018 targets and results, comparability of 

results from the past three fiscal years, and explanations for why a performance goal was 

not met. These issues are discussed in detail below.

a. Comparable FY 2018 Targets and Results

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. 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 13 -

§ 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. In the FY 2017 Analysis, the Commission stated that to comply 

with section 2804(b)(1), 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.” FY 2017 Analysis at 13. The Commission also 

directed that the FY 2018 Report express results for each performance indicator that are 

comparable to the targets the Postal Service set in the FY 2018 Plan. Id. As an alternative, if 

a comparable result cannot be provided, the FY 2018 Report must explain why and either: 

(1) explain how to compare results between the current and former methodologies; or (2) 

explain why making this comparison is not feasible. See id. at 15.

The FY 2018 Report lists the same performance indicators and targets as the FY 2018 Plan

and compares FY 2018 targets and results for each performance indicator. See n.17, supra.

In a CHIR response, the Postal Service confirms that the FY 2018 target and result for each 

performance indicator are comparable except for the Customer Care Center (CCC) 

performance indicator, which measures progress toward the Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance goal. Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 2. The FY 2018 CCC 

target was based on satisfaction with live agents only while the FY 2018 result was based 

on both satisfaction with live agents and the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. Id.

The Postal Service explains that providing a comparable FY 2018 result is not feasible

because of significant changes made to the CCC survey and methodology in FY 2018. See id.

questions 2., 3.c. However, this information was not included in the FY 2018 Report. The 

Commission previously stated that annual performance plans and annual performance 

reports “must contain all information necessary to show compliance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 

and 2804.” FY 2016 Analysis at 9. As a result, to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1), the 

FY 2018 Report should have stated that the FY 2018 CCC target and result are not 

comparable and explained why providing a comparable FY 2018 result was not feasible.

The FY 2018 CCC target and result listed in the FY 2018 Report are not comparable, and the 

FY 2018 Report does not explain why providing a comparable FY 2018 result is not feasible. 

Thus, the Commission finds that the FY 2018 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(b)(1) for the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal.

The Postal Service is changing the methodologies for calculating several performance 

indicators that may affect the comparability of some FY 2019 targets and results. For the 

High-Quality Service performance indicator, the Postal Service states it will use a new SPM 

system as its official measurement system, which the Commission approved.

20 It is unclear 

 

20 FY 2018 Annual Report at 19; see Docket No. PI2015-1, Order Approving Use of Internal Measurement Systems, July 5, 2018 (Order No. 4697); 

see Docket No. PI2015-1, Errata to Order No. 4697, August 21, 2018 (Order No. 4771).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 14 -

whether targets in the FY 2019 Plan were set based on the new SPM system or former 

measurement system. For the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal, the Postal 

Service is changing the methodology for calculating results of the CX Composite Index and 

Enterprise Customer Care (eCC) performance indicators. See Chapter 3, section B.3.a., infra.

The FY 2019 target for the CX Composite Index performance indicator is expressed using 

the FY 2018 methodology. See FY 2018 Annual Report at 17.

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 2019 annual performance report 

(FY 2019 Report) must set forth the same performance indicators and targets as the FY 2019

Plan and compare FY 2019 targets and results for each performance indicator. The FY 2019 

result for each performance indicator must be comparable to the target set in the FY 2019 

Plan.

For the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal, the FY 2019 result for the eCC 

performance indicator must be expressed using the FY 2019 methodology based on customers’ 

overall satisfaction with the quality of service received in response to their issue and an 

improvement rate. The FY 2019 result for the CX Composite Index performance indicator must 

be expressed using both the FY 2018 and FY 2019 methodologies to ensure that the FY 2019 

target and result are comparable.

As an alternative, if a comparable FY 2019 result cannot be provided, the FY 2019 Report 

must explain why and either: (1) explain how to compare results between the current and 

former methodologies; or (2) explain why making this comparison is not feasible. The 

Commission recommends that the Postal Service not change performance indicators, 

methodologies, or targets once they are set in the applicable annual performance 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 2018 Report must include comparable results for each performance 

indicator for, at a minimum, FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. FY 2017 Analysis at 15. To be 

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

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

Commission directed that the Postal Service explain in the FY 2018 Report why results are 

not directly comparable across these fiscal years. Id. The Postal Service was also directed to

explain how to compare results between the current and former methodologies or explain 

why making this comparison is not feasible in the FY 2018 Report. Id.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 15 -

In FY 2018, the Postal Service changed the methodologies for calculating results of several 

performance indicators. See FY 2017 Analysis at 18-19. Consequently, the FY 2018 Report

does not contain comparable results for FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 for several 

performance indicators that measure progress toward the High-Quality Service and the 

Excellent Customer Experiences performance goals.21

For the High-Quality Service performance goal, the Postal Service changed the 

methodology for calculating results of the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day) 

performance indicators by using data for letters, postcards, and flats only, and excluding 

parcels.

22 In the FY 2017 Analysis, the Commission directed that the FY 2018 Report express 

Single-Piece First-Class Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day) performance indicators results for 

FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 using this new methodology.

23

The FY 2018 Report does not contain comparable Single-Piece First-Class Mail (2-Day and 

3-5-Day) performance indicator results for these fiscal years because the results were 

calculated using different methodologies. Results for FYs 2015, 2016, and 2017 were 

calculated based on the former methodology (including parcel performance data), whereas 

the FY 2018 results were calculated based on the new methodology (excluding parcel 

performance data). See Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.a.i. In a CHIR response, the 

Postal Service does provide comparable Single-Piece First-Class Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day)

results for FYs 2015 through 2018 that were calculated based on the new methodology. Id.

question 3.a.ii. However, the Commission previously stated that annual performance plans 

and annual performance reports “must contain all information necessary to show 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804.” FY 2016 Analysis at 9.

As previously discussed, the Postal Service states it will measure FY 2019 High-Quality 

Service performance indicator results using a new SPM system. This methodology change 

may affect the comparability of results for the High-Quality Service performance indicators. 

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2019 Report must include comparable 

results for each High-Quality Service performance indicator or provide an explanation, as 

described below.

 

21 For the Financial Health performance goal, the Postal Service changed the methodology for calculating the DPTWH % Change performance 

indicator in FY 2016. FY 2017 Analysis at 15, 67-68. The FY 2018 Report contains comparable DTPWH % Change results for FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, 

and 2018. Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.d.i.

22 FY 2017 Analysis at 27; Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.a.i. This change reflects the transfer of First-Class Mail Parcels to the 

Competitive product list. FY 2017 Analysis at 27.

23 FY 2017 Analysis at 27-28. If comparable results cannot be provided, the Commission directed that the FY 2018 Report “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 28.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 16 -

For the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal, the Postal Service updated 

customer surveys and performance indicator methodologies in FY 2018 to help improve 

customer experiences in FY 2019.24 Although these changes will promote comparability in 

future years, they affected the comparability of results for several Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance indicators in the FY 2018 Report. Specifically, the Postal Service 

changed the methodology for calculating results of the BSN, Delivery, CCC, and eCC 

performance indicators.25 Because the FY 2018 results for these performance indicators

were calculated using different methodologies from the prior fiscal years, the FY 2018 

Report does not contain comparable results for FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. 

Comparability issues with the Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicators are 

discussed in further detail in Chapter 3, section B.3.b., infra.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service asserts that it complied with 39 U.S.C. § 2804 

because the FY 2018 Report includes three years of comparable results for the CX 

Composite Index. Postal Service Reply Comments at 6. However, the Commission 

previously stated that “to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c), the FY 2017 Report must include

comparable results for each performance indicator... .” FY 2017 Analysis at 13. For the 

Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal, the Postal Service must provide three 

years of comparable results for each component performance indicator.

The FY 2018 Report does not contain comparable results for FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 

for several performance indicators that measure progress toward the High-Quality Service 

and Excellent Customer Experiences performance goals. The FY 2018 Report does not explain 

why providing comparable results is not feasible. Thus, the Commission finds that the FY 2018 

Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for these performance goals.

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2019 Report must include comparable 

results for each performance indicator for, at a minimum, FYs 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. To 

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

performance indicator or methodology. As an alternative, if comparable results cannot be 

provided for any performance indicator, the FY 2019 Report must explain why results are not 

directly comparable across these fiscal years. In that case, the FY 2019 Report must either 

explain how to compare results between the current and former methodologies or explain 

why making this comparison is not feasible.

 

24 Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 9; United States Postal Service FY 2018 Annual Compliance Report, December 28, 2018, at 48 (FY 2018 

ACR).

25 See FY 2018 Annual Report at 17 nn. 5, 6; FY 2018 ACR at 49-51. In FY 2018, the Postal Service also changed the methodology for calculating 

the CX Composite Index. FY 2017 Analysis at 43-44. Although the FY 2018 Report does not contain comparable CX Composite Index results, the 

FY 2018 Report does contain results of each component performance indicator, which can be compared across these fiscal years. See Chapter 3, 

section B.3., infra.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 17 -

Specifically, for the High-Quality Service performance goal, if comparable results cannot be 

provided using the new SPM system, the FY 2019 Report must explain why results are not 

directly comparable across FYs 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. In that case, the FY 2019 Report 

must either explain how to compare results between the new SPM system and the former 

measurement system or explain why making this comparison is not feasible.

For the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal, the FY 2019 Report must include 

comparable results for each component performance indicator. Chapter 3 explains how the 

Postal Service may provide three years of comparable results for each component 

performance indicator in the FY 2019 Report. See Chapter 3, section B.3.b., infra.

c. Goals Not Met

The Commission determines whether the Postal Service has met a performance goal by 

comparing results of each performance indicator to targets set in the applicable 

performance plan for that fiscal year. See FY 2017 Analysis at 4. 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 the targets established in the applicable performance 

plan. Id.

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 missed one or more targets in 

FY 2018, the FY 2018 Report must explain why and describe plans and schedules for 

meeting FY 2019 targets. See id.; Table III-1, infra. The FY 2018 Report does not provide 

complete information for the High-Quality Service and Safe Workplace and Engaged 

Workforce performance goals. The Postal Service does not explain why it missed FY 2018 

targets for the non-public performance indicators measuring progress toward the 

High-Quality Service performance goal. See Chapter 2, section C.3, infra. For the Safe 

Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance indicators, the Postal Service asserts that 

it set “aggressive” and “stretch” FY 2018 targets. FY 2018 Annual Report at 22. However, the 

FY 2018 Report does not provide specific explanations for why these targets were not met.

The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) for 

the High-Quality Service and Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goals. To 

comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) next year, for each FY 2019 target that is not met, the 

FY 2019 Report must both explain why and describe plans and schedules for meeting FY 2020 

targets. If the Postal Service misses a FY 2019 target for a non-public performance indicator, 

the Postal Service must provide the explanation, plans, and schedules for meeting the FY 2020 

target in a non-public annex. See Chapter 2, section C.3., infra.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 18 -

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. 

FY 2017 Analysis at 17. These plans and schedules must also include specific timelines if they 

fall outside of the fiscal year covered by the annual performance plan. Id.

d. Other Annual Performance Report Requirements

The FY 2018 Report meets other requirements of 39 U.S.C. § 2804. First, annual 

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

goals by stating whether the Postal Service met targets for each performance goal in 

FY 2018. 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(1). The FY 2018 Report provides this information both in a 

table comparing targets and results and in the text of the report. See FY 2018 Annual Report

at 17, 19-20, 26, 29.

Second, 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 2018 Report to evaluate the FY 2019 Plan relative to the performance achieved toward 

the performance goals during FY 2018. This requires the FY 2018 Report to compare 

FY 2019 targets with FY 2018 results for each performance indicator the Postal Service will 

use during FY 2019. See FY 2016 Analysis at 15. The FY 2018 Report provides this 

information in a table comparing results and targets for each performance indicator. See 

FY 2018 Annual Report at 17.

Third, 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). Section 2804(d)(4) requires the FY 2018 Report to include 

summary findings of program evaluations completed during FY 2018 that evaluate how 

programs helped the Postal Service meet targets in FY 2018. See FY 2017 Analysis at 16. For 

example, the FY 2018 Report includes summary findings of a program evaluation describing 

how the Postal Service met the FY 2018 target for the BMEU performance indicator. See 

FY 2018 Annual Report at 20. The FY 2018 Report states that the Postal Service focused 

training efforts on low-performing units and instructed them on best-in-class business mail 

acceptance workflow procedures. Id.

The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2804(d)(1), (2), and 

(4).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 19 -

3. Non-Public Performance Indicators

Annual performance plans may include a non-public annex covering program activities or 

parts of program activities relating to the avoidance of interference with criminal 

prosecution or matters otherwise exempt from public disclosure under 39 U.S.C. § 410(c);

39 U.S.C. § 2803(d). For the High-Quality Service performance goal, the Postal Service uses 

several non-public performance indicators to measure service performance for some 

Competitive products.26 In the FY 2017 Analysis, the Commission stated that “to ensure 

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

under seal with the [ACR] targets and three years of comparable results for each nonpublic performance indicator.” FY 2017 Analysis at 18. Specifically, for the FY 2019 Plan and 

FY 2018 Report to comply with sections 2803 and 2804, respectively, the Commission 

directed that the Postal Service 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.” Id. The Commission further directed that “[i]f 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 stated that the 

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

this information in a non-public library reference. Id.

The FY 2019 Plan and FY 2018 Report state that the Postal Service is providing non-public 

service performance data for certain Competitive products as part of the non-public annex 

of the ACR. FY 2018 Annual Report at 17 n.1. The Postal Service filed this non-public service 

performance data in Docket No. ACR2018 in Library Reference USPS–FY18–NP30.27 For 

each non-public performance indicator, this library reference includes targets for FY 2018 

and FY 2019 as well as comparable results from FYs 2015 through 2018. See Library 

Reference USPS–FY18–NP30. Although the Postal Service describes plans and schedules for 

meeting FY 2019 targets, the Postal Service does not explain why it did not meet FY 2018 

targets for the non-public performance indicators. See id.

The Commission finds that Library Reference USPS–FY18–NP30 complies with the 

Commission's directive to 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. The FY 2019 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803 by setting 

measurable FY 2019 targets for each non-public performance indicator the Postal Service will 

use in FY 2019. See Chapter 2, section C.1., supra. The FY 2018 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. 

 

26 See FY 2017 Analysis at 17; FY 2018 Annual Report at 17 n.1.

27 FY 2018 ACR at 3 n.4; see Library Reference USPS–FY18–NP30.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 20 -

§§ 2804(b)(1) and (c) by setting forth comparable FY 2018 targets and results and including 

comparable results from the past three fiscal years. See Chapter 2, sections C.2.a., b., supra. 

The FY 2018 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) with respect to the nonpublic performance indicators because the Postal Service does not explain why it did not meet 

FY 2018 targets. See Chapter 2, section C.2.c., supra.

To ensure that the FY 2020 Plan and FY 2019 Report comply with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804, 

respectively, the Commission recommends that the FY 2019 Report include a similar footnote 

stating that the Postal Service is providing non-public service performance data for certain 

Competitive products as part of the non-public annex of the FY 2019 ACR. For each non-public 

performance indicator, the Postal Service must file under seal with the FY 2019 ACR: (1) 

FY 2019 and FY 2020 targets; and (2) comparable results from FYs 2016 through 2019. If the 

Postal Service does not meet a FY 2019 target, the Postal Service must explain why and 

describe the plans and schedules for meeting the FY 2020 target. The FY 2019 ACR should

continue to identify the library reference that contains this information.

4. FY 2019 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 2018 Report adopts this recommendation by stating that the Postal Service is using a 

new SPM system to measure progress toward the High-Quality Service performance goal in 

FY 2019. FY 2018 Annual Report at 19. The FY 2018 Report also explains changes to the 

Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicators in FY 2019. First, the Postal 

Service will calculate the CX Composite Index differently from previous years by measuring 

the aggregate variance of customer satisfaction scores across each touchpoint relative to 

the performance target established for each touchpoint. Id. at 21. Second, the Postal Service 

is removing the Large Business Panel performance indicator to reduce customer segment 

survey redundancies because business customer experiences are already measured by the 

BSN and BMEU performance indicators. Id. Third, the Postal Service is changing the 

methodology for calculating the eCC performance indicator result by measuring both 

overall satisfaction with resolution quality received and year-to-date overall satisfaction 

improvement as compared to the same period last year. Id. The FY 2018 Report also 

includes footnotes explaining methodology changes in a table listing FY 2018 and FY 2019 

targets as well as results from FY 2015 through FY 2018. See FY 2018 Annual Report at 17 

nn. 4-7, 21.

The Commission appreciates these descriptions of performance indicator and methodology 

changes because they promote transparency by helping interested persons understand 

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

the FY 2020 Plan and FY 2019 Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 21 -

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 may be necessary for driving innovation and growth. However, as 

previously discussed, 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. See Chapter 2, section C.2.b., supra.

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 

Commission recommends that the Postal Service 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 explain these changes and provide the rationale for 

making them in future annual performance plans and annual performance reports.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 22 -

CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF

PERFORMANCE GOALS

The Postal Service’s four performance goals in FY 2018 were:

 High-Quality Service

 Excellent Customer Experiences

 Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce

 Financial Health28

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

performance goal in FY 2018 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 performance goal meet or exceed targets established in the 

applicable annual performance plan.” FY 2017 Analysis at 4. The Postal Service missed 

FY 2018 targets for each performance indicator except the BMEU performance indicator, 

which measures progress toward the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal. 

See FY 2018 Annual Report at 17.

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

performance goals in FY 2018.

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

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

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

goal, whether the goal was met in FY 2018, 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.

 

28 FY 2018 Annual Report at 15. These are the same performance goals the Postal Service used in FY 2017. See FY 2017 Annual Report at 13.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 23 -

Table III-1

FY 2018 Progress Toward Performance Goals

Performance 

Goal

Goal Met

in FY 2018

Postal Service’s Reasons for Not 

Meeting Goal

Postal Service’s FY 2019 Plans and 

Schedules for Meeting the Goal

High-Quality 

Servicea

Not Met

Service disruptions because of extreme 

weather and natural disasters across the 

nation; network-wide job realignment and 

bidding process, which will benefit future 

operations but limited the ability to quickly 

normalize operations and return service 

performance to standards.

Implement operational, technological, 

and training initiatives to improve the

mail delivery process; leverage data 

analytics and deploy other tools such as 

Lean Six Sigma; use a more accurate 

internal Service Performance 

Measurement system; prioritize capital 

investments on key infrastructure 

upgrades.

Excellent 

Customer 

Experiences

Partially Met

Low Enterprise Customer Care and 

Customer Care Center performance 

indicator results.

Chapter 3 provides explanations for why 

each performance indicator except the 

Business Mail Entry Unit missed FY 2018 

targets. See Chapter 3, section B.1.c., infra.

Establish Vice President of Customer 

Experience position as part of 

Postmaster General leadership team.

Chapter 3 provides plans and schedules 

for meeting FY 2019 performance 

indicator targets. See Chapter 3, section 

B.1.d., infra.

Safe Workplace 

and Engaged 

Workforce

Not Met FY 2018 Report does not explain why 

performance goal was not met.

Safe Workplace: focus on prevention 

strategies and take a proactive approach 

to safety; establish effective accident 

reduction plans; address motor vehicle 

accidents through training, engineering 

controls, and consistent communication.

Engaged Workforce: improve efforts to 

communicate the importance of 

employee participation in the survey; 

provide employees with training and 

tools; showcase employee success 

stories.

Financial Health Not Met

Deliveries per Total Workhour (DPTWH) % 

Change: overrun in workhour plan from 

using additional overtime hours due to 

increase in package volume and decline in 

letters and flats volume.

Controllable Income (Loss): higher-thanexpected compensation and benefit 

expenses and transportation costs.

DPTWH % Change: capture workhour 

reductions from declining mail volume

and from operational initiatives to 

improve efficiencies in mail processing, 

delivery, and customer service.

Controllable Income (Loss): increased 

revenue from packages, international 

mail, and USPS Marketing Mail; increase 

in compensation and benefits expenses.

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 18-29.

a Refers to public Market Dominant performance indicators only.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 24 -

In the rest of this chapter, the Commission discusses each performance goal individually. It 

evaluates the Postal Service’s FY 2018 performance and plans for meeting each 

performance goal in FY 2019. The Commission also makes observations and 

recommendations for each performance goal.

A. High-Quality Service

1. Background

In FY 2018, the Postal Service measured service performance by randomly sampling and 

measuring the time between when mail is deposited in a postal facility and when mail is 

delivered to a home, business, or Post Office Box. FY 2018 Annual Report 18. 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 Service performance 

goal.29 To evaluate progress toward the High-Quality Service performance goal in FY 2018, 

the Postal Service used seven public performance indicators measuring service 

performance for some Market Dominant products:

● 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

● USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite

 

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). Service 

performance measurement reporting in the ACR is independent of service performance measurement reporting in 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 2018

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

in the Commission’s rules for purposes of the ACR. 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 2018 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).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 25 -

The Single-Piece First-Class Mail performance indicators measure the performance of 

Single-Piece First-Class Mail letters, postcards, and flats throughout the fiscal year. 

FY 2018 Annual Report at 18. Results are expressed as the estimated percentage of 

Single-Piece First-Class Mail by service standard (2-Day and 3-5-Day) delivered on-time. 

Id.

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

commercial Presorted First-Class Mail letters, postcards, and flats delivered throughout 

the fiscal year. Id. Results are expressed as the estimated percentage of total mail 

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

The FCLF Composite performance indicator measures the weighted average of the 

performance of Single-Piece First-Class Mail and Presorted First-Class Mail across all 

service standards, weighted by volume. Id. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service provided 

workpapers showing how the FY 2018 result was calculated. Responses to CHIR No. 13, 

question 1.a.

The USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite performance indicator measures the 

percentage of all USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals mailpieces that were delivered 

within the applicable service standard during the fiscal year. FY 2018 Annual Report at 18.

This performance indicator is a composite measuring USPS Marketing Mail Letters, USPS 

Marketing Mail Flats, and Periodicals. Id. Approximately two-thirds of the volume in this 

composite indicator consists of USPS Marketing Mail Letters; the remainder is made up of 

USPS Marketing Mail Flats and Periodicals. Id.

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

performance for some Competitive products.30 The Postal Service filed under seal targets 

for FY 2018 and FY 2019 and results from FY 2015 through FY 2018 for these non-public 

performance indicators in Library Reference USPS–FY18–NP30.31

The Postal Service failed to meet any of its FY 2018 targets for the public Market Dominant 

performance indicators. FY 2018 Annual Report at 18. Results for each of these

performance indicators declined between FY 2017 and FY 2018. See id. at 17. The Postal 

Service also did not meet FY 2018 targets for the non-public Competitive products 

performance indicators. See Library Reference USPS–FY18–NP30.

The Postal Service explains that it missed FY 2018 targets because of “extreme weather 

and natural disasters” during the first half of FY 2018, which significantly affected three 

postal areas and disrupted operations across the network. FY 2018 Annual Report at 18. 

Also, the Postal Service states that it “conducted a network-wide job realignment and 

 

30 FY 2017 Analysis at 17; see Chapter 2, section C.3., supra.

31 See FY 2018 Annual Report at 17 n.1; FY 2018 ACR at 3 n.4.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 26 -

bidding process” during the second quarter of FY 2018, which limited its “ability to quickly 

normalize operations and return service performance to standards.” Id. Explanations for 

missing FY 2018 targets are discussed in more detail below. See Chapter 3, section A.3.a., 

infra.

In the FY 2019 Plan, FY 2019 targets are the same values as FY 2018 targets. See FY 2018 

Annual Report at 17. First, to meet FY 2019 targets, the Postal Service asserts it will 

“continue implementing operational, technological and training initiatives,” and will 

“leverage data analytics to better monitor systems and analyze scans, track mail at every 

step of the mail-handling process, and proactively identify potential root causes of lower 

service performance.” Id. at 19. Second, in FY 2019, the Postal Service states it will use its 

new SPM system as the official service performance measurement system, which will 

allow for “near real-time” data.

32 Third, the Postal Service states that it “will prioritize 

capital investments on key infrastructure upgrades that best achieve improvements in 

service, processing capacity, labor efficiencies, and maintenance costs.” FY 2018 Annual 

Report at 19. Fourth, the Postal Service asserts that it will continue its “efforts to actively 

engage employees to implement these process changes and technologies to better serve 

[its] customers.” Id. Plans for improving High-Quality Service in FY 2019 are discussed in 

more detail below. See Chapter 3, section A.3.b., infra.

2. Comments

The Public Representative concludes that the Postal Service failed to meet the HighQuality Service performance goal in FY 2018 because the Postal Service missed all 

FY 2018 targets. PR Comments at 3, 5. She notes that “after two years of improvement, the 

Postal Service’s performance declined in every category.” Id. at 4. She observes that as in 

previous years, the highest gap between the target and result was for the Single-Piece 

First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) performance indicator. Id. She asserts that although the Postal 

Service discusses High-Quality Service results in the FY 2018 Report, it does not provide 

adequate explanations for missing FY 2018 targets. Id. at 5. She notes that the Postal 

Service identified extreme weather and natural disasters as one reason why it missed 

FY 2018 targets. Id. She comments that it is impossible to determine whether the Postal 

Service is improving its operations because the Postal Service cannot quantify the impact 

of weather-related disruptions on results. Id.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service asserts that it “has identified and reported on the 

top root causes of many of its service performance issues.” Postal Service Reply Comments 

at 2. It states that mitigation plans for FY 2019 include working to better ensure that field

sites understand and can adhere to established processes; and using tools within Informed 

 

32 Id.; see Docket No. PI2018-2, Order Conditionally Approving Modifications to Market Dominant Service Performance Measurement Systems, 

November 5, 2018 (Order No. 4872).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 27 -

Visibility (IV) to help identify sites with the highest opportunity for improvement.33 With 

respect to the larger gap between the target and result for the Single-Piece First-Class Mail 

(3-5-Day) performance indicator, the Postal Service discusses potential delays that are 

due to the distance traveled by these mailpieces. Postal Service Reply Comments at 2. 

Specifically, 3-5-Day mailpieces may be required to move via several transportation 

channels and travel through more than one processing plant, which creates more potential 

for mail not moving to its next handling on time. Id. at 2-3. The Postal Service notes that it 

is now using the IV application to identify the root causes of these failures and focus on 

ensuring results meet established targets. Id. at 3. It states that it is working on an 

initiative in FY 2019 to identify mail impacted by unforeseen events outside of its control. 

Id.; see Chapter 3, section A.3.b., infra.

The Public Representative also comments on FY 2019 targets. She reiterates concerns 

expressed in past years concerning the appropriateness of the Postal Service’s targets, 

particularly for the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) performance indicator. PR 

Comments at 6. She notes that in FY 2017, the Public Representative identified the large 

gap between the target and result for this performance indicator and commented that the 

Postal Service would have to improve its performance substantially to meet the FY 2018 

target. Id. She points out that in the FY 2017 Analysis, “the Commission recommended ‘that 

the Postal Service revisit this performance indicator target’... if the Postal Service does not 

meet the FY 2018 target,” and “‘explain how it will achieve such significant improvement’ 

if it chooses to retain the same target.” Id. She observes that the Postal Service retains the 

same target for this performance indicator in FY 2019, although performance did not 

improve in FY 2018. Id. She notes that the Postal Service did not explain how it will 

improve results for this performance indicator. Id.

The Postal Service maintains that stretch targets are not only achievable, but are set 

appropriately high enough to inspire continuous improvement. Postal Service Reply 

Comments at 2. It asserts that in FY 2019, it will focus on adhering to processing and 

transportation schedules to meet FY 2019 targets for the Single-Piece First-Class Mail 

(3-5-Day) and other performance indicators. Id.

3. Commission Analysis

In FY 2018, the Postal Service missed all FY 2018 targets for both the public and the 

non-public performance indicators measuring progress toward the High-Quality Service

performance goal.

The Commission finds that the Postal Service did not meet the High-Quality Service 

performance goal in FY 2018.

 

33 Id. The IV system “leverages data in near real-time to measure and diagnose service, predict workload, and manage inventory, while 

providing near real-time end-to-end tracking of mail.” See Docket No. RM2018-1, Response of the United States Postal Service to Commission 

Information Request No. 1, question OD-3 (December 4, 2017).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 28 -

As discussed in Chapter 2, there are two legal compliance issues related to the HighQuality Service performance indicators. First, the Postal Service changed the methodology 

for calculating FY 2018 results of the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day) 

performance indicators by using data for letters, postcards, and flats only, and excluding 

parcels.34 However, the FY 2018 Report does not contain comparable results for these 

performance indicators because it expresses results for FY 2015 through FY 2017 using 

the former methodology. See Chapter 2, section C.2.b., supra. Consequently, the FY 2018 

Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for the High-Quality Service performance 

goal.

In FY 2019, the Postal Service states it will use a new SPM system as its official 

measurement system. FY 2018 Annual Report at 19. It is unclear whether FY 2019 targets 

were set based on the new SPM system or former measurement system. This methodology 

change may affect the comparability of FY 2019 targets and results, as well as results for 

the past three fiscal years for the performance indicators measuring progress toward the 

High-Quality Service performance goal.

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 2019 result for each performance 

indicator must be comparable to the target set in the FY 2019 Plan. As an alternative, if

comparable FY 2019 results cannot be provided, the FY 2019 Report must explain why and 

either: (1) explain how to compare results between the new SPM system and former 

measurement system; or (2) explain why making this comparison is not feasible.

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2019 Report must include comparable 

results for each performance indicator for, at a minimum, FYs 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. 

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

same performance indicator or methodology. As an alternative, if comparable results cannot 

be provided for any High-Quality Service performance indicator, the FY 2019 Report must 

explain why results are not directly comparable across these fiscal years. In that case, the 

FY 2019 Report must either explain how to compare results between the new SPM system

and former measurement system, or explain why making this comparison is not feasible.

Second, the FY 2018 Report does not explain why it did not meet FY 2018 targets for the 

non-public performance indicators for Competitive products, as required by 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(d)(3). See Chapter 2, section C.3., supra.

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) next year, if the Postal Service misses one or more 

FY 2019 targets for the non-public performance indicators measuring progress toward the 

High-Quality Service performance goal, the Postal Service must explain why and describe 

plans and schedules for meeting FY 2020 targets.

 

34 FY 2017 Analysis at 27-28; Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.a.i. This change reflects the transfer of First-Class Mail Parcels to the 

Competitive product list. FY 2017 Analysis at 27.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 29 -

In the sections below, the Commission makes observations on results, and targets and 

explores plans for improving High-Quality Service performance indicator results in 

FY 2019.

a. Observations on Results and Targets

Table III-2 compares results for each public performance indicator for FYs 2016, 2017, 

and 2018. Results improved slightly between FY 2016 and FY 2017, but declined between 

FY 2017 and FY 2018. For these seven indicators, after experiencing the largest 

percentage point improvement between FY 2016 and FY 2017, Single-Piece First-Class 

Mail (3-5 Day) declined the most between FY 2017 and FY 2018—over 3 percentage 

points—losing all previous gains and falling below FY 2016 levels. The smallest decline—

nearly half a percentage point—occurred for Presorted First-Class Mail (Overnight).

Table III-2

Public High-Quality Service Performance Indicators

Results for FYs 2016, 2017, and 2018

Public High-Quality Service 

Performance Indicator

Results Percentage Point Difference

FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 and 

FY 2017

FY 2017 and

FY 2018

Single-Piece

First-Class Maila

2-Day 94.71 94.74 93.78 0.03 -0.96

3-5-Day 83.69 85.57 82.48 1.88 -3.09

Presorted

First-Class Mail

Overnight 96.16 96.46 96.00 0.30 -0.46

2-Day 95.05 95.58 94.92 0.53 -0.66

3-5-Day 91.68 93.16 91.96 1.48 -1.20

First-Class Mail Letter and Flat 

Composite 92.34 93.29 92.07 0.95 -1.22

USPS Marketing Mail and 

Periodicals Composite 90.01 91.44 89.26 1.43 -2.18

a Results of the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day) performance indicators are expressed using performance data for letters, 

postcards, and flats only, and exclude parcels.

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 17; Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.a.ii.

Table III-3 compares FY 2018 results with FY 2018 targets and shows the percentage 

point performance gap between the target and result. None of the FY 2018 targets was

met. The largest percentage point performance gap—almost 13 percentage points—

occurred for Single-Piece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day). The smallest percentage point gap—

just less than one percentage point—occurred for Presorted First-Class Mail (Overnight).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 30 -

Table III-3

Public High-Quality Service Performance Indicators

Comparison of FY 2018 Targets and Results

High-Quality Service 

Performance Indicator

FY 2018

Target Result Percentage Point 

Performance Gap

Single-Piece

First-Class Mail

2-Day 96.50 93.78 -2.72

3-5-Day 95.25 82.48 -12.77

Presorted

First-Class Mail

Overnight 96.80 96.00 -0.80

2-Day 96.50 94.92 -1.58

3-5-Day 95.25 91.96 -3.29

First-Class Mail Letter and Flat Composite 96.00 92.07 -3.93

USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals 

Composite 91.80 89.26 -2.54

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 17.

In the FY 2018 Report, the Postal Service explains that considerable service disruptions 

occurred during the first half of FY 2018 because of “extreme weather and natural 

disasters[,]... including three major hurricanes, wildfires, mudslides, heavy rainfall, ice, 

and snow.” FY 2018 Annual Report at 18. It is during the first quarter of each fiscal year 

(which includes the December holiday shopping season) that the Postal Service processes 

its highest mail and parcel volumes. Id. The Postal Service notes that these natural 

disasters significantly affected three of seven of the Postal Service’s national 

organizational areas, and disrupted operations across its network. Id. In a CHIR response, 

the Postal Service identifies specific weather events and natural disasters resulting in 

service disruptions, including the areas of the United States that were affected. Responses 

to CHIR No. 2, question 1.a. However, it asserts that it has been unable to determine 

exactly how these weather events and natural disasters have impacted results. Id. question 

1.b. As discussed below, the Postal Service will be working on an initiative in FY 2019 to 

identify mail impacted by unforeseen events that are outside of the Postal Service’s 

control. See Chapter 3, section A.3.b., infra.

Moreover, noting that its annual service performance metrics are cumulative and 

volume-weighted, the Postal Service asserts that performance during the first half of the 

fiscal year, when volume is highest, sets the pace for the remainder of the fiscal year. 

FY 2018 Annual Report at 18. The Postal Service asserts that service performance results

improved for the USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals Composite performance indicator 

during the second half of FY 2018, and exceeded the target. Id. In a CHIR response, the 

Postal Service confirms that results for the FCLF Composite also improved during the 

second half of FY 2018. Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 1.b.

The Commission acknowledges that service performance results during the second half of 

the fiscal year generally exceed the service performance results observed for the 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 31 -

preceding first half of the fiscal year. However, historically, the Postal Service has not 

sustained the improvement observed in the second half of the fiscal year through to the 

next fiscal year’s Quarter 1.35

Given the continuous recurring nature of this issue, the Commission recommends that the 

Postal Service explore how to adapt its operations to account for seasonal demand changes 

in a way that does not negatively impact service performance.

The Postal Service asserts that it also missed FY 2018 targets because of a network-wide 

job realignment and bidding process conducted during the second quarter of FY 2018. 

FY 2018 Annual Report at 18. The Postal Service explains that it conducted this 

network-wide job realignment and bidding process to respond to the continued decline of 

First-Class Mail volume, double-digit growth in package volume, and an increase of over 

one million new delivery points. Id. The Postal Service maintains that this effort limited its 

“ability to quickly normalize operations and return service performance to standards.” Id.

However, the Postal Service asserts that this effort “will benefit operations in FY2019 and 

beyond.” Id.

In a CHIR response, the Postal Service states that the network-wide job realignment and 

bidding “process begins with the Function 1 Review, a modeling tool which is used to 

determine appropriate and authorized staffing levels by employee category.” Responses to 

CHIR No. 2, question 2. This modeling tool, which is used by all processing plants, accounts 

for several components such as mail critical entry times, mail availability, volumes, facility 

equipment, and target productivities. Id. Once a review is approved, the Postal Service’s 

goal is to realign workforce bid jobs based on results of the review. Id.

The Postal Service explains that network-wide job realignment and bidding is an ongoing 

process that involves placing different people in different jobs and requires a period of 

adjustment. Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 2. The Postal Service states that service 

performance may be impacted during this adjustment period because the process takes 

several bid cycles to post, bid, award, and train employees, and employees are often 

required to change schedules and tours as well as positions. Id. The Postal Service 

discusses how these events may impact employee productivity and work effectiveness, 

which affects service performance. Id.

The supplemental information provided in the CHIR responses clarifies the explanation in 

the FY 2018 Report. Specifically, the descriptions of the network-wide job realignment and 

bidding process help illustrate the impact of this process on productivity and, by 

extension, service performance results.

 

35 See, e.g., Docket No. ACR2015, Annual Compliance Determination Report, Fiscal Year 2015, March 28, 2016, at 106-07, 111, 119-20, 125-26; 

Docket No. ACR2016, Annual Compliance Determination Report, Fiscal Year 2016, March 28, 2017, at 132.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 32 -

In the FY 2019 Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service explain in more 

detail the impact of any network-wide job realignment and bidding process undertaken in 

FY 2019 on High-Quality Service performance indicator results in FY 2019.

The Public Representative asserts that the Postal Service should set more realistic 

High-Quality Service targets, while the Postal Service maintains that its targets are 

appropriate and attainable.

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service strive to develop targets that balance 

the need to inspire continuous improvement with the importance of setting targets that are 

realistic and achievable.

In addition to evaluating whether targets are met, the Commission also analyzes service 

performance trends, which can forewarn of potential issues and affect the development of 

Commission recommendations for the Postal Service. The Commission is concerned not 

only that the Postal Service missed each of its FY 2018 targets, but also that results of each 

performance indicator declined between FY 2017 and FY 2018. Because the legacy and the 

new SPM systems use different methodologies, trend analysis may become more difficult. 

As discussed above, the FY 2019 Report must address the issue of comparability of results 

across fiscal years. See Chapter 3, section A.3., supra. As discussed below, the Commission 

recommends that the FY 2019 Report also address the impact of any Postal Service 

initiatives identified in the FY 2018 Report (such as leveraging of data analytics to 

proactively identify and address the root causes of lower performance) on the HighQuality Service performance indicator results for FY 2019. See Chapter 3, section A.3.b., 

infra.

b. Plans for Improving High-Quality Service

The Postal Service anticipates further significant weather events in FY 2019. FY 2018

Annual Report at 19. In the FY 2019 Plan, the Postal Service states that to meet FY 2019 

targets, it will incorporate lessons learned from FY 2018 weather disruptions into its 

response efforts to normalize operations quickly with the least amount of disruptions. Id. 

In a CHIR response, the Postal Service describes its development of a Hurricane 

Preparedness Guide to help postal management provide necessary direction, coordination, 

and support to ensure that facilities are prepared and are able to respond to and recover 

from a hurricane. Response to CHIR No. 2, question 3. The Postal Service asserts that the 

Hurricane Preparedness Guide will help ensure the continuation of Postal Service 

functions and crucial services. Id. The Hurricane Preparedness Guide was last updated in 

June 2018, and “contains all available lessons learned from previous events.” Id.

The Postal Service indicates that “[d]ebriefing after events provides the source for the 

lessons learned” in the Hurricane Preparedness Guide. Id. According to the Postal Service, 

prior to a pending event, postal leadership will meet with management employees from 

areas that have been previously impacted in order to learn best practices. Id. The Postal 

Service also notes that additional information now available from the National Hurricane 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 33 -

Center provides it with the ability to monitor storm surges, as well as the ability to provide 

a forecast track map for postal facilities lying within the possible path of a projected 

storm. Id. The Postal Service asserts that “[a]s a result of these improvements, [it] can now 

begin the process of mobilizing equipment sooner and defining a larger span of offload 

sites, which helps to keep the network moving.” Id.

In FY 2019, the Postal Service will also work on an initiative to identify mail impacted by 

unforeseen events that are outside of the Postal Service’s control. Response to CHIR No. 2, 

question 1.b. This initiative will utilize a data-driven approach to identify and flag 

mailpieces impacted by uncontrollable events, such as major weather events. Id. Using this 

data, the Postal Service asserts that it “will be able to more accurately quantify impacts 

from these events and diagnose service failures.” Id. In addition, the Postal Service notes 

that the ability to categorize impacted mailpieces will enable it to alternately report on 

service performance both with the impacted mailpieces included, and with the impacted 

mailpieces excluded. Id.

Also, in FY 2019, the Postal Service will also use the new SPM system as the official 

measurement system for service performance. FY 2018 Annual Report at 19. It will replace 

the External First-Class Measurement system, which the Postal Service used through the 

end of FY 2018. Id. The Postal Service asserts that the SPM system, “will provide more 

accurate, reliable and representative service performance reporting by gathering data 

from multiple sources[,] including live scans of the billions of [mail]pieces moving through 

the postal network, rather than relying on samples of test pieces and [sent to] test 

recipients.” Id. The Postal Service maintains that the SPM system will more accurately 

reflect service performance in near-real time and will better use data analytics to identify 

systemic or localized areas for improvement. Id. Furthermore, it asserts knowing where in 

the process an error occurred (i.e., during the first mile, processing, or last mile) allows the 

Postal Service to put corrective actions in place sooner. Responses to CHIR No. 2, 

question 4.

In conjunction with the development of the SPM system, the Postal Service reports that it 

implemented a new mail condition reporting system in January 2019 called Mail Condition 

Visualization (MCV). Id. This tool displays a facility’s mail conditions in near-real time, 

using scanning to determine where mailpieces and containers are within the network and 

to calculate whether delays occur during processing or transportation. Id. The Postal 

Service maintains that this tool provides the ability to view current processing operations 

and identify which mailpieces within the network are at-risk of missing their service 

standard, thereby reducing service failures. Id.

In the FY 2018 Report, the Postal Service also states that it “will prioritize capital 

investments on key infrastructure upgrades that best achieve improvements in service,” 

and will “continue [its] efforts to actively engage [its] employees to implement these 

process changes and technologies... .” FY 2018 Annual Report at 19. The Postal Service 

plans to invest $1.85 billion in parcel sortation, acceptance, and dispatch equipment; IT 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 34 -

systems and scanning capabilities; facility repairs and alterations; programs for 

addressing space deficiencies for handling package growth; building purchases; material 

handling and transportation efficiency solutions; and service vehicles, small programs, 

and other initiatives. Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 3.

The Commission finds that the Postal Service’s plans for improving High-Quality Service are 

reasonable steps for improving High-Quality Service performance indicator results in 

FY 2019. The Commission observes that the Postal Service’s initiative to identify mail 

impacted by unforeseen events that are outside of the Postal Service’s control appears likely 

to help the Postal Service more accurately determine the extent to which weather-related 

events affect its service performance results. In the FY 2019 Report, the Commission 

recommends that the Postal Service explain the outcome of this and other initiatives 

designed to improve High-Quality Service and discuss the impact that these initiatives have

on FY 2019 results.

B. Excellent Customer Experiences

1. Background

a. Customer Surveys

The Postal Service measures customer experiences by conducting surveys of residential, 

small/medium business, and large business customers.36 In FY 2018, the Postal Service 

measured progress toward the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal using 

eight customer surveys:

 Business Service Network (BSN)

 Point of Sale (POS)

 Delivery

 Customer Care Center (CCC)

 Enterprise Customer Care (eCC)

 Business Mail Entry Unit (BMEU) 

 USPS.com

 Large Business

 

36 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–FY18–38, December 28, 2018, file “USPS-FY18-

38 Preface.pdf,” at 2, 5 (Preface).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 35 -

The Postal Service provides copies of these surveys in the FY 2018 ACR.37 Each survey 

measures a customer touchpoint or interaction between the customer and the Postal 

Service. The BSN provides nationwide support to qualified business customers related to 

service issues, information, and requests. FY 2018 Annual Report at 19. The BSN survey 

measures business customers’ level of satisfaction with the BSN. Preface at 3. Customers 

who initiate a service request within the BSN receive an email invitation to take the BSN 

survey online. Id. The survey consists of 12 evaluation questions and 4 open-ended 

customer supplied responses.38

The POS survey measures customers’ overall satisfaction with their experiences at retail 

locations that use POS equipment.39 After completing a retail transaction, customers 

receive a receipt that invites them to take the POS survey via website, telephone number, 

or Quick Response (QR) Code. Preface at 3. The POS survey is conducted through a 

web-based survey platform and consists of seven evaluation questions and two 

open-ended customer supplied responses. Id. These questions ask retail customers to 

evaluate their visit to the retail location, their interaction with the sales associate, and 

their wait time in line. See Surveys at 2-10.

The Delivery survey measures the overall satisfaction of residential and small/medium 

business customers with their delivery experience.40 Randomly selected residential and 

small/medium business customers are mailed a letter survey invitation on a weekly basis, 

and given the option of completing the survey by phone or online. Preface at 3. There are 

different Delivery surveys for residential and small/medium business customers. See

Surveys 26-37. The Delivery survey asks customers to evaluate their overall satisfaction 

with receiving mail and packages delivered by the Postal Service, as well as their 

experiences with letter carriers. See id.

The CCC survey measures customer satisfaction with calls made to CCCs, which handle 

customer calls to the Postal Service’s toll free customer service line.41 Customers first 

interact with an IVR system, which resolves approximately two-thirds of the calls received 

annually.42 If the IVR system does not resolve the issue, customers then speak to a live 

agent. Primer of Four Surveys at 11.

 

37 See Library Reference USPS–FY18–38, file “CI_Surveys_FY2018.pdf” (Surveys). 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.

38 Id.; see Surveys at 11-25.

39 FY 2018 Annual Report at 19; Preface at 3.

40 FY 2018 Annual Report at 19; Preface at 3.

41 FY 2018 Annual Report at 19; Preface at 4.

42 United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Postal Customer Satisfaction: A Primer of Four Surveys, RARC-WP-17-010, August 

28, 2018, at 11 (Primer of Four Surveys).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 36 -

There are two different CCC surveys that measure customers’ level of satisfaction with 

either the IVR system or live agent. Preface at 4. For the IVR system survey, all customers 

who only interact with the IVR system are asked at the beginning of their call if they are 

willing to complete a survey after the call. Id. For the Live Agent survey, all customers who 

speak with a live agent receive a phone invitation to take the survey. Id. The CCC surveys 

ask about customers’ overall experience provided by the IVR system or the live agent. See

Surveys at 71-79.

The eCC is a case management system the Postal Service uses to manage customer 

complaints.43 The eCC survey measures resolution satisfaction of customers who file a 

complaint through either a CCC live agent or on USPS.com. FY 2018 Annual Report at 19; 

Preface at 4. Customers who provide an email address receive an eCC survey after their 

case has been closed as long as the customer has not already been surveyed during the last 

60 days.44 The eCC survey consists of 12 evaluation questions and 1 open-ended customer 

supplied response. Id. These questions ask customers to evaluate the quality of service 

they received in response to their issue, as well as their experience with the customer 

service representative. See Surveys at 38-45.

The BMEU is the area of a postal facility where business mailers present bulk, presorted, 

and permit mail for acceptance.45 The BMEU survey measures business mailers’ level of 

satisfaction with the BMEU, including BMEU employees and the service received.46 After 

mailers produce and finalize a postage statement at the BMEU, they receive a web-based 

survey consisting of nine evaluation questions and three open-ended mailer supplied 

responses. Preface at 2. These questions ask about mailers’ overall satisfaction with their 

experience at the BMEU, as well as their experience with acceptance employees at the 

BMEU.47

The USPS.com survey measures customer satisfaction with the Postal Service’s website 

and solicits customers’ opinions of website elements. FY 2018 Annual Report at 20. The 

survey is offered to a random sample of 2 percent of users who access the website through 

a desktop or tablet and click through 3 or more web pages. Preface at 5. In addition, the 

survey is offered to a random sample of 5 percent of users who access the website through 

 

43 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.

44 Preface at 4. Customers who only provided a phone number receive a call from the IVR system. Id.

45 United States Postal Service, Glossary of Postal Terms (Publication 32), July 2013 (available at:

https://about.usps.com/publications/pub32/pub32_terms.htm).

46 FY 2018 Annual Report at 19; Preface at 2.

47 Id.; see Surveys at 62-70.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 37 -

a mobile device. Id. The survey consists of two evaluation questions and one open-ended 

customer supplied response supplied.48

The Large Business survey measures customer satisfaction of large business customers, 

which are those with 250 or more employees.49 The Large Business survey is managed by 

a third-party vendor who solicits customers to sign up to participate in the survey. Preface 

at 5. The survey was conducted quarterly during FY 2018. Id. The survey consists of 14 

evaluation questions and 2 open-ended customer supplied responses. Id.

b. FY 2018 Performance Indicators

The Postal Service uses these customer surveys to develop performance indicators that 

measure progress toward achievement of the Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance goal. Each customer survey corresponds to a performance indicator. For 

example, the BSN customer survey corresponds to the BSN performance indicator.

In FY 2018, the result of each performance indicator was calculated as the percentage of 

customers who responded “Very Satisfied” or “Mostly Satisfied” to an Overall Satisfaction 

question on the corresponding customer survey.50 The Overall Satisfaction questions for 

each customer survey are listed in Table III-4.

 

48 Preface at 5; see Surveys at 80.

49 FY 2018 ACR at 52; Preface at 5; see Surveys at 46-61.

50 FY 2018 ACR at 49; Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.e.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 38 -

Table III-4

Customer Surveys

FY 2018 Overall Satisfaction Questions

Customer Survey Overall Satisfaction Question

Business Service Network How satisfied are you with the overall experience 

provided by the Business Service Network?

Point of Sale Thinking about this visit to the Post Office, overall, 

how satisfied were you?

Deliverya Thinking about your overall experience with receiving 

mail and/or packages delivered by USPS recently, how 

satisfied are you?

Customer Care CenterbLive Agent survey: How satisfied are you with the 

overall experience provided by the contact center?

IVR system survey: Please tell us how satisfied you 

were with the overall experience provided by the 

USPS automated system.

Enterprise Customer Care Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of 

service you received in response to the issue?

Business Mail Entry Unit Overall, how satisfied were you with your experience 

at the Business Mail Entry Unit?

USPS.com How satisfied are you with the overall experience 

provided by the USPS.com website?

Large Business First of all, thinking about all aspects of recent 

experiences your business has had with the USPS, 

how satisfied are you with us?

a The FY 2018 Delivery performance indicator result combines responses from both residential and small/medium business customers into one 

unweighted score. Library Reference USPS–FY18–38, Excel file “CI Composite_ALL SURVEYS_ProgramOverview_2018.xlsx.” In past years, the 

Delivery performance indicator result was a composite of weighted results from the Delivery (Residential) and Delivery (Small/Medium 

Business) surveys. Preface at 3-4; Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 8.b.

b The FY 2018 CCC performance indicator result is a composite of overall customer satisfaction with a live agent (25 percent) and the IVR 

system (75 percent). FY 2018 ACR at 50-51.

Source: Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.e.; Preface at 2-5; Library Reference USPS–FY18–38, Excel file “CI Composite_ALL 

SURVEYS_ProgramOverview_2018.xlsx.”

In FY 2018, all eight survey performance indicators (i.e., the BSN, POS, Delivery, CCC, eCC, 

BMEU, USPS.com, and Large Business performance indicators) were components of the CX 

Composite Index, which the Postal Service uses as a performance indicator for measuring 

overall customer experience.51 The CX Composite Index is a weighted composite of the 

component performance indicators. Methodologies for calculating the results of the CX 

Composite Index and component performance indicators are discussed in Chapter 3, 

section B.3.a., infra.

 

51 FY 2018 Annual Report at 19. The CX Composite Index was called the Customer Insights Composite Index in past years. Id. at 19 n.2.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 39 -

c. Comparison of FY 2018 Targets and Results

Table III-5 compares FY 2018 targets and results for each Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance indicator. As Table III-5 shows, the Postal Service missed FY 2018 targets for 

each performance indicator except for the BMEU.

Table III-5

Excellent Customer Experiences Performance Indicators

Comparison of FY 2018 Targets and Results

Performance Indicator FY 2018 Target FY 2018 Result

. Target Not Met

Customer Experience Composite Index 80.93 67.47

Business Service Network 96.73 95.90

Point of Sale 90.42 87.98

Delivery 86.33 80.47

Customer Care Centera 69.17 39.19

Enterprise Customer Care 70.00 36.73

Business Mail Entry Unit 95.00 95.33

USPS.com 66.33 57.54

Large Business 78.00 72.34

a The FY 2018 Customer Care Center target and result are not comparable. Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 

2. This issue is discussed in Chapter 2. See Chapter 2, section C.2.a., supra.

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 17.

The FY 2018 Report explains that the two primary contributors for missing the CX 

Composite Index target were the FY 2018 results for the eCC (36.73) and the CCC (39.19) 

performance indicators, which were considerably below their respective FY 2018 targets 

(70.00 and 69.17 respectively). FY 2018 Annual Report at 20. For the eCC performance 

indicator, the Postal Service states “[t]he primary reason cited by customers was that their 

issues were not adequately resolved quickly.” Id. The Postal Service explains that an 

analysis of eCC performance indicator results has shown that the largest drivers of 

customer satisfaction are contacting the customer within 24 hours and successfully 

resolving the issue. Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 11.

For the CCC performance indicator, the Postal Service states “[t]he primary root causes 

identified by customers were long wait times before speaking to a [Postal Service] 

representative and the inability to resolve their issues at first contact with [the IVR] 

system.” FY 2018 Annual Report at 20. The Postal Service explains that in FY 2018, 

approximately 66 percent of CCC calls were not resolved on the first attempt, which drove 

overall satisfaction downwards. Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 11. The Postal Service 

also notes that to increase survey response rates, it changed the CCC survey by reducing 

the number of questions and automatically routing customers to take the survey. FY 2018 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 40 -

Annual Report at 20. These changes resulted in a six-fold increase in survey responses, but 

decreased the FY 2018 result.52

The Postal Service also explains why it missed FY 2018 targets for the other component 

performance indicators. These explanations are provided in Table III-6.

Table III-6

Excellent Customer Experiences

Component Performance Indicators

Reasons for Missing FY 2018 Targets

Component Performance Indicator Reason for Missing FY 2018 Target

Business Service Network Business Service Network was not adequately staffed 

throughout FY 2018, creating inconsistencies in 

territories where there was no regular representative.

Point of Sale Need for additional training of front line retail 

employees.

Delivery Significant service disruptions including weather and 

natural disasters during the first half of the year.

USPS.com Website functionality and design.

Large Business Ease of contacting a representative and issue/claim 

resolution.

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 20-21; Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 4.

d. FY 2019 Plan

In the FY 2019 Plan, the Postal Service states that it will improve customer experiences in 

FY 2019 by establishing the Vice President of Customer Experience position to provide 

leadership, coordination, and focused attention on customer experience issues. FY 2018 

Annual Report at 21. To improve the eCC performance result, the Postal Service explains 

that it will “improve initial contact times through employee training initiatives aimed at 

developing case management skills... .” Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 11. The Postal 

Service will also provide frequent customer experience feedback reports to area and 

district level management, as well as focus on initial contact and issue resolution. Id.

To improve the CCC survey result, the Postal Service describes upgrades made to the IVR 

system in FY 2018, specifically upgrading IVR system speech recognition and enhancing 

the menu, to increase the likelihood that customers will remain on the call through 

transfer to a live agent and thereby help customers resolve their issues during their first 

call to the CCC.53 The Postal Service also states that in FY 2019 it will focus on optimizing 

staffing schedules based on call arrival patterns and implementing technology solutions to 

 

52 Id.; Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 10.

53 Id.; FY 2018 ACR at 55.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 41 -

help customers with self-service options. Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 11. To improve 

the quality provided by live agents, supervisors, and analysts on calls, the Postal Service has 

conducted new and enhanced training to CCC personnel.

54

The Postal Service also describes plans and schedules for meeting FY 2019 targets for the 

other component performance indicators, which are listed in Table III-7.

Table III-7

Excellent Customer Experiences

Component Performance Indicators

Plans and Schedules for Meeting FY 2019 Targets

Component Performance Indicator Plans and Schedules for 

Meeting FY 2019 Target

Business Service Network Implement process improvements to improve the 

number of respondents; deploy the Single Package 

Look-Up tool to enable representatives to better 

assess and resolve package delivery issues.

Point of Sale Training and retraining retail employees on work 

efficiency, courtesy, and knowledge of products and 

services.

Delivery Implement operational, technological, and training 

initiatives to improve mail delivery process; use a 

more accurate internal service performance 

measurement system; prioritize capital investments 

and actively train and engage employees.

a

Business Mail Entry Unit Implement training and certification processes to 

become Business Solutions Centers; pilot Mail and 

Shipping Solutions Center to provide centralized 

support, first contact solutions and standardized 

responses across the country; develop automated 

solutions for package pricing and payment methods.

USPS.com Refresh USPS.com website with new user interfaces, 

better navigation, and improved functionality 

throughout the year.

a Plans and schedules for improving the Delivery performance indicator result are discussed as part of the High-Quality Service performance 

goal. See Chapter 3, section A.3.b., supra.

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 20-21; Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 4; FY 2018 ACR at 54-57.

In the FY 2019 Plan, the Postal Service describes several changes to the Excellent 

Customer Experiences performance indicators and methodologies for calculating results. 

First, in FY 2019 “[t]he CX Composite Index will measure the aggregate variance of 

customer satisfaction scores across each touchpoint relative to the performance target 

[established] for each touchpoint.” FY 2018 Annual Report at 21. Second, the Large 

Business performance indicator will be removed because business customer experiences 

 

54 Id.; FY 2018 ACR at 55.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 42 -

are already captured in the BSN and BMEU surveys. Id. Third, the Postal Service is 

changing the methodology for calculating the eCC performance indicator result by 

measuring both customer satisfaction with resolution quality received and year-to-date 

overall satisfaction improvement compared to the same period last year. Id. These changes 

are discussed below. See Chapter 3, section B.3.a., infra.

2. Comments

The Public Representative comments that in FY 2018, the BMEU performance indicator 

was the only Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicator to meet or exceed its 

FY 2018 target. PR Comments at 6-7. She notes that FY 2018 was the first year the BMEU 

performance indicator was used to evaluate progress toward this goal. Id. at 7. She asserts 

that without several years of results, no useful conclusions can be drawn from the Postal 

Service meeting the BMEU performance indicator target. Id. She observes that the FY 2019 

BMEU performance indicator target is lower than the FY 2018 result and that the Postal 

Service does not provide an explanation. Id. She urges the Postal Service to reconsider the 

FY 2019 target. Id.

The Public Representative notes that FY 2018 results for the CX Composite Index and the 

other component performance indicators did not meet FY 2018 targets and declined from 

FY 2017. Id. Thus, she concludes that the Postal Service did not meet the Excellent 

Customer Experiences goal in FY 2018. Id. at 8.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service explains that it sets targets using a standard 

methodology based on data from the most localized level. Postal Service Reply Comments 

at 4. For the BMEU performance indicator, the most localized level was the district level, 

where the median score was 95.13. Id. Although the national score was higher, the Postal 

Service states that it set the FY 2019 target based on performance at the district level. Id.

3. Commission Analysis

The Postal Service exceeded the FY 2018 target for the BMEU performance indicator, but 

missed FY 2018 targets for the other Excellent Customer Experiences performance 

indicators. Thus, the Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met the Excellent 

Customer Experiences performance goal in FY 2018, by meeting only one of the nine targets.

In the FY 2018 ACR, the Postal Service provides copies of each customer survey and other 

information required by 39 C.F.R. § 3055.92.55 The Postal Service also includes additional 

information by describing changes made to the customer surveys and performance 

indicator methodologies, as well as discussing the impact of the methodology changes on 

FY 2018 results. FY 2018 ACR at 49-57. Library Reference USPS–FY18–38 also includes a 

helpful table containing detailed information on the survey methodology and data 

 

55 See Library Reference USPS–FY18–38.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 43 -

collection for each customer survey.56 This additional information facilitates the 

Commission’s review of the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal. It also 

helps interested persons understand the customer survey and methodology changes as 

well as the Postal Service’s rationale for making these changes.

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to provide this additional 

information in the FY 2019 ACR by describing any changes made to customer surveys and 

performance indicator methodologies, providing the rationale for making these changes, and 

discussing the impact of these changes on FY 2019 results. The Commission also recommends 

that the FY 2019 ACR include a similar table to the one included in Library Reference 

USPS-FY18–38 that contains detailed information on the survey methodology and data 

collection for each customer survey.

The FY 2018 Report explains why FY 2018 targets were not met and describes plans and 

schedules for meeting FY 2019 targets as required by 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3). See FY 2018 

Annual Report at 20-21. The Postal Service provides further details on these explanations, 

plans, and schedules in the FY 2018 ACR. See FY 2018 ACR at 53-57. The Commission 

appreciates the information provided in the FY 2018 ACR and finds that it enhances the 

explanations, plans, and schedules in the FY 2018 Report and FY 2019 Plan. The additional 

information facilitates cross-references among the FY 2018 Report, the FY 2019 Plan, and 

the FY 2018 ACR and may help future annual performance reports and annual 

performance plans comply with section 2804(d)(3).

In the FY 2019 Report and FY 2020 Plan, if the Postal Service misses one or more targets for 

the Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicators, the Commission recommends 

that the Postal Service consider including a cross-reference to the FY 2019 ACR explaining 

why FY 2019 targets were not met and describing plans and schedules for meeting FY 2020 

targets.

In the sections below, the Commission describes customer survey and performance 

indicator methodology changes and discusses comparability issues related to the Excellent 

Customer Experiences performance indicators.

a. Survey and Methodology Changes

In the FY 2018 Report, the Postal Service states that it evaluated each survey for 

effectiveness in measuring overall customer satisfaction. FY 2018 Annual Report at 20. The 

Postal Service explains that to enhance its understanding of customer satisfaction and 

improve results for FY 2019, it significantly revamped its processes for measuring 

customer experiences during FY 2018. FY 2018 ACR at 48. These changes included 

revising customer surveys and methodologies for calculating results. Id. at 49-57.

 

56 Library Reference USPS–FY18–38, Excel file “CI Composite_ALL SURVEYS_ProgramOverview_2018.xlsx.”
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 44 -

The Postal Service states that in FY 2017, it “conducted a qualitative evaluation of the 

customer survey portfolio to better understand and document the current state of the 

surveys.” Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 9. As part of this evaluation, the Postal Service 

examined several metrics for all surveys, such as the number of questions, the response 

rates, and the number of surveys distributed. Id. It also assessed the consistency of 

comparable metrics across surveys to determine whether the surveys were using the 

same scales and wording. Id. Based on these findings, the Postal Service updated all 

customer surveys to use consistently-worded Overall Satisfaction questions and a 6-point 

scale to ensure more comparable results across the surveys in FY 2018.57

The Postal Service also changed the CCC survey by reducing the number of questions and 

automatically routing customers to take the surveys.58 This change resulted in a six-fold 

increase in survey response compared to the previous year. FY 2018 Annual Report at 20.

The Commission commends the Postal Service for evaluating and updating the current 

customer surveys and performance indicator methodologies to ensure quality and 

consistency and for improving CCC survey response rates. The Commissions finds that using 

consistently-worded Overall Satisfaction questions and a 6-point scale will promote 

comparability of results in FY 2019 and beyond.

However, as discussed below, the survey and methodology changes affected the 

comparability of results for several Excellent Customer Experiences performance 

indicators in the FY 2018 Report. See Chapter 3, section B.3.b., infra. Specifically, in 

FY 2018, the Postal Service changed the methodology for calculating results of the CX 

Composite Index, BSN, Delivery, CCC, and eCC performance indicators. These methodology 

changes are discussed below.

(1) Customer Experience (CX) Composite Index

The CX Composite Index is a performance indicator that measures overall customer 

experience.59 The result is a weighted composite of the component performance 

indicators. Table III-8 illustrates how the methodology for calculating Customer 

Experience composite index results changed between FY 2014 and FY 2019.

 

57 Id. A 6-point scale means that there are six possible responses to each survey question ranging from “Very Satisfied” to “Very Dissatisfied.” 

See Library Reference USPS–FY18–38, Excel file “CI Composite_ALL SURVEYS_ProgramOverview_2018.xlsx.”

58 FY 2018 Annual Report at 20; Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 10.

59 The CX Composite Index was formerly called the Customer Insights Composite Score. FY 2018 Annual Report at 19 n.2.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 45 -

Table III-8

Customer Experience Composite Index

Component Performance Indicator Weights

Component Performance 

Indicator

Weight of Customer Experience Composite Index

FY 2014, FY 2015, 

and FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019

Business Service Network 40% 30% 10% 10%

Point of Sale 20% 20% 10% 15%

Delivery 20% 20% 20% 20%

Customer Care Center 20% 20% 20% 20%

Enterprise Customer Care Not Included 10% 15% 20%

Business Mail Entry Unit Not Included Not Included 10% 10%

USPS.com Not Included Not Included 5% 5%

Large Business Not Included Not Included 10% Not Included

Source: Docket No. ACR2016, Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, December 29, 2016, file “USPS-FY16-38 

Preface.pdf,” at 2; FY 2017 Annual Report at 17-18; Responses to CHIR No. 2, questions 6.b.-c.

Table III-8 shows that from FY 2014 through FY 2016, the Postal Service calculated the CX 

Composite Index result using the same methodology. In FY 2017, the Postal Service 

changed the methodology by adding the eCC as a component performance indicator and 

adjusting the weights of the other performance indicators accordingly. In FY 2018, the 

Postal Service added three new component performance indicators (BMEU, USPS.com, and 

Large Business) and adjusted the weights of the other performance indicators accordingly. 

See FY 2017 Analysis at 42-43. In FY 2019, the Postal Service proposes to remove the Large 

Business component performance indicator and adjust the weights of the POS and eCC 

component performance indicators upward to account for the removal of the Large 

Business component performance indicator.60

(a) FY 2018 Methodology

The Postal Service described the FY 2018 CX Composite Index performance indicator 

result as “a simple weighted average of the component [performance indicator results].” 

FY 2017 Annual Report at 18. The Postal Service calculated the FY 2018 CX Composite 

Index result in three steps. First, the Postal Service determined the FY 2018 result for each 

component performance indicator.61 Second, the Postal Service multiplied the result of 

each component performance indicator by its respective weight listed in Table III-8, supra. 

Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.b. Third, the Postal Service added the weighted 

results together to arrive at the FY 2018 CX Composite Index result of 67.47. Id. Table III-9

illustrates the steps for calculating the FY 2018 CX Composite Index result.

 

60 FY 2018 Annual Report at 21; see Table III-8.

61 Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.b. The FY 2018 result for each component performance indicator was calculated using the Overall 

Satisfaction question for the corresponding customer survey listed in Table III-4. See Chapter 3, section B.1.b., supra.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 46 -

Table III-9

Customer Experience Composite Index

Methodology for Calculating FY 2018 Result

Component 

Performance 

Indicator

FY 2018 Result Weight 

(Percent)

Weighted 

Result

Business Service 

Network 95.90 x 10 = 9.59

Point of Sale 87.98 x 10 = 8.80

Delivery 80.47 x 20 = 16.09

Customer Care 

Center 39.19 x 20 = 7.84

Enterprise 

Customer Care 36.73 x 15 = 5.51

Business Mail 

Entry Unit 95.33 x 10 = 9.53

USPS.com 57.54 x 5 = 2.88

Large Business 72.34 x 10 = 7.23

FY 2018 Customer Experience Composite Index Result 67.47

Source: Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.b.

(b) FY 2019 Methodology

In FY 2019, the Postal Service will again change the methodology for calculating the CX 

Composite Index result. It will remove the Large Business performance indicator and 

adjust the weights of the other component performance indicators accordingly as shown 

in Table III-8.

62 The Postal Service will also calculate the FY 2019 result using a mapping 

scale and express the result as a number between 1 and 15. Responses to CHIR No. 21, 

question 2.b. The steps for calculating the FY 2019 result are described below.

First, the Postal Service will determine FY 2019 results for each component performance 

indicator. See Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.c. The Postal Service will use the same 

methodology used in FY 2018 to calculate FY 2019 results for each component 

performance indicator except for the eCC performance indicator. See Responses to CHIR 

No. 2, question 6.d.ii. For this performance indicator, the Postal Service will calculate: (1) 

an eCC Overall Satisfaction Score based on customers’ overall satisfaction with the quality 

of service received in response to their issue; and (2) an eCC Improvement Rate as 

compared to the same period last year.63 In a CHIR response, the Postal Service provides 

the following hypothetical FY 2019 results to show how it plans to calculate the FY 2019 

CX Composite Index result:

 

62 FY 2018 Annual Report at 21; Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.c.

63 FY 2018 Annual Report at 21; Responses to CHIR No. 21, question 2.a.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 47 -

Table III-10

Component Performance Indicators

Hypothetical FY 2019 Results

Performance Indicator Hypothetical

FY 2019 Result

Business Service Network 95.90

Point of Sale 91.02

Delivery 84.96

Customer Care Center 45.28

eCC Overall Satisfaction 

Score 37.50

eCC Improvement Rate 10.65

BMEU 95.33

USPS.com 57.54

Source: Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.c.

Second, the Postal Service will map each FY 2019 result listed in Table III-10 to a 15-cell 

matrix to determine a Cell Value between 1 and 15. Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.c. 

The Postal Service provides the 15-cell matrix in a CHIR response. See id. Each FY 2019 

result will be mapped to the Cell Value that has the number closest to the result without 

exceeding it. See id. Table III-11 shows how each hypothetical FY 2019 component 

performance indicator result listed in Table III-10 would be mapped to the 15-cell matrix. 

For example, a FY 2019 Delivery performance indicator result of 84.96 would have a Cell 

Value of 5.64 The eCC Overall Satisfaction Score of 37.50 would have a Cell Value of 2, and 

the eCC Improvement Rate of 10.65 would have a Cell Value of 6.

 

64 The Delivery performance indicator result of 84.96 would be mapped to the number 84.32 in the matrix, which is the number closest to the 

Delivery result without exceeding it.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 48 -

Table III-11

FY 2019 Customer Experience Composite Index Methodology

Mapping of Hypothetical FY 2019 Results to 15-Cell Matrix

Cell Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Delivery 72.95 76.82 81.55 82.75 84.32 86.33 86.58 86.93 87.40 88.00 88.64 89.32 90.08 90.96 92.00

eCC Overall 

Satisfaction 

Score

35.00 36.65 38.67 46.50 56.84 70.00 70.25 70.55 70.90 71.30 71.80 72.40 73.10 73.95 75.00

eCC 

Improvement 

Rate

2.50 3.70 4.98 6.40 8.05 10.00 11.00 12.20 13.60 15.20 17.20 19.60 22.40 25.80 30.00

Business 

Service 

Network

93.85 94.31 94.80 95.35 95.98 96.73 96.85 97.01 97.22 97.50 97.82 98.16 98.54 98.98 99.50

Business Mail 

Entry Unit 94.60 94.68 94.77 94.88 94.99 95.13 95.28 95.49 95.76 96.12 96.58 97.07 97.62 98.25 99.00

Point of Sale 83.71 85.91 88.59 89.05 89.65 90.42 90.57 90.77 91.05 91.40 92.46 93.58 94.83 96.28 98.00

Customer 

Care Center

40.00 41.46 43.24 46.18 50.06 55.00 55.75 56.80 58.20 60.00 61.60 63.30 65.20 67.40 70.00

USPS.com 55.00 56.15 57.55 59.41 61.87 65.00 66.50 68.60 71.40 75.00 76.60 78.30 80.20 82.40 85.00

Source: Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.c.

Cell Values for the eCC Overall Satisfaction Score and eCC Improvement Rate will be 

averaged to obtain an eCC Composite Score, which will be used to calculate the FY 2019 CX 

Composite Index result. Responses to CHIR No. 21, question 2.a. The eCC Improvement 

Rate will only be applied if it helps the eCC Composite Score. Id. Applying the hypothetical 

results, the eCC Composite Score would weigh the Cell Values for the eCC Overall 

Satisfaction Score (2) and eCC Improvement Rate (6) equally, and the hypothetical eCC 

Composite Score would have a Cell Value of 4.65

Third, the Postal Service will multiply the Cell Values of the eCC Composite Score and each 

component performance indicator by their respective weight listed in Table III-8. 

Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.c. This calculation results in Weighted Cell Values for 

the eCC Composite Score and each component performance indicator. Id. Fourth, the 

Postal Service will add the Weighted Cell Values together to arrive at a number between 1 

and 15, rounded to the nearest whole number.66 This number will be the FY 2019 CX 

Composite Index result. Id. The third and fourth steps are illustrated in Table III-12, which 

arrives at a hypothetical FY 2019 CX Composite Index result of 5.

 

65 See id.; See Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.c.

66 Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.c.; Responses to CHIR No. 21, question 2.b.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 49 -

Table III-12

FY 2019 Customer Experience Composite Index Methodology

Mapping of Hypothetical FY 2019 Results

Component 

Performance 

Indicator

Cell Value Weight 

(Percent)

Weighted

Cell Value

Business Service 

Network 4 x 10 = 0.4

Point of Sale 8 x 15 = 1.2

Delivery 5 x 20 = 1.0

Customer Care 

Center 3 x 20 = 0.6

Enterprise 

Customer Care 

Composite 

Score

4 x 20 = 0.8

Business Mail 

Entry Unit 7 x 10 = 0.7

USPS.com 2 x 5 = 0.1

FY 2019 Customer Experience Composite Index Result 

(rounded to the nearest whole number) 5

Source: Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.c.; Responses to CHIR No. 21, question 2.

The FY 2018 Report states that the Postal Service will calculate the CX Composite Index 

differently in FY 2019 by “measur[ing] the aggregate variance of customer satisfaction 

scores across each touchpoint relative to the performance target [established] for each 

touchpoint.” FY 2018 Annual Report at 21. However, the FY 2018 Report does not explain 

how the FY 2019 CX Composite Index result will be calculated. Also, it was unclear from 

the Postal Service’s explanation in the FY 2018 Report that the FY 2019 result would be 

expressed as a number between 1 and 15, instead of as the sum of weighted results of the 

component performance indicators as it has been in previous years. Although CHIR 

responses clarified the methodology for calculating the FY 2019 result, it would have 

increased the transparency and quality of the FY 2018 Report if the Postal Service included 

more detailed information in the report itself.

As discussed in Chapter 2, continual changes to performance indicators and 

methodologies for calculating results 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 Chapter 2, section C.4., supra. These changes also 

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

time. 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 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 50 -

explain these changes and provide the rationale for making them in future annual 

performance plans and annual performance reports.

(2) Component Performance Indicators

Table III-13 shows the methodologies used to calculate results of each component 

performance indicator from FY 2015 through FY 2018.

Table III-13

Excellent Customer Experiences

Component Performance Indicator Methodologies

FY 2015 through FY 2018

Component 

Performance 

Indicator

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

Business 

Service 

Network

Overall satisfaction 

with representative

Overall satisfaction 

with representative

Overall satisfaction 

with representative

Overall satisfaction with 

the Business Service 

Network

Point of Sale Overall satisfaction 

with Post Office visit

Overall satisfaction 

with Post Office visit

Overall satisfaction 

with Post Office visit

Overall satisfaction with 

Post Office visit

Delivery Overall satisfaction 

with recent delivery 

(weighted)a

Overall satisfaction 

with recent delivery 

(weighted)a

Composite score 

based on satisfaction 

with letter carrier 

and Post Office Box

Overall satisfaction with 

recent delivery of mail or 

packages (unweighted)

Customer Care 

Center Overall satisfaction 

with live agent

Overall satisfaction 

with live agent

Overall satisfaction 

with live agent

Composite of satisfaction 

with live agent and IVR 

systemb

Enterprise 

Customer Care Not Used Not Used Percentage of Cases 

Reopened

Overall satisfaction with 

quality of service 

received

Business Mail 

Entry Unit Not Used Not Used Not Used

Overall satisfaction with 

experience at the 

Business Mail Entry Unit

USPS.com

Not Used Not Used Not Used

Overall satisfaction with 

experience provided by 

the USPS.com website

Large Business

Not Used Not Used Not Used

Overall satisfaction with 

recent experiences with 

the Postal Service

Source: Preface at 2-5; FY 2018 ACR at 49-51; Responses to CHIR No. 2, questions 6.d.ii., 6.e., 7-8.

Not Used – performance indicator was not used to measure Excellent Customer Experiences.

a FY 2015 and FY 2016 Delivery performance indicator results were weighted 50 percent residential customers and 50 percent small/medium 

business customers.

b The Live Agent survey result is weighted 25 percent, and the IVR system survey result is weighted 75 percent. These numbers are based on 

relative call volumes. FY 2018 ACR at 50.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 51 -

Table III-13 shows that the POS performance indicator was the only one with a consistent 

methodology used to calculate results since FY 2015.67 The Postal Service introduced the 

BMEU, USPS.com, and Large Business performance indicators in FY 2018.68 The Postal 

Service states that it is removing the Large Business performance indicator in FY 2019 to 

reduce customer segment survey redundancies, noting that business customer experience 

is already captured in the expanded BSN and BMEU surveys. FY 2018 Annual Report at 21.

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to use the same methodology 

for calculating results of the POS, BMEU, and USPS.com performance indicators in FY 2019 

and beyond, unless changing the methodology would significantly improve the metric. If the 

Postal Service decides to change the methodology for calculating a performance indicator 

result, the Commission suggests that the Postal Service describe the change and provide the 

rationale for it in future annual performance plans and annual performance reports. The 

Commission also suggests that the Postal Service explain how the methodology change 

improves the metric.

Table III-13 shows that the Postal Service did not use the same methodologies for 

calculating results of the BSN, Delivery, CCC, and eCC component performance indicators 

between FY 2017 and FY 2018. These methodology changes are described in more detail 

below.

(a) Business Service Network (BSN)

For the BSN performance indicator, results from FY 2015 through 2017 were calculated 

based on customers’ overall satisfaction with the service provided by the BSN 

representative.69 In FY 2018, the Postal Service changed the methodology by calculating 

the BSN performance indicator result based on customers’ overall satisfaction with the 

BSN.70 This change was intended to provide an expanded view of how the Postal Service is 

resolving customer issues serviced by the BSN. FY 2018 ACR at 50.

(b) Delivery

For the Delivery performance indicator, results from FY 2014 through FY 2016 were 

calculated based on customers’ overall experience with receiving mail or packages.71

 

67 The result is based on customers’ overall satisfaction with the Post Office visit. The question used to calculate results is, “Thinking about this 

visit to the Post Office, overall, how satisfied were you?” See Surveys at 2, 6; Library Reference USPS–FY18–38, Excel file “CI Composite_ALL 

SURVEYS_ProgramOverview_2018.xlsx.”

68 FY 2017 Analysis at 38. The questions used to calculate results of these performance indicators are listed in Table III-4, supra.

69 Preface at 3; FY 2018 ACR at 50; Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 6.d.ii n.2. The question used to calculate the result was “How satisfied 

are you with the overall service provided during this interaction [with the BSN Representative]?” See Surveys at 18.

70 Preface at 3; FY 2018 ACR at 50-51. The question used to calculate the result was “How satisfied are you with the overall experience 

provided by the Business Service Network?” Surveys at 17; Library Reference USPS–FY18–38, Excel file “CI Composite_ALL 

SURVEYS_ProgramOverview_2018.xlsx.”

71 FY 2016 Analysis at 43; Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 8.b. This question asked, “Just thinking about your overall experience with the 

mail or packages you recently RECEIVED, how satisfied are you with USPS performance?” FY 2016 Analysis at 43 n.60.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 52 -

Results were weighted 50 percent residential customers and 50 percent small/medium 

business customers. Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 8.b. In FY 2017, the Delivery 

performance indicator result was a weighted composite measuring satisfaction with 

customers’ letter carriers or Post Office Boxes.72 In FY 2018, the Postal Service again 

changed the methodology by calculating the Delivery performance indicator result based

on customers’ overall satisfaction with receiving mail or packages delivered by the Postal 

Service.73 The Commission discussed Delivery performance indicator methodology 

changes in past analyses of annual performance reports and annual performance plans.74

(c) Customer Care Center (CCC)

For the CCC performance indicator, results from FY 2015 through FY 2017 were based on 

customers’ satisfaction with speaking to a live agent.75 This question asked, “Think only 

about the agent who handled your recent call. On a scale from 1 to 9, how would you rate 

the agent’s overall quality of service?” Id. Results were calculated on a 9-point scale and 

expressed as the percentage of customers who selected the top four survey responses.76

In FY 2018, the Postal Service made several changes to the CCC survey and performance 

indicator methodology. First, the Overall Satisfaction question on the Live Agent survey 

changed to “Please tell us how satisfied you were with the overall experience provided by 

the contact center... .”77 Second, the Postal Service introduced the IVR system survey, 

which measures customer satisfaction with the overall experience provided by the IVR 

system.78 Third, the metric for calculating results of both the Live Agent and IVR system 

surveys changed to a 6-point scale, with results expressed as the percentage of customers 

who selected the top two surveys responses.79 The FY 2018 CCC performance indicator 

result is a composite of the weighted results from the Live Agent survey (25 percent) and 

IVR system survey (75 percent). FY 2018 ACR at 50-51.

 

72 FY 2017 Annual Report at 16, 18; FY 2018 ACR at 49-51; Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 8.b. The Commission discussed the methodology 

for calculating the FY 2017 Delivery performance indicator result in the FY 2016 Analysis. See FY 2016 Analysis at 43-47.

73 FY 2018 Annual Report at 19; Preface at 4; FY 2018 ACR at 50-51. The question used to calculate the FY 2018 Delivery performance indicator 

result was “Thinking about your overall experience with receiving mail and/or packages delivered by USPS recently, how satisfied are you?” 

See Surveys at 26; Library Reference USPS–FY18–38, Excel file “CI Composite_ALL SURVEYS_ProgramOverview_2018.xlsx.”

74 See FY 2016 Analysis at 43-47; FY 2017 Analysis at 45-46.

75 Preface at 4; Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.c.

76 FY 2016 Analysis at 34-35; Preface at 4; Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.c.

77 Preface at 4; Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.c.; see Surveys at 71.

78 Preface at 4; Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.c. This question asks, “Please tell us how satisfied you were with the overall experience 

provided by the USPS automated system ... .” Id.; see Surveys at 75.

79 Preface at 4; Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.c. The Postal Service also describes changes in the survey vendors and number of 

questions asked. Preface at 4 n.1; Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 10; Responses to CHIR No. 10, questions 2, 3.c.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 53 -

(d) Enterprise Customer Care (eCC)

The Postal Service introduced the eCC performance indicator in FY 2017. In FY 2017, the 

eCC performance indicator result was calculated as the percentage of cases resolved 

during any particular month and reopened within 90 days. FY 2017 Annual Report at 16-

17. In FY 2018, the Postal Service changed the methodology by basing the result on 

customers’ overall satisfaction with the quality of service received in response to their 

issue.80

In FY 2019, the Postal Service will again change the methodology for calculating the eCC 

performance indicator result. As in FY 2018, the Postal Service will calculate an eCC 

Overall Satisfaction Score based on customers’ overall satisfaction with the quality of 

service received in response to their issue.81 The Postal Service will also calculate an eCC 

Improvement Rate as compared to the same period last year. FY 2018 Annual Report at 21. 

The Postal Service will use the eCC Overall Satisfaction Score and eCC Improvement Rate 

to calculate the FY 2019 CX Composite Index result.82

b. Comparability Issues

As discussed in Chapter 2, the customer survey and performance indicator methodology 

changes described above resulted in two legal compliance issues related to the Excellent 

Customer Experiences performance goal. Each issue is discussed below.

(1) Target and Result

The FY 2018 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) because the FY 2018 CCC 

performance indicator target and result listed in the FY 2018 Report are not comparable. 

The FY 2018 target was based on satisfaction with live agents only, whereas the FY 2018 

result measured satisfaction with both live agents and the IVR system. Responses to CHIR 

No. 10, question 2. The FY 2018 Report does not explain why providing a comparable FY 

2018 result is not feasible.

The Postal Service is changing the methodology for calculating FY 2019 results of the CX 

Composite Index and eCC performance indicators. See Chapter 3, section B.3.a., supra. The 

FY 2019 eCC performance indicator target is expressed using the FY 2019 methodology. 

FY 2018 Annual Report at 17 n.6. However, the FY 2019 target for the CX Composite Index 

performance indicator (80.00) is expressed using the FY 2018 methodology. See id. at 17.

 

80 Preface at 4; FY 2018 ACR at 50-51. The question used to calculate the FY 2018 eCC performance indicator result was “Overall, how satisfied 

are you with the quality of service received in response to the issue?” See Surveys at 38, 42; Library Reference USPS–FY18–38, Excel file “CI 

Composite_ALL SURVEYS_ProgramOverview_2018.xlsx.”

81 FY 2018 Annual Report at 21; Responses to CHIR No. 21, question 2.a. This is the same methodology used to calculate the FY 2018 eCC 

performance indicator result.

82 See Chapter 3, section B.3.a.(1)., supra. The Postal Service states that the eCC Improvement Rate will only be applied if it helps improve the 

eCC Composite Score. Responses to CHIR No. 21, question 2.a.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 54 -

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 2019 result for each performance 

indicator must be comparable to the target set in the FY 2019 Plan. To be comparable, the 

FY 2019 result for the eCC performance indicator must be expressed using the FY 2019 

methodology based on customers’ overall satisfaction with the quality of service received in 

response to their issue and an improvement rate. The FY 2019 result for the CX Composite 

Index performance indicator must be expressed using both the FY 2018 and FY 2019 

methodologies to ensure that the FY 2019 targets and results are comparable. As an 

alternative, if a comparable FY 2019 result cannot be provided, the FY 2019 Report must 

explain why and either: (1) explain how to compare results between the current and former 

methodologies; or (2) explain why making this comparison is not feasible. See Chapter 2, 

section C.2.a., supra.

(2) Comparable Three-Year Results

The FY 2018 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for the Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance goal because it lacks comparable results for FYs 2015, 2016, 

2017, and 2018 for the BSN, Delivery, CCC, and eCC performance indicators. See Chapter 2, 

section C.2.b., supra. In the FY 2017 Analysis, the Commission stated that comparable

results must be calculated and expressed using the same performance indicator 

methodology. FY 2017 Analysis at 15. If comparable results cannot be provided, the 

Commission directed that the FY 2018 Report explain why results are not directly 

comparable across these fiscal years. Id. In that case, the FY 2018 Report was required to 

either explain how to compare results between the old and new methodologies or explain 

why making this comparison is not feasible. Id.

Although the FY 2018 Report does not provide comparable CX Composite Index results for 

FYs 2015 through FY 2018, the FY 2018 Report does provide results of each component 

performance indicator, which may be compared across these fiscal years. However, the 

FY 2018 Report does not provide comparable results for the BSN, Delivery, CCC, and eCC 

component performance indicators. It also does not explain why providing comparable 

results is not feasible.

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year for the Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance goal, the FY 2019 Report must include comparable results for each component

performance indicator. Comparable results must be calculated and expressed using the same 

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

FY 2019 Report must explain why results are not directly comparable across these fiscal 

years. In that case, the FY 2019 Report must either explain how to compare results between 

the current and former methodologies or explain why making this comparison is not feasible.

Specifically, the FY 2019 Report must include comparable FY 2018 and FY 2019 results for 

the BMEU and USPS.com performance indicators and comparable POS performance 

indicator results for FYs 2016 through FY 2019. For the Delivery and CCC performance 

indicators, the FY 2019 Report could comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) by explaining why 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 55 -

providing comparable results for these performance indicators is not feasible.83 For the BSN 

performance indicator, the FY 2019 Report could include comparable results based on 

customers’ overall satisfaction with the service provided by the BSN representative.

84 For the 

eCC performance indicator, the FY 2019 Report could include comparable FY 2017, FY 2018, 

and FY 2019 results based on customers’ overall satisfaction with the quality of service 

received in response to their issue.85

The Commission observes that the FY 2018 ACR discusses the impact of methodology 

changes on FY 2017 and FY 2018 results for the BSN and Delivery performance indicators. 

FY 2018 ACR at 53-55. To comply with 39 U.S.C. 2804(c) next year, if comparable results 

for a performance indicator cannot be provided, the Postal Service may include the 

required explanations in the FY 2019 ACR and include a cross-reference in the FY 2019 

Report.

C. Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce

1. Background

In FY 2018, the Postal Service used two performance indicators to evaluate progress 

toward its performance goal to ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce: the 

Total Accident Rate and the Survey Response Rate. The Total Accident Rate measures 

progress toward improving employee safety. The Survey Response Rate measures the 

adjusted percentage of employees who returned the Postal Pulse Survey.

Total Accident Rate. In FY 2018, the Postal Service continued using the Total Accident Rate 

as a performance indicator to measure progress toward improving employee safety. 

FY 2018 Annual Report at 21. The Total Accident Rate is calculated by multiplying the total 

number of accidents for the year by the approximate number of annual workhours per 

employee (2,000), multiplied by 100. This number is then divided by the annual number 

of exposure hours. Id. The Total Accident Rate formula is:

Total Number of Accidents x 200,000

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Exposure Hours

Id.; Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 5.

 

83 The Postal Service provides these explanations in CHIR responses. See Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 8.b.; Responses to CHIR No. 10, 

questions 2, 3.c.

84 See Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.b.; Table I-1, supra.

85 See Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 7.b.ii.; Table I-1, supra. The Postal Service does not need to include the FY 2016 result because the 

eCC performance indicator was introduced in FY 2017.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 56 -

The Total Accident Rate result yields an annual accident frequency per 100 employees. 

FY 2018 Annual Report at 21. A lower result is a better outcome. The Total Accident Rate 

uses the same formula as the 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.86

The Total Accident Rate result improved from 15.43 in FY 2017 to 15.09 in FY 2018. 

FY 2018 Annual Report at 17. The Postal Service reports that it reduced the total number 

of accidents for the fourth year in a row. Id. at 21. The Postal Service asserts that the total

number of accidents “for FY[ ]2018 decreased more than 3.5 percent compared with 

FY[ ]2017, while the employee base declined by 1.5 percent. Id. at 22. Also, the number of 

recordable and non-recordable accidents declined by 5.08 and 2.33 percent, 

respectively.87 However, the Postal Service did not meet the FY 2018 target of 15.00. 

FY 2018 Annual Report at 22.

The FY 2019 Total Accident Rate target is the same as FY 2018. Id. at 17. The Postal 

Service explains that it will meet this target by continuing to focus on prevention 

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 22. 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, enlisting the 

cooperation and support of its employees, and addressing motor vehicle accidents 

through training, engineering controls, and consistent communication. Id. The Postal 

Service also states it will continue to recognize postal leaders who demonstrate 

exceptional commitment to creating a safe work environment. Id.

Survey Response Rate. The Postal Service measures employee engagement using the Postal 

Pulse survey, which evaluates overall satisfaction and 12 elements of employee 

engagement.88 Figure III-1 is a copy of the FY 2018 Postal Pulse survey.

 

86 Id. The Total Accident Rate also includes accidents that result in only property damage, as well as all motor vehicle accidents. 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., 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 Accident 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.

87 Id. “Recordable” accidents are those that result in medical treatment (beyond first aid), days away from work, restrictions or transfer to 

another job, death, or loss of consciousness. Recordable accidents must be reported to OSHA. See FY 2016 Analysis at 50 n.66.

88 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 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 57 -

Figure III-1

FY 2018 Postal Pulse Survey

Source: Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 4.a.

As shown in Figure III-1, the Postal Pulse survey asks participants to rate their level of 

agreement with 12 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 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 58 -

“involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and contribute to their 

organization in a positive manner.”89 In FY 2018, the Postal Pulse survey included a 

comment box to increase the opportunity for employees to voice their opinions and to 

help identify additional employee engagement insights and actions. FY 2018 Annual Report

at 22.

The Postal Service measures progress toward improving employee engagement using the 

Survey Response Rate, which measures “the level of participation of all potential 

respondents during each survey administration.” Id. To increase employee engagement in 

FY 2018, more than 47,000 executives, managers, and non-bargaining employees across 

the Postal Service participated in the employee engagement training, which included an 

instructor-led training “Creating an Engaging Workplace at USPS.” Id. In FY 2018, the 

Survey Response Rate result was 42 percent, which did not meet the “stretch” target of 75 

percent. Id.

The FY 2019 Survey Response Rate target is 51 percent. Id. To meet this target, the 

FY 2019 Plan states that the Postal Service will continue to improve efforts to 

communicate the importance of employee participation in the survey and provide postal 

employees with the necessary training and tools. Id. The training and tools will help 

employees best identify, evaluate, and address engagement strengths and areas of 

opportunity specific to improving their local work environments. Id. The Postal Service 

states that it “will continue to showcase employee success stories by recognizing our 

Engagement Leader of the Year award recipients, recognizing teams that have created 

great work environments, and sharing employee work team tips in daily news articles 

published across the Postal Service.” Id.

2. Comments

The Public Representative comments that the Postal Service missed the FY 2018 targets 

for both the Total Accident Rate and the Survey Response Rate, although she notes that 

the Total Accident Rate result improved marginally from 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 2018. Id.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service acknowledges that it did not meet the Safe 

Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal in FY 2018. Postal Service Reply 

Comments at 4. However, it notes that it has continued making steady progress in 

reducing accidents year-over-year. Id. It states that the FY 2018 Total Accident Rate result 

improved by 7.3 percent compared to FY 2015, with nearly 3,000 fewer accidents overall. 

Id. For the Survey Response Rate, the Postal Service asserts that it sets targets that are 

challenging relative to baseline performance in an effort to continuously improve. Id.

 

89 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).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 59 -

3. Commission Analysis

In FY 2018, the Postal Service missed both targets set for the Total Accident Rate and the 

Survey Response Rate performance indicators. FY 2018 Annual Report at 22. Thus, the 

Commission finds that the Postal Service did not meet the Safe Workplace and Engaged 

Workforce performance goal in FY 2018.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the FY 2018 Report does not explain why the Postal Service did 

not meet the Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal in FY 2018 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 the FY 2019 target for the Total 

Accident Rate or the Survey Response Rate, the FY 2019 Report must explain why and 

describe plans and schedules for meeting the FY 2020 targets.

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

Table III-14 shows the total number of accidents, exposure hours, and results from 

FY 2015 through FY 2018, which the Postal Service provides in a CHIR response.90

Table III-14

Total Accident Rate Results

FY 2015 through FY 2018

Year Total Number of Accidents Exposure Hours Total Accident Rate Result

FY 2015 91,214 1,120,507,680 16.28

FY 2016 92,698 1,149,874,427 16.12

FY 2017 90,972 1,156,278,327 15.74

FY 2018 88,531 1,161,947,567 15.24

Source: Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 5.

As Table III-14 shows, the Total Accident Rate result improved for the third year in a row. 

Between FY 2015 and FY 2018, the total number of accidents decreased despite an 

increase in exposure hours. The Postal Service states that to improve workplace safety in 

 

90 Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 5. The Postal Service notes that the Total Accident Rate results provided in its Responses to CHIR No. 13 

differ from the results reported in the FY 2018 Annual Report because numbers change weekly due to late reporting. Id. Each data set is 

current as of the date the data were pulled. Id. The Commission reiterates its recommendation that the Postal Service consider using 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.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 60 -

FY 2019, it recognizes postal leaders who have demonstrated exceptional commitment to 

creating a safe work environment. FY 2018 Annual Report at 22. In a CHIR response, the 

Postal Service explains that to continue to make workplace safety a core value, it strives to 

eliminate workplace hazards and embrace the philosophy that every accident is 

preventable. Responses to CHIR No. 16, question 1. To monitor and recognize 

performance, the Postal Service states that it is utilizing “a Safety Intervention and 

Recognition Program designed to assist the field to improve overall performance and 

share best practices.” Id.

The Postal Service explains that “[d]istricts and [a]reas performing at a Total Accident 

Rate of less than 12 percent are commended for their efforts and play a greater role in 

coaching and mentoring their peers who may be struggling.” Id. To gather innovative ideas 

and engagement opportunities, the Postal Service states that its safety headquarters staff 

will contact these high-performing districts and areas to complete a best practices 

template. Id. This template will then be distributed to all locations so that these practices 

can be adopted and replicated. Id. High performing areas and districts will also be featured 

in internal news articles where safety culture ideas and best practices will be shared on a 

national scale. Id. The Postal Service notes that its safety headquarters will also arrange 

for a certificate to be signed by the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Human Resources 

Officer honoring successful safety leadership. Id.

The Commission commends the Postal Service for improving the Total Accident Rate result 

for the third year in a row despite an increase in exposure hours. The Commission finds that 

the FY 2019 Total Accident Rate target of 15.00 is reasonable and achievable given the 

Postal Service’s FY 2018 performance and improvement since FY 2015. The Commission finds 

that the Postal Service’s plans for improving workplace safety, such as recognizing high 

performing districts and areas and sharing best practices, are reasonable steps to take to 

improve the Total Accident Rate result in FY 2019.

(2) Motor Vehicle Accidents

The Total Accident Rate includes both motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle accidents. 

Figure III-2 shows the number of motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle accidents from 

FY 2015 through FY 2018.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 61 -

Figure III-2

Motor Vehicle and Non-Motor Vehicle Accidents

FY 2015 through FY 2018

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 22; Docket No. ACR2017, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-14 of 

Chairman's Information Request No. 9, question 9.a.i., February 1, 2018; Docket No. ACR2017, Responses of the United States 

Postal Service to Questions 1-7 of Chairman's Information Request No. 16, question 5, February 15, 2018.

As Figure III-2 shows, motor vehicle accidents represented approximately 28 percent of 

the total number of accidents in FY 2015, increasing to 34 percent of total accidents in 

FY 2018. The number of non-motor vehicle accidents declined significantly from 67,907 in 

FY 2015 to 57,715 in FY 2018. The number of motor vehicle accidents increased slightly 

between FY 2017 and FY 2018, and has increased over each prior fiscal year since FY 

2015. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service attributes this increase to a number of factors, 

including an increase in newer or less experienced drivers, an increase in miles driven for 

delivery, and an increase in drivers struck by customer vehicles while stopped to make 

delivery. Responses to CHIR No. 16, question 3.a. Another factor contributing to the 

overall increase in FY 2018 was an increase in instances related to failing to check proper 

clearance, which resulted in sideswiping accidents and property damage to the vehicle 

fleet. Id.

26,944

67,907

28,979

67,139

29,425

61,412

29,944

57,715

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Number of Accidents

Motor Vehicle Accidents Non-Motor Vehicle Accidents
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 62 -

To reduce the number of motor vehicle accidents in FY 2019 and beyond, the Postal 

Service states that it continues to evaluate new methods of initial driver training and 

refresher training. Id. question 3.b. It notes that it is “developing a Safety Dashboard that 

will provide safety data to the field level users.” Id. By using existing delivery management 

tools and outside data sources, the Postal Service asserts that it will “become more 

proactive in addressing risk by reviewing driver behaviors, road conditions, and other 

demographic points of interest to rate the potential risk of accidents occurring.” Id.

The Postal Service also describes a “[P]rofessional [D]riving [A]cademy that will increase 

the length of training and employ more hands-on experience with each vehicle, as well as 

use virtual reality tools such as driver simulators and iPad activities.” Id. The Postal 

Service notes that it completed a course content and skills assessment in late FY 2018 as 

well as piloted a testing with safety instructors and newly hired employees in early 

FY 2019. Id. question 4.a. Pilot test results and findings are being incorporated into course 

materials and will be presented to the Postal Service’s union partners for review during 

FY 2019, Quarter 3. Id. The target implementation date for the new Professional Driving 

Academy is set for FY 2019, Quarter 4. Id. The final training will include knowledge and 

skills testing to evaluate the driver’s understanding of the materials and ability to put 

those teachings into practice behind the wheel of a vehicle. Id. Educational psychologists 

will be monitoring each graduate of the Professional Driving Academy over time to assess 

their accident history and to ensure that these training efforts help reduce the number of 

motor vehicle accidents. Id.

The Commission commends the Postal Service for continued development of the Professional 

Driving Academy to help reduce the number of motor vehicle accidents. The Commission 

recommends that the FY 2019 Report describe the implementation of the Professional 

Driving Academy and discuss any impact that it has had in FY 2019 on preventing or 

reducing the number of motor vehicle accidents.

Once drivers are behind the wheel, the Postal Service asserts that it will increase its focus 

on quality driver observations by management to address unsafe driving behaviors before 

accidents occur. Id. question 3.b. The Postal Service states that it is leveraging information 

technology solution services to automate these quality driver observations. Id. question 

4.b. It explains that quality driver observations are currently done in paper form and 

provide little access for analysis. Id. In FY 2018, this information was retained in folders at 

each local facility with no national database, analytics, tracking, or reporting of the 

required observations. Id.

The Postal Service describes a new database that will be used to input data and responses 

from quality driver observations and provide a hybrid or native mobile application that 

would automate the observation process. Id. Also, it notes that the “data obtained from the 

mobile application will provide notifications and reporting tools” to “allow access to 

reporting metrics and observation tracking on any Postal Service electronic device 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 63 -

(workstation, tablet, or smartphone).” Id. Preliminary field testing is scheduled for 

FY 2019, Quarter 2 with an estimated release date of April 2019. Id.

The Commission commends the Postal Service for creating a quality driver observation 

electronic database. Replacing driver observations recorded on paper appears likely to help 

address unsafe driving behaviors and prevent or reduce the number of motor vehicle 

accidents by making it easier to track information and share best practices. The Commission 

recommends that the FY 2019 Report describe the process and implementation of the 

automated quality driver observations and discuss any impact that these observations have

on preventing or reducing the number of motor vehicle accidents in FY 2019.

b. Engaged Workforce

In FY 2018, the Postal Service measured employee engagement using the Survey Response 

Rate performance indicator. The Postal Service also measures employee engagement 

using the Grand Mean Engagement Score. Each metric is explored below.

(1) Survey Response Rate

The Survey Response Rate “measures the level of participation of all potential respondents 

during each survey administration.” FY 2018 Annual Report at 22. In a CHIR response, the 

Postal Service explains how the Postal Pulse survey was administered during FY 2018. It 

states “[s]urveys were distributed to the employee’s work location for on-the-clock 

administration,” and that a “second copy of the survey was mailed to the employee’s home.” 

Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 4.b.

The Survey Response Rate was calculated by dividing the number of returned surveys 

(with duplicates removed) by the number of employees who received a survey.91 The 

number of employees who received a survey was adjusted after the survey administration 

period ended to subtract the number of employees who separated from the Postal Service 

during the survey administration period. Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 4.c. In 

FY 2018, the Postal Service states that the number of returned surveys was 245,458 and 

the adjusted number of employees was 588,025, which yielded a Survey Response Rate of 

42 percent. Response to CHIR No. 26.

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-3 shows the Survey Response Rate results from FY 2015 through FY 2018. In 

FY 2018, the Survey Response Rate result was 42 percent, which is 4 percentage points 

less than the FY 2017 result.

 

91 Id. question 4.c.; Response to CHIR No. 26.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 64 -

Figure III-3

Survey Response Rate Results

Postal Pulse Survey, FY 2015 through FY 2018

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 17.

The FY 2018 Survey Response Rate result did not meet the FY 2018 target of 75 percent. 

See FY 2018 Annual Report at 17. In the FY 2017 Plan, the Postal Service stated that the 

FY 2018 target was “a stretch goal in excess of results to date to emphasize the importance 

of this measure.” FY 2017 Annual Report at 14 n.6. In the FY 2017 Analysis, the Commission 

recommended that if the Postal Service does not meet the FY 2018 target, the Postal 

Service should set a more realistic and achievable target for FY 2019. FY 2017 Analysis

at 61.

For FY 2019, the Postal Service set a target of 51 percent. FY 2018 Annual Report at 22.

This target is more reasonable and achievable considering the results in FY 2017 and 

FY 2018. The Commission commends the Postal Service for setting a more realistic and 

achievable Survey Response Rate target in the FY 2019 Plan.

The Survey Response Rate performance indicator can be compared to response rates from 

the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, which measures employee engagement and 

satisfaction among federal agencies. In FY 2018, 598,003 federal employees took the 

survey for a governmentwide response rate of approximately 41 percent, which is similar 

to the FY 2018 Survey Response Rate result of 42 percent.92 In FY 2018, the response rate 

of Large Agencies (those with between 10,000 and 74,999 employees) was 51 percent, 

which is the same as the FY 2019 target. Id.

 

92 See 2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Governmentwide Management Report, at 3 (available at: 

https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-management-report/governmentwide-report/2018/2018-

governmentwide-management-report.pdf).

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Survey Response Rate (Percent)
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 65 -

(2) Grand Mean Engagement Score

Besides the Survey Response Rate, the Postal Service uses the Grand Mean Engagement 

Score to measure employee engagement, although it is not a performance indicator for the 

Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal. FY 2018 Annual Report at 22. 

The mean score is the average score for each question on the Postal Pulse survey, 

expressed on a scale of 1 to 5. 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. FY 2017 Annual Report at 20. Table III-15 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, 2017, and 2018.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 66 -

Table III-15

Postal Pulse Survey

Mean Scores and Grand Mean Engagement Scores

FY 2015 through FY 2018

Postal Pulse Survey Question FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

Question-Specific Mean Score

Q0. How satisfied are you with the Postal Service as a place to 

work? 3.44 3.52 3.49 3.59

Grand Mean Engagement Score

(Average of Mean Scoresafor Questions 1-12) 3.16 3.24 3.25 3.34

Question-Specific Mean Score

Q1. I know what is expected of me at work. 4.20 4.22 4.22 4.28

Q2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work 

right. 3.52 3.55 3.53 3.58

Q3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. 3.63 3.68 3.68 3.77

Q4. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for 

doing good work. 2.60 2.70 2.75 2.86

Q5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me 

as a person.

3.29 3.33 3.37 3.46

Q6. There is someone at work who encourages my development. 2.86 2.93 2.98 3.08

Q7. At work, my opinions seem to count. 2.71 2.84 2.81 2.92

Q8. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job 

is important. 3.42 3.54 3.50 3.60

Q9. My fellow employees are committed to doing quality work. 3.40 3.46 3.38 3.42

Q10. I have a best friend at work. 2.84 2.94 3.02 3.07

Q11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me 

about my progress. 2.62 2.71 2.73 2.85

Q12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and 

grow.

2.92 3.04 3.03 3.14

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.

Source: Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 4.d.; Docket No. ACR2017, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-14 of 

Chairman's Information Request No. 9, question 12, February 1, 2018; 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-15 shows that both the Grand Mean Engagement Score and mean score for each 

question improved between FY 2015 and FY 2018.93 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 

 

93 Mean scores for some questions dropped slightly between FY 2016 and FY 2017 before increasing in FY 2018.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 67 -

work. High mean 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 jobs are 

important, and have the resources and opportunity to do their work right and perform 

their best every day.

In FY 2017, the lowest scores on the Postal Pulse survey were for Questions 4, 7, and 11 

concerning employee recognition or praise, the importance of employee opinions, and 

receiving feedback on progress. These elements of employee engagement are important 

because “[i]ndividuals who receive recognition and praise increase their individual 

productivity, boost engagement among their colleagues, are more likely to stay with their 

organization, and receive higher loyalty and satisfaction scores from customers.”94

Employees who feel involved in making decisions typically have a greater sense of 

responsibility or ownership of the process, which can lead to better results. Id. at 114. 

Also, regular feedback is important so that employees can better understand how their 

contributions make a difference to the organization. Id. at 122.

In FY 2018, these questions continued to have the lowest mean scores, but were improved 

by at least 0.11 points. In the FY 2017 Analysis, the Commission recommended that the 

Postal Service consider “whether changes to its performance evaluation process and 

additional supervisor training may help improve the lowest scoring questions.” FY 2017 

Analysis at 63. In FY 2018, the Postal Service reports that it provided employee 

engagement training to more than 47,000 executives, managers, and other leaders. FY 

2018 Annual Report at 22. This training may have helped improve the mean scores for 

these questions. Also, as discussed below, the Postal Service introduced a comment box 

feature to the Postal Pulse survey in FY 2018. Id. This feature may have helped improve 

the mean score for Question 7 by helping employees feel as though their opinions and 

input matter.

The Commission commends the Postal Service for improving both the Postal Pulse survey 

Grand Mean Engagement Score and the mean scores for each question between FY 2015 and 

FY 2018. The Commission acknowledges the Postal Service’s progress in improving mean 

scores for the lowest scoring questions on the Postal Pulse survey and encourages the Postal 

Service to continue taking steps to improve mean scores for all questions. The Postal Service’s 

plans for recognizing Engagement Leader of the Year award recipients and teams that have 

created great work environments may improve the mean score for Question 4 related to 

recognition or praise for doing good work.

In FY 2018, the Postal Pulse survey included a comment box to increase the opportunity 

for employees to voice their opinions and to help identify additional employee 

engagement insights and actions. Id. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service describes the 

three most common types of comments received:

 

94 United States Postal Service, “Creating and Engaging Workplace at USPS: The 12 Elements of Engagement,” at 108 (available at:

https://liteblue.usps.gov/emp-engagement/pdf/Engagement-Resource-Guide.pdf).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 68 -

 Work Environment – perceptions about facilities, co-workers, and conditions 

conducive to a positive workflow.

 Leadership – positive and negative impressions about immediate supervision 

and upper management.

 Operational Concerns – suggestions about how to improve the efficiency or 

effectiveness of work processes.

Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 6.a. Comments in these areas were separated by 

district, area, and headquarters, with comments provided to each commenter’s respective 

manager or vice-president. Id. at 6.b. The Postal Service states that this process “will allow 

each localized leadership team to spread awareness and address each employee’s 

comment.” Id. To help with these efforts, the Postal Service also created a leadership 

coaching platform offering leaders advice, tips, and tools for making and executing actions 

plans. Id.

The Commission recommends that the Postal Pulse survey continue to include a comment 

box to provide another forum for voicing employee opinions and gathering employee 

engagement insight. Acknowledging and addressing employee comments may help improve 

the mean score for Question 7 concerning employee opinions. The Commission suggests that 

the FY 2019 Report describe the most common types of comments received in FY 2019 and 

how the Postal Service will use them to improve employee engagement in FY 2020.

D. Financial Health

1. Background

In FY 2018, the Postal Service used two performance indicators to measure progress 

toward its Financial Health goal: Deliveries per Total Workhours % Change 

(DPTWH % Change) and Controllable Income (Loss). See FY 2018 Annual Report at 17.

DPTWH % Change. The Postal Service calculates Deliveries per Total Workhour (DPTWH) 

by multiplying the total possible deliveries by the number of delivery days and dividing 

that product by total workhours. Id. at 29. The Postal Service adjusts workhours to reflect 

changes in workload compared to the prior year. Id. This adjustment accounts for changes 

in the network size (such as the addition of delivery points), changes in the number of 

non-Sunday delivery days, and changes in the mix of mail types. Id. This adjustment 

ensures that DPTWH results are comparable across years. Id.

The Postal Services uses DPTWH to calculate DPTWH % Change, which measures the 

Postal Service’s efficiency as the percentage change in DPTWH from the current year 

compared to the prior year. Id. The Postal Service calculates the DPTWH % Change result 

as the percentage difference between the current year’s DPTWH (based on adjusted 

workhours) and the prior year’s DPTWH (based on unadjusted workhours). Id. The 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 69 -

Commission explains the methodology for calculating the DPTWH % Change result in the 

FY 2016 Analysis.

95

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 2018 Annual Report at 15. 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 26.

Controllable expenses consist of compensation and benefits; Postal Service Retiree Health 

Benefit Fund (RHBF) normal cost; transportation; depreciation; supplies and services; and 

rent, utilities, and other controllable expenses. Id. at 15, 26-27. 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 23-24. Non-controllable expenses include:

 Re-evaluations of the RHBF normal cost by the Office of Personnel 

Management

 Amortization of the Postal Service’s unfunded liability to the RHBF

 Amortization of the Postal Service’s unfunded liabilities for its portion of 

the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and Civil Service 

Retirement System (CSRS)

 Non-cash expenses related to changes in liability for participating in the 

federal workers’ compensation program

 2016 change in accounting estimate of “Deferred revenue – prepaid 

postage liability” for Forever stamps

Id. at 23-24, 28.

Consistent with historical practice, the Commission has published a separate financial 

analysis of the Postal Service's FY 2018 financial results and 10-K statement.96 That 

analysis provides a detailed evaluation of the Postal Service's financial status by 

examining volume, revenue, and costs trends as well as the Postal Service’s sustainability, 

liquidity, activity, and financial solvency.

 

95 FY 2016 Analysis at 70-71. This performance indicator was previously called DPTWH % SPLY. FY 2017 Annual Report at 24 n.5.

96 Docket No. ACR2018, Financial Analysis of the United States Postal Service Financial Results and 10-K Statement, Fiscal Year 2018, April 19, 

2019.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 70 -

2. Comments

The Public Representative makes three observations with regard to the Financial Health 

performance goal. First, she notes that the Postal Service failed to meet FY 2018 targets for 

both the DPTWH % Change and Controllable Income (Loss) performance indicators. PR 

Comments at 7-8. She, therefore, states that the Postal Service failed to meet this 

performance goal. Id. at 8. Second, she notes a discrepancy in the FY 2018 Report regarding 

the FY 2019 target for the DPTWH % Change performance indicator. Id. Third, specific to 

the Postal Service’s FY 2019 DPTWH % Change target, she asserts that “[i]t is doubtful that 

after two years of 0.5 percent decreases, the Postal Service would increase DPTWH by 

such a significant amount.” Id. For this reason, she “urges the Postal Service to reduce this 

target... to a more reasonable level.” Id.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service addresses the Public Representative’s first 

observation by asserting that the failure to meet its target for the Controllable Income 

(Loss) performance indicator was “primarily attributable to higher-than-expected 

compensation and benefit expenses driven mainly by workhour overruns.” Postal Service 

Reply Comments at 5. In addition, the Postal Service states “[t]ransportation cost 

increases, primarily for highway routes, further contributed to the higher-than-planned 

expenses.” Id. With regard to the Public Representative’s second observation, the Postal 

Service acknowledges the existence of a typographical error for the FY 2018 

DPTWH % Change target listed in the FY 2018 Report, and confirms the correct target of 

1.4 percent. Id. In reply to the Public Representative’s third observation, the Postal Service

asserts that “[t]he target[ ] for DPTWH % Change... [is] based on the approved Integrated 

Financial Plan (IFP) for FY 2019[,]” which “target[s] a reduction of 8 million hours, 

primarily from increased operational efficiencies in mail processing, delivery, and 

customer services.” Id. The Postal Service maintains that “[it] is important [for its] Pay for 

Performance targets [to] reflect [the] approved financial plan.” Id.

3. Commission Analysis

In FY 2018, the Postal Service missed the targets set for both 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 2018.

In the FY 2017 Analysis, the Commission recommended that the Postal Service continue to 

use full year Sunday delivery stops when calculating the DPTWH % Change result. FY 2017 

Analysis at 68. The Commission stated that for the FY 2018 Report to comply with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(c), the Postal Service must calculate and express DPTWH % Change results using the 

same methodology, including full year Sunday delivery stops for, at a minimum, FYs 2015, 

2016, 2017, and 2018. Id. If comparable results could not be provided, the Commission 

directed that the FY 2018 Report explain how to compare results between the old and new 

methodologies, or explain why making this comparison is not feasible. Id. The Postal Service 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 71 -

addressed this issue by providing comparable results for all of these fiscal years in the FY 

2018 Report.

97

Below, the Commission analyzes the DPTWH % Change and Controllable Income (Loss) 

performance indicators in more detail.

a. Deliveries per Total Workhour % Change

As stated above, DPTWH % Change is calculated by comparing the current year’s DPTWH 

(based on adjusted workhours) with the prior year’s DPTWH (based on unadjusted 

workhours).98 Table III-16 illustrates how the Postal Service calculates DPTWH % Change:

Table III-16

Deliveries per Total Workhours, % Change Calculation

Results and Targets

FY 2015 

Result

FY 2016 

Result

FY 2017 

Result

FY 2018 

Target

FY 2018 

Result

FY 2019 

Target

Workhours (millions) 1,127.9 1,157.6 1,163.9 1,141.0 1,169.6 1,161.0

Less adjustment to workhours based on earned 

workload (millions) 15.4 18.0 (5.4) (4.0) (5.4) (4.9)

Adjusted workhours (millions) 1,112.4 1,139.6 1,169.3 1,145.0 1,175.0 1,165.9

Total deliveries (millions) 46,829 47,366 47,604 47,835 47,825 48,358

Deliveries per total workhours (unadjusted) 41.5 40.9 40.9 41.9 40.9 41.7

Deliveries per total workhours (adjusted) 42.1 41.6 40.7 41.8 40.7 41.5

Deliveries per total workhours, % change 0.2% 0.1% (0.5)% 2.1% (0.5)% 1.4%

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 29; Postal Service Reply Comments at 5.

The FY 2018 target for the DPTWH % Change performance indicator was an increase of 

2.1 percent over the FY 2017 result. FY Annual Report at 29. The FY 2018 result is a 

decrease of 0.5 percent from the FY 2017 result—2.6 percentage points lower than the 

FY 2018 target. Id.

In its FY 2018 Plan, the Postal Service asserted that it intended to meet the FY 2018 target 

by “captur[ing] work hour reductions from declining mail volume and from operational 

initiatives to improve efficiency.” FY 2017 Annual Report at 25. Observing that “workhours 

are a critical part of the DPTWH % Change formula,” the Postal Service identified its plans 

 

97 Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 3.d.i.; see FY 2018 Annual Report at 17.

98 FY 2018 Annual Report at 29. The Commission has recommended in the past that the Postal Service measure productivity improvements 

using the Total Factor Productivity (TFP) index, rather than DPTWH % Change. See, e.g., FY 2016 Analysis at 73. The Postal Service has 

indicated that it favors the DPTWH % Change metric over TFP because DPTWH % Change can be calculated in a more timely manner and is 

easier to understand and target at the area and district levels. FY 2018 Annual Report at 29 n.4.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 72 -

to deploy multiple initiatives to achieve workhour targets by the end of FY 2018.99 The 

Postal Service stated that, while “not specifically focused with the goal of meeting the 

particular DPTWH % Change target,” these initiatives would produce “a whole host of 

benefits,” including “progress towards meeting [the DPTWH % Change] target.” Id.

Specifically, the Postal Service identified its plans to deploy: new workhour scheduling 

software to better align workhours to workload; the realignment of equipment to match 

workload and volume; new plant material handling systems and enhancements; new 

machines to improve delivery unit package sorting efficiencies; and new software and 

operating procedures to increase carrier vehicle package loading efficiencies. Id. These 

initiatives were part of a “wide range of efforts to control workhours.” Id.

In the FY 2018 Report, the Postal Service explains that it missed the FY 2018 DPTWH % 

Change target because it overran its workhour plan. FY 2018 Annual Report at 29. It 

observes that in FY 2018, package volume and delivery points increased while letters and 

flats volumes decreased. Id. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service acknowledges that, in 

contrast with the FY 2017 volume changes, the FY 2018 changes in volume were neither 

sudden nor unexpected. Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 8.a. The Postal Service 

explains that in FY 2018 the volumes of more highly automated letter- and flat-shaped 

mailpieces declined, while the volumes of more labor intensive package-shaped 

mailpieces increased. Id. question 8.b. The Postal Service states that the simultaneous 

increase “in package volume and an expanding delivery network led to an increase in [the 

use of] overtime and low cost non-career [work]hours, in an attempt to improve 

service.”100 In addition, the Postal Service notes that rural carrier hours increased in 

FY 2018, even though the Postal Service’s FY 2018 Plan had contemplated a workhour 

reduction. Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 8.b.

The FY 2019 target for the DPTWH % Change performance indicator is a 1.4 percent 

increase over the FY 2018 result.101 This target would represent a reduction of 

approximately 8 million workhours from the actual total workhours observed in FY 

2018.102 The Postal Service asserts that this target “assumes [the Postal Service] will 

capture work hour reductions from declining mail volume and from operational initiatives 

to improve efficiencies in Mail Processing, Delivery, and Customer Service.” FY 2018 

Annual Report at 29. In response to a CHIR, the Postal Service acknowledges that its plans 

for meeting the FY 2019 target are similar to its plans for meeting the FY 2018 target, 

which it did not meet. Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 9. Nevertheless, the Postal 

 

99 Docket No. ACR2017, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-6 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 19, February 23 

2018, question 5.

100 Id.; FY 2018 Annual Report at 29. The Postal Service’s delivery network grew by over 1.2 million delivery points in FY 2018. Id.; see FY 2018 

ACD at 202-04 (discussing changes in the number of delivery points in FY 2018).

101 FY 2018 Annual Report at 29. Although a different target is listed on page 16 of the FY 2018 Annual Report, the Postal Service confirms that 

the FY 2019 target is 1.4 percent. Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 7.

102 FY 2018 Annual Report at 29; Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 7.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 73 -

Service maintains that “the circumstances are different from FY 2018,” because “[t]he 

FY 2019 [IFP] calls for a less aggressive workhour stretch target than the FY 2018 [IFP],” 

and “to the extent that [FY 2018’s] increases in workhour usage were partially a result of 

rural growth, that factor is cycling out.” Id.

Noting that the additional workhours used in FY 2018 were aimed at improving service 

performance, the Postal Service asserts that continuing efforts to improve service 

performance are refocused on data-driven processes designed to address issues without 

significantly generating additional workhours.103 Furthermore, it asserts that “[w]orkhour 

run rates are improving as the Postal Service better matches workhours to its mix of 

volume.” Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 9.

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue its efforts to leverage 

data-driven processes to improve service performance without having to use additional 

workhours. In the FY 2019 Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

explain the outcome of this and other efforts designed to reduce workhours in FY 2019 and 

discuss the impact that these efforts have on FY 2019 DPTWH % Change results.

The FY 2019 DPTWH % Change target of 1.4 percent is more realistic than the FY 2018 

target. However, the Postal Service’s historical performance with regard to this 

performance indicator suggests that meeting the FY 2019 target will present significant 

challenges. The Postal Service’s plans for meeting the FY 2019 target may improve the 

DPTWH % Change result if the Postal Service is able to effectively leverage data-driven 

processes to address service performance issues without generating a significant number

of additional workhours. These processes may help detect potential problems before 

additional workhours are required to resolve them. However, the Commission remains 

concerned because the Postal Service’s plans do not address the other identified causes of 

workhour overruns that are expected to continue into the foreseeable future: declining 

letters and flats volumes, increasing packages volumes, and increasing delivery points.

If the Postal Service does not meet the FY 2019 DPTWH % Change target, the Commission 

recommends that the FY 2019 Report describe plans and timelines for meeting the FY 2020 

target that are designed to address the causes of workhour overruns identified by the Postal 

Service: declining letters and flats volumes, increasing packages volumes, and increasing 

delivery points.

Although not used as performance indicators, the Postal Service also includes results for 

TFP and labor productivity. FY 2018 Annual Report at 30. The Postal Service explains that 

it uses DPTWH % Change as the applicable performance indicator because, compared with 

the TFP index, DPTWH % Change is easier to understand and target at the area and 

district levels, and it can be calculated in a timelier manner. Id. at 29 n.4. The Commission 

 

103 Id. These data-driven processes, such as MCV and the new SPM system, are described in Chapter 3, section A.3.b., supra.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 74 -

appreciates the Postal Service providing this information, as suggested in the FY 2017 

Analysis. FY 2017 Analysis at 67. Even though these two measures are not performance 

indicators, they provide additional transparency into productivity trends.

The Commission recommends that future annual performance reports continue to include 

information on both the TFP index and other productivity measures.

b. Controllable Income (Loss)

As with the FY 2017 Report, the FY 2018 Report provides a thorough explanation of each 

component that makes up the Controllable Income (Loss) performance indicator. See 

FY 2017 Analysis at 70. The FY 2018 Report includes a helpful table showing revenue and 

expenses from the IFP and describes each category of revenue and controllable expenses. 

See FY 2018 Annual Report at 23-27. It explains why the FY 2018 Controllable Income 

(Loss) target was not met and provides the rationale for setting the FY 2019 target. See id.

It also includes a section on non-controllable expenses, which also impact the Postal 

Service’s financial results. See id. at 28. This information improves the transparency and 

utility of the FY 2018 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 similar information 

on Controllable Income (Loss) in future annual performance plans and annual performance 

reports.

In FY 2018, Controllable Income (Loss) was $(2.0) billion, which was $(0.6) billion more

than the FY 2018 target of $(1.4) billion. Id. at 26. Figure III-4 shows the Controllable 

Income (Loss) results for FY 2015 through FY 2018.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 75 -

Figure III-4

Controllable Income (Loss) Results

FY 2015 through FY 2018

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 17.

The Postal Service states that it designs all performance indicator targets to be achievable 

given the planned finances in the IFP. Id. at 15. The FY 2018 Report includes a table listing 

the components of Controllable Income (Loss). Id. at 25. Table III-17 lists planned revenue 

and expenses for FY 2018 and FY 2019, as well as results from FY 2015 through FY 2018.

-2

-1

0

1

2

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Controllable Income (Loss) ($ in billions)
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 76 -

Table III-17

Integrated Financial Plan

Revenue and Expenses ($ in Billions)

Results and Targets

FY 2015 

Result

FY 2016 

Result

FY 2017 

Result

FY 2018 

Target 

FY 2018 

Result

FY 2019 

Target 

Revenue

First-Class Mail 27.2 26.6 25.7 24.8 25.0 24.2 

USPS Marketing Mail 16.9 17.6 16.6 16.2 16.5 16.8 

Shipping and Packages 15.0 17.3 19.5 21.4 21.5 23.1 

International Mail 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.9 

Periodicals 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 

Othera 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.9 

Subtotal Revenue 66.8 69.4 69.7 70.2 70.8 72.1 

Temporary Exigent Surcharge 2.1 1.1 — — — —

Total Revenue 68.9 70.5 69.7 70.2 70.8 72.1 

Controllable Expenses

Compensation and benefitsb 51.8 53.2 50.5 50.7 51.4 52.5 

RHBF normal cost — — 2.8 3.5 3.7 4.0 

Transportation 6.6 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.9 8.3 

Depreciation 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 

Supplies and services 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Rent, utilities and otherc 4.8 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.7 

Total Controllable Expenses 67.7 69.9 70.5 71.6 72.8 75.2 

Controllable Income (Loss) 1.2 0.6 (0.8) (1.4) (2.0) (3.1) 

Non-Controllable Expenses

RHBF pre-funding (5.7) (5.8) — — — —

RHBF normal cost actuarial revaluation — — (0.5) — (0.1) —

RHBF unfunded liability amortization — — (1.0) (1.2) (0.8) (1.1) 

FERS unfunded liability amortization (0.2) (0.2) (0.9) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0) 

CSRS unfunded liability amortization — — (1.7) (1.7) (1.4) (1.4) 

Workers’ comp. fair value and other 

non-cash adjustments 

(0.4) (1.3) 2.2 — 1.4 —

Deferred revenue — prepaid postage 

change in estimate

— 1.1 — — — —

Total Non-Controllable Expenses (6.3) (6.2) (1.9) (3.8) (1.9) (3.5) 

Net Income (Loss) (5.1) (5.6) (2.7) (5.2) (3.9) (6.6) 

a Includes investment and interest income, gain or loss on sale and income from the outlease of property.

b 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 2015 and FY 2016) and workers’ compensation cash expenses.

c

Includes interest expense.

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 25.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 77 -

The top market dominant contributors to the Postal Service’s operating revenue in 

FY 2018 were First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail. Id. at 23. Total revenue in FY 

2018 was $70.8 billion, which was $0.6 billion more than planned. Id. at 26. First-Class 

Mail revenue was $25.0 billion, which was $0.2 billion above the FY 2018 Plan, mainly due 

to higher-than-expected presorted letters and postcards volume. Id. First-Class Mail 

represented 35.4 percent of revenue. Id. at 23, 25. USPS Marketing Mail revenue was $16.5 

billion, $0.3 billion above the FY 2018 Plan, due to higher-than expected volume. Id. at 26. 

USPS Marketing Mail represented 23.3 percent of revenue. See id. at 25.

Shipping and Packages consists largely of Competitive products that can be priced to 

reflect current market conditions, such as Priority Mail and Parcel Select. Id. at 26. 

Shipping and Packages revenue was $21.5 billion, $0.1 billion above the FY 2018 Plan, “due 

to continued e-commerce growth and the successful implementation of various marketing 

and sales campaigns.” Id. Shipping and Packages represented 30.5 percent of revenue. Id. 

at 23. Smaller revenue sources included International Mail (which represented 3.7 percent 

of revenue), Periodicals (which represented 1.8 percent of revenue), and other revenue 

sources (which represented 5.5 percent of revenue). See id. at 25.

Total expenses in FY 2018 totaled $74.7 billion. Id. at 26. Compensation and benefits

expenses totaled $51.4 billion, which was $0.7 billion above the FY 2018 Plan. Id. 

Transportation expenses totaled $7.9 billion, which was $0.6 billion above the FY 2018 

Plan. Id. at 27. The RHBF normal cost totaled $3.7 billion, which was $0.2 billion above the 

FY 2018 Plan. Id. Other, less significant, expense categories included depreciation (which 

totaled $1.7 billion, in line with the FY 2018 Plan), supplies and services (which totaled 

$3.0 billion, in line with the FY 2018 Plan), and rent, utilities, and other expenses (which 

totaled $5.3 billion, $0.1 billion less than the FY 2018 Plan). Id.

With total revenue of $70.8 billion and total expenses amounting to $74.7 billion, the 

Postal Service incurred a net loss in FY 2018 of $3.9 billion. Id. at 26. However, the Postal 

Service only considers $2.0 billion of the $3.9 billion net loss to have been controllable. Id.

The Postal Service attributes its failure to meet its FY 2018 Controllable Income (Loss) 

target to higher-than-expected compensation and benefits expenses and transportation 

costs. Id. With regard to compensation and benefits expenses, the Postal Service asserts 

that they were higher than expected “largely due to contractual wage adjustments and 

additional work hours, driven by the more labor-intensive shipping and packages business 

as well as growth in [the Postal Service’s] delivery network.” Id. at 26-27. With regard to 

transportation costs, the Postal Service asserts that they were higher than expected 

“largely due to the nationwide shortage of long-haul truck drivers, highway contract rate 

increases and rising fuel costs.” Id. at 27. The Postal Service asserts that it does not 

consider the portion of the RHBF normal cost that was above the FY 2018 Plan to have 

been a controllable expense, because the excess amount resulted from an actuarial 

revaluation. Id.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Evaluation of Performance Goals

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 78 -

The Controllable Income (Loss) target for FY 2019 is a $3.1 billion loss, which anticipates 

“revenue growth of $1.3 billion [being] more than offset by inflationary and contractual 

cost increases and an anticipated increase in the controllable portion of the [RHBF] 

normal cost.” Id.

The Postal Service states that it expects revenue to increase by $1.3 billion in FY 2019 due 

primarily to increases in Shipping and Packages, International Mail, and USPS Marketing 

Mail. Id. However, the Postal Service also expects controllable expenses to increase. Id.

Compensation and benefits expenses are expected to increase by $1.1 billion, primarily 

due to contractually-required wage increases and cost-of-living adjustments of $0.6 billion 

and increases in the RHBF normal cost of $0.5 billion. Id. 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. Planned increases in controllable expenses also include a $0.4 billion 

increase in transportation expenses due to growth in packages volume and inflationary 

pressures, as well as a $0.4 billion increase in rent, utilities, and other expenses due to 

normal inflationary pressures. Id.

The Postal Service anticipates that First-Class Mail volumes will continue to decline in the 

future as a result of electronic diversion. Id. In response, the Postal Service asserts that it is 

focused on providing new services and innovations in USPS Marketing Mail. Id. at 23. 

Specifically, the Postal Service states that it has “expanded service offerings such as 

Informed Delivery, which enable customers to preview mail and packages scheduled to 

arrive as a means of merging digital and physical mail.”104 The Postal Service “believe[s] 

these service offerings will help to stabilize USPS Marketing Mail volume.” FY 2018 Annual 

Report at 23.

The Postal Service notes that while it continues to experience strong performance in 

Shipping and Packages, this line of business constituted only 4.2 percent of the Postal 

Service’s total volume in FY 2018, and the costs to process and deliver shipping and 

packages services is higher per-piece than First-Class Mail. Id. The Postal Service asserts 

that it is focused on growing e-commerce and is implementing marketing campaigns to 

grow its business. Id. The Postal Service identifies day-specific delivery, improved tracking 

and text alerts, and up to $50 free insurance on most Priority Mail packages as examples of 

its responsiveness to customers. Id.

 

104 FY 2018 Annual Report at 23; see also Response to CHIR No. 2, question 13.b.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 79 -

CHAPTER 4: STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

A. Background

To provide reliable, efficient, trusted, and affordable universal delivery service, 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 Platforms105

To help achieve these strategic goals, the Postal Service has “implemented a portfolio of 

strategic initiatives and a rigorous portfolio management process... to apply strategic and 

financial rigor to decision-making and to navigate significant organizational changes.” 

FY 2018 Annual Report at 31.

In FY 2018, the Postal Service implemented a portfolio of 8 strategic initiatives to achieve 

its strategic goals.Id. at 32; FY 2017 Analysis at 75. The FY 2018 Report includes a table 

comparing FY 2018 and FY 2019 strategic initiatives and explaining how they changed 

between FY 2018 and FY 2019. See FY 2018 Annual Report at 32. This table also shows how 

the strategic initiatives align with the strategic goals and performance goals. Id.

Table IV-1 compares FY 2018 and FY 2019 strategic initiatives and links each one to a 

strategic goal. The “Change from FY 2018” column identifies how the strategic initiative 

changed between FY 2018 and FY 2019:

 Continued — Strategic initiative continued into FY 2019 with minimal 

changes from FY 2018.

 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.

 

105 FY 2018 Annual Report at 15; see Future Ready: United States Postal Service Five-Year Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2018 to 2021 (available at: 

http://about.usps.com/strategic-planning/five-year-strategic-plan-2017-2021.pdf).
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 80 -

As shown in Table IV-1, the Postal Service continued three strategic initiatives, refined four 

strategic initiatives, and combined one strategic initiative for FY 2019. The Postal Service 

will implement seven strategic initiatives in FY 2019.

Table IV-1

Comparison of FY 2018 and FY 2019 Strategic Initiatives

Strategic 

Goal FY 2018 Strategic Initiatives

Change 

from 

FY 2018

FY 2019 Strategic Initiatives

Deliver a

World-Class 

Customer 

Experience

Build a World-Class Customer 

Experience Continued Build a World-Class Customer Experience

Build a World-Class International 

Platform Combineda

Equip, 

Empower, 

and Engage 

Employees

Build a World-Class Employee 

Experience Refined Improve Employee Experience

Innovate 

Faster to 

Deliver Value

Accelerate Innovation to Maximize 

Business Value Continued Accelerate Innovation to Maximize Business Value

Accelerate Innovation to Create 

Customer Value and Maximize Revenue 

and Profit

Refined

Accelerate Innovation to Create 

Customer Value and Maximize Revenue 

and Profitability

Invest in Our 

Future 

Platforms

Optimize Network Platform Continued Optimize Network Platform

Delivery Structure Rationalization Refined Delivery Structure Optimization

Build a World-Class Package Platform Refined Build Platform to Grow Profitable 

Packages Business

a Combined with Accelerate Innovation to Maximize Business Value.

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 31-32.

In a CHIR response, the Postal Service provides a public description of each FY 2019 

strategic initiative, which is listed in Table IV-2.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 81 -

Table IV-2

FY 2019 Strategic Initiative Descriptions

Strategic Initiative Description

Build a World-Class Customer Experience

Improve customer experience by addressing key pain 

points along the customer journey, fostering a 

customer centric culture through employee 

engagement, and using customer sentiment data to 

provide actionable insights for operational 

improvements. Key performance indicators including 

overall satisfaction, customer-reported, and select

operational metrics will be used to monitor 

performance and refine activities.

Improve Employee Experience

Improve organizational performance by creating an 

environment where the employees are enabled, 

involved in, committed, and motivated to do their best 

work. Aligns with the Strategic Human Resources Plan 

and contains activities to improve the employee 

experience and implement an organization that 

attracts and retains a diverse, high-performing, and 

engaged workforce.

Accelerate Innovation to Maximize Business Value

Leverage technology, information, and insights to 

improve or transform business operations or

processes. Identify and prioritize roadmaps to manage 

a portfolio of business/industry partnerships that drive 

speed and positive business impact.

Accelerate Innovation to Create Customer Value and 

Maximize Revenue and Profitability

Increase revenue, customer satisfaction, and 

engagement through Sales, Brand Marketing, Pricing, 

Product Enhancements, and Innovations programs that 

sustain the value of the mailbox, accelerate innovation, 

and grow Informed Delivery adoption by mailers and 

households.

Optimize Network Platform

Evaluate and right-size the mail processing 

infrastructure to increase operating efficiency, reduce 

costs, and provide reliable and consistent service.

Delivery Structure Optimization

Redefine city and rural routes, improve first mile 

acceptance processes, enhance the customer 

experience with package delivery, and finalize 

selection of the next generation delivery vehicles.

Build Platform to Grow Profitable Packages Business

Build the product portfolio and supporting 

infrastructure needed to grow the packages business 

of the future. Increase package revenue and 

contribution by meeting ever-changing customer 

expectations, increasing efficiency while decreasing 

costs, and keeping up with the competition.

Source: Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 14.c.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 82 -

The Postal Service previously clarified that the strategic goals differ from the four 

performance goals discussed in annual performance plans and annual performance 

reports.106 To assess its efforts in achieving these strategic goals, the Postal Service states 

that it measures its performance through progress against the four performance goals.107

Besides illustrating the change between FY 2018 and FY 2019 strategic initiatives, the 

FY 2018 Report also explains how each strategic initiative relates to the four performance 

goals. Table IV-3 and Table IV-4 list the FY 2018 and FY 2019 strategic initiatives and show 

how each one relates to the performance goals.

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 2018 Annual Report at 32.

 

106 Docket No. ACR2016, Response of the United States Postal Service to Question 1 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 25, March 10, 2017.

107 FY 2018 Annual Report at 15. The Postal Services refers to the performance goals as “corporate performance outcomes.” Id.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 83 -

Table IV-4

FY 2019 Strategic Initiatives and Related Performance Goals

FY 2019 Strategic Initiatives

HighQuality 

Service

Excellent 

Customer 

Experiences

Safe Workplace and 

Engaged Workforce

Financial 

Health

Build a World-Class Customer 

Experience • • •

Improve Employee Experience • •

Accelerate Innovation to Maximize 

Business Value • • • •

Accelerate Innovation to Create 

Customer Value and Maximize 

Revenue and Profitability

• • •

Optimize Network Platform • •

Delivery Structure Optimization • • •

Build Platform to Grow Profitable 

Packages Business • • •

Source: FY 2018 Annual Report at 32.

The Postal Service explains that “[e]ach strategic initiative has a specific set of measures to 

track performance aligned to achieve both short-term performance and build long-term 

capabilities.” FY 2018 Annual Report at 31. 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 provides the performance measures for each strategic initiative the Postal Service 

will use to track performance in FY 2019, as well as FY 2018 targets and results.108 The 

Postal Service also explains how the strategic initiatives relate to the performance 

indicators. Id.

B. Commission Analysis

None of the comments discuss the strategic goals or strategic initiatives. Last year, the 

Postal Service adopted two key Commission recommendations on strategic initiatives. The 

Postal Service included information on strategic initiatives in the FY 2017 Report and linked 

them to both the strategic goals and performance goals. See FY 2017 Analysis at 78. For each 

strategic initiative, the Postal Service used performance measures uniquely linked to the 

strategic initiative they support, with no overlap with performance measures of other 

strategic initiatives. Id. The Commission found that adopting these recommendations 

improved the discussion compared to past years. Id.

The Postal Service retained these improvements by describing the strategic initiatives in 

the FY 2018 Report, linking each FY 2018 and FY 2019 strategic initiative to the strategic 

 

108 Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 14.a.; see Library Reference USPS–FY18–NP33, January 28, 2019.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 84 -

goals and performance goals, and using unique performance measures for each strategic 

initiative.

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to describe strategic initiatives 

in annual performance reports, link each strategic initiative to the strategic goals and 

performance goals, and use unique performance measures for each strategic initiative.

In the FY 2017 Analysis, the Commission observed that the relationship between the 

strategic initiatives and performance goals was not clear and that the strategic initiatives 

appear more related to the strategic goals. Id. at 79. It recommended that the Postal Service 

evaluate the current connection between strategic initiatives and performance goals. Id.

The Commission stated that if strategic initiatives continue to support the performance 

goals, the Postal Service should continue including strategic initiatives in annual 

performance reports. Id. In that case, the Commission suggested that the FY 2018 Report

explain how strategic initiatives relate to the Postal Service’s performance goals and 

performance indicators and include a table showing changes between FY 2018 and 

FY 2019 strategic initiatives that link each one to the performance goals. Id. The 

Commission also recommended that the Postal Service briefly describe each strategic 

initiative without revealing non-public information.109

The Postal Service adopted the Commission’s recommendation. The FY 2018 Report

includes a table showing how the strategic initiatives relate to the strategic goals and 

performance goals and how the strategic initiatives changed between FY 2018 and 

FY 2019. FY 2018 Annual Report at 32. In a filing under seal, the Postal Service explains the 

connection between strategic initiatives and performance indicators. See Library Reference 

USPS–FY18–NP33. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service also provides a public description 

of each FY 2019 strategic initiative. Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 14.c.

Information about strategic initiatives provided in the FY 2018 Report and in Docket 

No. ACR2018 illustrate the connection among strategic initiatives, performance goals, and 

performance indicators. The public descriptions of strategic initiatives provided in the 

Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 14 help explain what the strategic initiatives are and 

how they relate to the performance goals and performance indicators. For example, the 

Improve Employee Experience strategic initiative helps create an environment where 

employees are enabled, involved in, committed, and motivated to do their best work. See 

Table IV-2, supra. This strategic initiative relates to the Safe Workplace and Engaged 

Workplace performance goal and the Engagement Survey Response Rate performance 

indicator.

 

109 Id. The Commission also stated that if the Postal Service determines that there is minimal connection between strategic initiatives and 

performance goals, the Postal Service should replace the discussion of strategic initiatives with a description of individual programs supporting 

the performance goals. Id. at 79-80.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2019 Performance Plan

- 85 -

The Commission recommends that the FY 2019 Report provide the same information for 

FY 2019 by explaining how FY 2019 and FY 2020 strategic initiatives relate to the strategic 

goals and performance goals. The Commission suggests that the FY 2019 Report include a 

table similar to the one in the FY 2018 Report showing changes between FY 2019 and FY 2020 

strategic initiatives. See FY 2018 Annual Report at 32. The Commission recommends that the 

Postal Service include public descriptions of the strategic initiatives in the FY 2019 Report to 

help interested persons understand what the strategic initiatives are and how they relate to 

the performance goals.

The Commission also recommends that in Docket No. ACR2019, the Postal Service file FY 2019 

performance measures, targets, and results for each strategic initiative, as well as a table 

illustrating how the strategic initiatives relate to each performance indicator. See Library 

Reference USPS–FY18–NP33.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2019 Performance Plan Page 1 of 10

Appendix: Commission Findings and 

Recommendations

Chapter 2 - Compliance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804:

 The Commission finds that the FY 2019 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 2020 annual performance plan (FY 2020 

Plan) must identify all program activities in the FY 2020 IFP and explain how the 

FY 2020 Plan covers each one by relating each program activity to one or more 

performance goals or indicators. Chapter 2 at 10.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2019 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1) 

because the FY 2019 Plan sets targets for each performance indicator the Postal 

Service will use in FY 2019 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, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to provide a 

reasoned explanation for not setting a target. Id. at 11.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2019 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803. Id. at 12.

 The FY 2018 CCC target and result listed in the FY 2018 Report are not comparable, 

and the FY 2018 Report does not explain why providing a comparable FY 2018 result 

is not feasible. Thus, the Commission finds that the FY 2018 Report does not comply 

with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) for the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal. 

Id. at 13.

 To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 2019 annual performance 

report (FY 2019 Report) must set forth the same performance indicators and targets 

as the FY 2019 Plan and compare FY 2019 targets and results for each performance 

indicator. The FY 2019 result for each performance indicator must be comparable to 

the target set in the FY 2019 Plan. Id. at 14.

 For the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal, the FY 2019 result for the 

eCC performance indicator must be expressed using the FY 2019 methodology based 

on customers’ overall satisfaction with the quality of service received in response to 

their issue and an improvement rate. The FY 2019 result for the CX Composite Index 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2019 Performance Plan Page 2 of 10

performance indicator must be expressed using both the FY 2018 and FY 2019 

methodologies to ensure that the FY 2019 target and result are comparable. Id.

 As an alternative, if a comparable FY 2019 result cannot be provided, the FY 2019 

Report must explain why and either: (1) explain how to compare results between the 

current and former methodologies; or (2) explain why making this comparison is not 

feasible. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service not change performance 

indicators, methodologies, or targets once they are set in the applicable annual 

performance plan. Id.

 The FY 2018 Report does not contain comparable results for FYs 2015, 2016, 2017, 

and 2018 for several performance indicators that measure progress toward the HighQuality Service and Excellent Customer Experiences performance goals. The FY 2018 

Report does not explain why providing comparable results is not feasible. Thus, the 

Commission finds that the FY 2018 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for 

these performance goals. Id. at 16.

 To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2019 Report must include 

comparable results for each performance indicator for, at a minimum, FYs 2016, 2017, 

2018, and 2019. To be comparable, results for each fiscal year must be calculated and 

expressed using the same performance indicator or methodology. As an alternative, if 

comparable results cannot be provided for any performance indicator, the FY 2019 

Report must explain why results are not directly comparable across these fiscal years. 

In that case, the FY 2019 Report must either explain how to compare results between 

the current and former methodologies or explain why making this comparison is not 

feasible. Id.

 Specifically, for the High-Quality Service performance goal, if comparable results 

cannot be provided using the new SPM system, the FY 2019 Report must explain why 

results are not directly comparable across FYs 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. In that 

case, the FY 2019 Report must either explain how to compare results between the new 

SPM system and the former measurement system or explain why making this 

comparison is not feasible. Id. at 17.

 For the Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal, the FY 2019 Report must 

include comparable results for each component performance indicator. Id.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(d)(3) for the High-Quality Service and Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce 

performance goals. To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) next year, for each FY 2019 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2019 Performance Plan Page 3 of 10

target that is not met, the FY 2019 Report must both explain why and describe plans 

and schedules for meeting FY 2020 targets. If the Postal Service misses a FY 2019 

target for a non-public performance indicator, the Postal Service must provide the 

explanation, plans, and schedules for meeting the FY 2020 target in a non-public 

annex. See Chapter 2, section C.3., infra. Id.

 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. FY 2017 Analysis at 17. These plans and schedules must also include 

specific timelines if they fall outside of the fiscal year covered by the annual 

performance plan. Id. at 18.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2018 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2804(d)(1), 

(2), and (4). Id.

 The Commission finds that Library Reference USPS–FY18–NP30 complies with the 

Commission's directive to 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. The FY 2019 Plan complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2803 by 

setting measurable FY 2019 targets for each non-public performance indicator the 

Postal Service will use in FY 2019. See Chapter 2, section C.1., supra. The FY 2018 

Report complies with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2804(b)(1) and (c) by setting forth comparable 

FY 2018 targets and results and including comparable results from the past three 

fiscal years. See Chapter 2, sections C.2.a., b., supra. The FY 2018 Report does not 

comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) with respect to the non-public performance 

indicators because the Postal Service does not explain why it did not meet FY 2018 

targets. See Chapter 2, section C.2.c., supra. Id. at 19-20.

 To ensure that the FY 2020 Plan and FY 2019 Report comply with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 

and 2804, respectively, the Commission recommends that the FY 2019 Report include a 

similar footnote stating that the Postal Service is providing non-public service 

performance data for certain Competitive products as part of the non-public annex of 

the FY 2019 ACR. For each non-public performance indicator, the Postal Service must 

file under seal with the FY 2019 ACR: (1) FY 2019 and FY 2020 targets; and (2) 

comparable results from FYs 2016 through 2019. If the Postal Service does not meet a

FY 2019 target, the Postal Service must explain why and describe the plans and 

schedules for meeting the FY 2020 target. The FY 2019 ACR should continue to identify 

the library reference that contains this information. Id. at 20.
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2019 Performance Plan Page 4 of 10

 In the FY 2020 Plan and FY 2019 Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal 

Service continue to describe future performance indicator and methodology changes 

as well as analyze the impact of these changes on results. Id. at 20-21.

 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 Commission recommends that the Postal Service 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 explain 

these changes and provide the rationale for making them in future annual 

performance plans and annual performance reports. Id. at 21.

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 2018. Chapter 3 at 22.

High-Quality Service:

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service did not meet the High-Quality Service 

performance goal in FY 2018. Id. at 27.

 Consequently, the FY 2018 Report does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for the 

High-Quality Service performance goal. Id. at 28.

 To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 2019 result for each 

performance indicator must be comparable to the target set in the FY 2019 Plan. As an 

alternative, if comparable FY 2019 results cannot be provided, the FY 2019 Report 

must explain why and either: (1) explain how to compare results between the new SPM 

system and former measurement system; or (2) explain why making this comparison is 

not feasible. Id.

 To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2019 Report must include 

comparable results for each performance indicator for, at a minimum, FYs 2016, 2017, 

2018, and 2019. To be comparable, results for each fiscal year must be calculated and 

expressed using the same performance indicator or methodology. As an alternative, if 

comparable results cannot be provided for any High-Quality Service performance 

indicator, the FY 2019 Report must explain why results are not directly comparable 

across these fiscal years. In that case, the FY 2019 Report must either explain how to 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2019 Performance Plan Page 5 of 10

compare results between the new SPM system and former measurement system, or 

explain why making this comparison is not feasible. Id.

 To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804 (d)(3) next year, if the Postal Service misses one or 

more FY 2019 targets for the non-public performance indicators measuring progress 

toward the High-Quality Service performance goal, the Postal Service must explain 

why and describe plans and schedules for meeting FY 2020 targets. Id.

 Given the continuous recurring nature of this issue, the Commission recommends that 

the Postal Service explore how to adapt its operations to account for seasonal demand 

changes in a way that does not negatively impact service performance. Id. at 31.

 In the FY 2019 Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service explain in 

more detail the impact of any network-wide job realignment and bidding process 

undertaken in FY 2019 on High-Quality Service performance indicator results in 

FY 2019. Id. at 32.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service strive to develop targets that 

balance the need to inspire continuous improvement with the importance of setting 

targets that are realistic and achievable. Id.

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service’s plans for improving High-Quality 

Service are reasonable steps for improving High-Quality Service performance indicator 

results in FY 2019. The Commission observes that the Postal Service’s initiative to 

identify mail impacted by unforeseen events that are outside of the Postal Service’s 

control appears likely to help the Postal Service more accurately determine the extent 

to which weather-related events affect its service performance results. In the FY 2019 

Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service explain the outcome of 

this and other initiatives designed to improve High-Quality Service and discuss the 

impact that these initiatives have on FY 2019 results. Id. at 34.

Excellent Customer Experiences:

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met the Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance goal in FY 2018, by meeting only one of the nine targets. Id. 

at 42.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to provide this 

additional information in the FY 2019 ACR by describing any changes made to 

customer surveys and performance indicator methodologies, providing the rationale 

for making these changes, and discussing the impact of these changes on FY 2019 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2019 Performance Plan Page 6 of 10

results. The Commission also recommends that the FY 2019 ACR include a similar table 

to the one included in Library Reference USPS-FY18-38 that contains detailed 

information on the survey methodology and data collection for each customer survey. 

Id. at 43.

 In the FY 2019 Report and FY 2020 Plan, if the Postal Service misses one or more 

targets for the Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicators, the 

Commission recommends that the Postal Service consider including a cross-reference 

to the FY 2019 ACR explaining why FY 2019 targets were not met and describing plans 

and schedules for meeting FY 2020 targets. Id.

 The Commission commends the Postal Service for evaluating and updating the current 

customer surveys and performance indicator methodologies to ensure quality and 

consistency and for improving CCC survey response rates. The Commissions finds that 

using consistently-worded Overall Satisfaction questions and a 6-point scale will 

promote comparability of results in FY 2019 and beyond. Id. at 44.

 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 explain these changes and provide the rationale for making them in 

future annual performance plans and annual performance reports. Id. at 49-50.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to use the same 

methodology for calculating results of the POS, BMEU, and USPS.com performance 

indicators in FY 2019 and beyond, unless changing the methodology would 

significantly improve the metric. If the Postal Service decides to change the 

methodology for calculating a performance indicator result, the Commission suggests 

that the Postal Service describe the change and provide the rationale for it in future 

annual performance plans and annual performance reports. The Commission also 

suggests that the Postal Service explain how the methodology change improves the 

metric. Id. at 51.

 To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 2019 result for each 

performance indicator must be comparable to the target set in the FY 2019 Plan. To be 

comparable, the FY 2019 result for the eCC performance indicator must be expressed 

using the FY 2019 methodology based on customers’ overall satisfaction with the 

quality of service received in response to their issue and an improvement rate. The FY 

2019 result for the CX Composite Index performance indicator must be expressed using 

both the FY 2018 and FY 2019 methodologies to ensure that the FY 2019 targets and 

results are comparable. As an alternative, if a comparable FY 2019 result cannot be 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2019 Performance Plan Page 7 of 10

provided, the FY 2019 Report must explain why and either: (1) explain how to 

compare results between the current and former methodologies; or (2) explain why 

making this comparison is not feasible, See Chapter 2, section C.2.a., supra. Id. at 54.

 To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year for the Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance goal, the FY 2019 Report must include comparable results for each 

component performance indicator. Comparable results must be calculated and 

expressed using the same performance indicator and methodology. If comparable 

results cannot be provided, the FY 2019 Report must explain why results are not 

directly comparable across these fiscal years. In that case, the FY 2019 Report must 

either explain how to compare results between the current and former methodologies 

or explain why making this comparison is not feasible. Id.

 Specifically, the FY 2019 Report must include comparable FY 2018 and FY 2019 results 

for the BMEU and USPS.com performance indicators and comparable POS 

performance indicator results for FYs 2016 through FY 2019. For the Delivery and CCC 

performance indicators, the FY 2019 Report could comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) by 

explaining why providing comparable results for these performance indicators is not 

feasible. For the BSN performance indicator, the FY 2019 Report could include 

comparable results based on customers’ overall satisfaction with the service provided 

by the BSN representative. For the eCC performance indicator, the FY 2019 Report 

could include comparable FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019 results based on customers’ 

overall satisfaction with the quality of service received in response to their issue. 

(footnotes omitted) Id. at 54-55.

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 2018. Id. at 59.

 To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) next year, if the Postal Service misses the 

FY 2019 target for the Total Accident Rate or the Survey Response Rate, the FY 2019 

Report must explain why and describe plans and schedules for meeting the FY 2020 

targets. Id.

 The Commission commends the Postal Service for improving the Total Accident Rate 

result for the third year in a row despite an increase in exposure hours. The 

Commission finds that the FY 2019 Total Accident Rate target of 15.00 is reasonable 

and achievable given the Postal Service’s FY 2018 performance and improvement since 

FY 2015. The Commission finds that the Postal Service’s plans for improving workplace 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2019 Performance Plan Page 8 of 10

safety, such as recognizing high performing districts and areas and sharing best 

practices, are reasonable steps to take to improve the Total Accident Rate result in 

FY 2019. Id. at 60.

 The Commission commends the Postal Service for continued development of the 

Professional Driving Academy to help reduce the number of motor vehicle accidents. 

The Commission recommends that the FY 2019 Report describe the implementation of 

the Professional Driving Academy and discuss any impact that it has had in FY 2019 on 

preventing or reducing the number of motor vehicle accidents. Id. at 62.

 The Commission commends the Postal Service for creating a quality driver observation 

electronic database. Replacing driver observations recorded on paper appears likely to 

help address unsafe driving behaviors and prevent or reduce the number of motor 

vehicle accidents by making it easier to track information and share best practices. 

The Commission recommends that the FY 2019 Report describe the process and 

implementation of the automated quality driver observations and discuss any impact 

that these observations have on preventing or reducing the number of motor vehicle 

accidents in FY 2019. Id. at 63.

 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.

 The Commission commends the Postal Service for setting a more realistic and 

achievable Survey Response Rate target in the FY 2019 Plan. Id. at 64.

 The Commission commends the Postal Service for improving both the Postal Pulse 

survey Grand Mean Engagement Score and the mean scores for each question between 

FY 2015 and FY 2018. The Commission acknowledges the Postal Service’s progress in 

improving mean scores for the lowest scoring questions on the Postal Pulse survey and 

encourages the Postal Service to continue taking steps to improve mean scores for all 

questions. The Postal Service’s plans for recognizing Engagement Leader of the Year 

award recipients and teams that have created great work environments may improve 

the mean score for Question 4 related to recognition or praise for doing good work. Id.

at 67.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Pulse survey continue to include a 

comment box to provide another forum for voicing employee opinions and gathering 

employee engagement insight. Acknowledging and addressing employee comments 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2019 Performance Plan Page 9 of 10

may help improve the mean score for Question 7 concerning employee opinions. The 

Commission suggests that the FY 2019 Report describe the most common types of 

comments received in FY 2019 and how the Postal Service will use them to improve 

employee engagement in FY 2020. Id. at 68.

Financial Health:

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service did not meet the Financial Health 

performance goal in FY 2018. Id. at 70.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue its efforts to leverage 

data-driven processes to improve service performance without having to use 

additional workhours. In the FY 2019 Report, the Commission recommends that the 

Postal Service explain the outcome of this and other efforts designed to reduce 

workhours in FY 2019 and discuss the impact that these efforts have on FY 2019 

DPTWH % Change results. Id. at 73.

 If the Postal Service does not meet the FY 2019 DPTWH % Change target, the 

Commission recommends that the FY 2019 Report describe plans and timelines for 

meeting the FY 2020 target that are designed to address the causes of workhour 

overruns identified by the Postal Service: declining letters and flats volumes, increasing 

packages volumes, and increasing delivery points. Id.

 The Commission recommends that future annual performance reports continue to 

include information on both the TFP index and other productivity measures. Id. at 74.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to include similar 

information on Controllable Income (Loss) in future annual performance plans and 

annual performance reports. Id.

Chapter 4 - Strategic Initiatives:

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to describe strategic 

initiatives in annual performance reports, link each strategic initiative to the strategic 

goals and performance goals, and use unique performance measures for each strategic 

initiative. Chapter 4 at 84.

 The Commission recommends that the FY 2019 Report provide the same information 

for FY 2019 by explaining how FY 2019 and FY 2020 strategic initiatives relate to the 

strategic goals and performance goals. The Commission suggests that the FY 2019 

Report include a table similar to the one in the FY 2018 Report showing changes 
Analysis of FY 2018 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2019 Performance Plan Page 10 of 10

between FY 2019 and FY 2020 strategic initiatives. See FY 2018 Annual Report at 32. 

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service include public descriptions of the 

strategic initiatives in the FY 2019 Report to help interested persons understand what 

the strategic initiatives are and how they relate to the performance goals. Id. at 85.

 The Commission also recommends that in Docket No. ACR2019, the Postal Service file 

FY 2019 performance measures, targets, and results for each strategic initiative, as 

well as a table illustrating how the strategic initiatives relate to each performance 

indicator. See Library Reference USPS–FY18–NP33. Id.