POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

Analysis of the Postal 

Service’s FY 2016 Annual

Performance Report and 

FY 2017 Performance Plan

April 27, 2017

Postal Regulatory Commission

Submitted 4/27/2017 3:42:07 PM

Filing ID: 99910

Accepted 4/27/2017
- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

B. The FY 2017 Plan and FY 2016 Report............................................................................5

CHAPTER 2: COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.................................................................7

A. Legal Requirements.................................................................................................................7

B. Comments....................................................................................................................................8

C. Commission Analysis ..............................................................................................................9

1. FY 2017 Plan ............................................................................................................. 10

2. FY 2016 Report........................................................................................................ 14

3. FY 2017 Performance Indicator Changes ...................................................... 20

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS OF POSTAL SERVICE PERFORMANCE ....................................................... 23

A. Deliver High-Quality Service............................................................................................. 25

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 25

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 28

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 29

B. Provide Excellent Customer Experiences .................................................................... 33

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 33

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 38

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 38

C. Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce .................................................. 50

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 50

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 54

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 55

D. Sustain Controllable Income ............................................................................................. 67

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 67

2. Comments .................................................................................................................. 69

3. Commission Analysis............................................................................................. 69

CHAPTER 4: STRATEGIC INITIATIVES...................................................................................................... 76

A. Background.............................................................................................................................. 76

B. Comments................................................................................................................................. 80

C. Commission Analysis ........................................................................................................... 80

Appendix—Commission Findings and Recommendations
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Executive Summary

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 1 -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

2016, the Postal Service filed its fiscal year (FY) 2017 annual performance plan (FY 2017 

Plan) and FY 2016 annual performance report (FY 2016 Report) in Docket No. ACR2016. 

The FY 2017 Plan reviews the Postal Service’s plans for FY 2017. The FY 2016 Report 

discusses the Postal Service’s progress during FY 2016 toward its four performance goals:

 Deliver High-Quality Service

 Provide Excellent Customer Experiences

 Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce

 Sustain Controllable Income

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 2017 Plan and 

FY 2016 Report. In Chapter 2, the Commission evaluates whether the FY 2017 Plan and FY 

2016 Report comply with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. In Chapter 3, the Commission 

evaluates whether the Postal Service met each performance goal in FY 2016. See id. 

§ 3653(d). In Chapter 4, the Commission examines strategic initiatives and cross-portfolio 

performance indicators, which measure the performance of strategic initiatives.

In Chapter 2, the Commission finds that the FY 2017 Plan and FY 2016 Report comply with 

all but one of the requirements of 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804, respectively. However, the 

Commission notes that the FY 2017 Plan and FY 2016 Report as submitted lacked sufficient 

information for the Commission to determine compliance, and that the issuance of

Chairman Information Requests (CHIRs) was necessary to obtain the required information. 

The Commission directs the Postal Service to include all information necessary to show 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804 in future annual performance plans and 

performance reports. The Commission also provides further guidance on how the Postal 

Service can fully comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a).

In Chapter 3, the Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met each performance 

goal in FY 2016. The Commission provides recommendations for each performance goal to 

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

In Chapter 4, the Commission makes recommendations about the Postal Service’s strategic 

initiatives and cross-portfolio performance indicators.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2017 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. 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803, 2804, and 3652(g). The

Postal Service included its FY 2017 Plan and FY 2016 Report in its 2016 Annual Report to 

Congress.

1

The FY 2016 Report discusses the Postal Service’s progress in meeting its performance 

goals during FY 2016. A performance goal is “a target level of performance expressed as a 

tangible, measurable objective, against which actual achievement shall be compared....” 39 

U.S.C. § 2801(3). In its FY 2016 Report, the Postal Service identifies four performance goals 

for FY 2016:

 Deliver High-Quality Service

 Provide Excellent Customer Experiences

 Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce

 Sustain Controllable Income

Each FY 2016 performance goal used two or more performance indicators to measure 

output or outcome. See id. § 2801(4). For example, the performance indicators for Deliver 

High-Quality Service measured the percentage of various categories of mail delivered ontime. The FY 2017 Plan discusses the Postal Service’s plans for meeting its performance 

goals in FY 2017. The Postal Service identifies the same performance goals for FY 2017 as it 

had in FY 2016.

2 As discussed in Chapter 2, the Postal Service is changing some of the 

performance indicators it will use during FY 2017. See Chapter 2, section C.3, infra.

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

results from FY 2012 to FY 2016, and targets for FY 2016 and FY 2017. Table I-2 shows a 

complete list of performance indicator targets from FY 2012 to FY 2017.

 

1

United States Postal Service 2016 Annual Report to Congress at 11-29 (FY 2016 Annual Report); see Library Reference USPS-FY16-17, 

December 29, 2016. This Analysis cites to pages from the FY 2016 Annual Report when referring to the FY 2016 Report and FY 2017 Plan.

2

Response of the United States Postal Service to Question 1 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 25, March 10, 2017 (Response to CHIR No. 

25).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 3 -

Table I-1

Performance Goals by Performance Indicators

FY 2012 to FY 2016 Results and FY 2016 and FY 2017 Targets

Performance 

Goal Performance Indicator FY TARGET Target not met FY RESULT Target not set 

2017 2016 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Deliver High 

Quality 

Servicea

Single-Piece

First-Class Mail

Overnight n/a n/a n/a 95.55% 96.00% 96.14% 96.48%

2-Day 96.50% 96.50% 94.66% 93.28% 94.90% 95.26% 94.84%

3-5-Day 95.25% 95.25% 83.66% 76.56% 87.70% 91.60% 92.29%

Presorted

First-Class Mail

Overnight 96.80% 96.80% 96.16% 95.74% 97.00% 97.20% 96.80%

2-Day 96.50% 96.50% 95.05% 93.56% 96.40% 97.00% 95.70%

3-5-Day 95.25% 95.25% 91.68% 87.78% 92.20% 95.10% 95.10%

First-Class Mail Composite n/a 96.00% 93.00% 89.64% 94.11% n/a n/a

First-Class Mail Letter & Flat Composite 96.00% n/a 93.02% n/a n/a n/a n/a

First-Class Mail Packages 94.80% n/a 86.98% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Standard Mail Composite n/a 91.00% 92.97% 89.58% 90.09% n/a n/a

Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite 91.00% n/a 90.01% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Provide 

Excellent 

Customer 

Experiencesb

Customer Experience Measurement Composite Score n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 78.40 79.00

Customer Insights Composite Score 89.00 86.70 87.62 85.73 84.65 n/a n/a

Business Service Network 96.73% 86.70% 95.13% 94.32% 94.05% 91.70% n/a

Point of Sale 90.42% 86.70% 86.38% 86.28% 81.59% 62.71% n/a

Delivery 82.67 86.70 76.26 77.49 79.55 89.34 n/a

Customer Care Center 86.80% 86.70% 85.18% 76.22% 74.00% n/a n/a

Enterprise Customer Care - % Reopened Case 3.44% n/a 5.10% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Ensure a Safe 

Workplace and 

Engaged 

Workforcec

End-of-YearOSHA Illness & Injury Rate n/a 6.05 6.25 6.55 6.34 5.63 5.44

Revised OSHA Illness & Injury Rate n/a n/a 6.41 6.85 6.76 6.06 5.88

Total Accidents Rate 15.00 15.00 16.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Postal Pulse Survey (mean score) n/a n/a 3.24 3.16 n/a n/a n/a

Survey Response Rate 51.00% 51.00% 32.00% 47.00% 51.00% 52.00% n/a

Business Units Participating in Action Planning 18,000 18,000 18,329 15,000 n/a n/a n/a

Voice of the Employee Survey (index) n/a n/a n/a n/a 65.01 64.70 64.70

Sustain 

Controllable 

Incomed

Deliveries per Workhour n/a 42.00 40.84 41.50 42.00 41.60 41.00

Deliveries per Total Workhours % SPLY 0.6% 1.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% 1.0% n/a

Net Controllable Income (Loss) $ Billions $0.10 $0.10 $0.61 $1.19 $1.35 ($1.00) ($2.40)

n/a–No result or target 

a

FY 2016 First-Class Mail Letter and Flat Composite and Standard Mail and Periodical Composite results and FY 2017 targets were provided in the Postal Service’s February 7, 2017 

response to Chairman’s Information Request (CHIR) No. 10, questions 3.e.i and 3.e.ii, respectively. Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-3, 4.a, 4.c, and 5-8 

of Chairman’s Information Request No. 10, February 7, 2017, questions 3.e.i and 3.e.ii (February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10). The FY 2016 First-Class Mail Packages (FCMP) 

result and target were provided in the Postal Service’s February 13, 2017 response to CHIR No. 10. Response of the United States Postal Service to Question 4.b of Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 10, February 13, 2017, questions 4.b.ii and 4.b.iii (February 13, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10). The FY 2016 FCMP result excludes 3-5-Day pieces from 

November 21, 2015 through January 8, 2016.

b

FY 2013 results for the Business Service Network (BSN), Point of Sale (POS), Delivery (Residential), and Delivery (Small/Medium Business) were provided in February 10, 2017 

Response to CHIR No. 14, question 1. The FY 2013 Delivery result was calculated by the Commission using the same methodology as FY 2014-FY 2016. The FY 2016 Enterprise 

Customer Care (eCC) result and FY 2017 targets for the eCC, BSN, POS, and Delivery performance indicators were provided in February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, questions 

6.a.ii and 7.b.ii, respectively.

c

End-of-Year Occupational Safety and Health Administration Illness & Injury Rate (OSHA I&I Rate) reflects the total number of known recordable accidents as of September 30th in 

the fiscal year of the Postal Service’s Annual Report. The revised OSHA I&I Rate (Revised OSHA I&I Rate) reflects an update of the End-of-Year OSHA I&I Rate to include additional 

recordable accidents that were initially classified as non-recordable that subsequently required medical care, time away from work, or restricted duty after September 30th in the 

fiscal year in which the accident occurred. See Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-5 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 15, February 17, 2017, 

question 5 (February 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15). The FY 2016 Business Units Participating in Action Planning result and FY 2017 target were provided in the February 16, 

2017 response to CHIR No. 14, questions 2 and 3.c, respectively. Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 2-3 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 14, 

February 16, 2017, questions 2 and 3.c (February 16, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14). The FY 2017 Survey Response Rate target was provided in the Responses of the United States 

Postal Service to Questions 1-4 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 7, January 25, 2017, question 3.b.ii (Response to CHIR No. 7). The FY 2015 Survey Response Rate and 

Business Units Participating in Action Planning results were provided in Docket No. ACR2015, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 13-15 and 19 of 

Chairman’s Information Request No. 13, February 26, 2016, questions 15.a.i and 15.a.ii, respectively (Docket No. ACR2015, February 26, 2016 Response to CHIR No. 13).

d

FY 2016 Deliveries per Work Hour (DPWH) was calculated by the Commission using comparable methodology as FY 2012-FY 2016 using the “YTD Delivery Days,” “YTD Total 

Work[][H]ours” and “YTD Possible Deliveries” provided in February 10, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 11. FY 2013-FY 2015 Deliveries per Total Work Hours (DPTWH) % 

SPLY results were provided in Response to CHIR No. 7, question 2.a.i.

Sources: FY 2016 Annual Report at 15, 21; United States Postal Service 2015 Annual Report to Congress at 14, 19 (FY 2015 Annual Report); see

Library Reference USPS-FY15-17, December 29, 2015; Docket No. ACR2015, Postal Regulatory Commission, Analysis of the Postal Service’s FY 2015 

Program Performance Report and FY 2016 Performance Plan, May 4, 2016, at 4 (FY 2015 Analysis).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 4 -

Table I-2

Performance Indicator Targets, FY 2012 to FY 2017

Performance 

Goal Performance Indicator FY TARGET

Deliver HighQuality 

Servicea

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Single-Piece

First-Class

Mail

Overnight n/a n/a 96.80% 96.80% 96.70% 96.65%

2-Day 96.50% 96.50% 96.50% 96.50% 95.10% 94.15%

3-5-Day 95.25% 95.25% 95.25% 95.25% 95.00% 92.85%

Presorted

First-Class

Mail

Overnight 96.80% 96.80% 96.80% 96.80% 96.70% n/a

2-Day 96.50% 96.50% 96.50% 96.50% 95.10% n/a

3-5-Day 95.25% 95.25% 95.25% 95.25% 95.00% n/a

First-Class Mail Composite n/a 96.00% 96.00% 96.00% n/a n/a

First-Class Mail Letter & Flat Composite 96.00% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

First-Class Mail Packages Composite 94.80% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Standard Mail Composite n/a 91.00% 91.00% 91.00% n/a n/a

Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite 91.00% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Provide 

Excellent 

Customer 

Experiencesb

Customer Experience Measurement Composite Score n/a n/a n/a 82.50 82.50 82.00

Customer Insights Composite Score 89.00 86.70 86.70 n/a n/a n/a

Business Service Network 96.73% 86.70% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Point of Sale 90.42% 86.70% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Delivery 82.67 86.70 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Customer Care Center 86.80% 86.70% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Enterprise Customer Care 3.44% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Ensure a Safe 

Workplace 

and Engaged 

Workforcec

OSHA Illness & Injury Rate n/a 6.05 5.10 5.10 5.20 5.72

Total Accidents Rate 15.00 15.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Postal Pulse Survey (grand mean engagement score) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Survey Response Rate 51.00% 51.00% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Business Units Participating in Action Planning 18,000 18,000 9,000 n/a n/a n/a

Voice of the Employee Survey (index) n/a n/a 65.10 65.10 64.90 64.90

Sustain 

Controllable 

Income

Deliveries per Work Hour n/a 42.00 42.40 42.90 42.70 42.20

Deliveries per Total Work Hours % SPLY 0.6% 1.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Net Controllable Income (Loss) $ Billions $0.10 $0.10 $1.10 $0.90 $(2.00) $(3.00)

n/a–No target

a

The FY 2017 First-Class Mail Packages Composite target was provided in February 13, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 4.b.iii.

b

The FY 2016 BSN, POS, Delivery, and CCC targets and FY 2017 eCC target were provided in February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, questions 7.b.i and 7.b.ii, 

respectively.

c

The OSHA I&I Rate target is the same for the End-of-Year OSHA I&I Rate and Revised OSHA I&I Rate. FY 2015 Survey Response Rate and Business Units in Action 

Planning targets were provided in Docket No. ACR2015, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-6 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 3, 

January 21, 2016, question 5.b. FY 2015 and FY 2016 Business Units Participating in Action Planning targets were provided in Docket No. ACR2015, Responses of 

the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-4 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 18, March 8, 2016 questions 1.b and 1.c, respectively. The FY 2016 

Survey Response Rate target was provided in Docket No. ACR2015, February 26, 2016 Response to CHIR No. 13, question 15.a.i. The FY 2017 Survey Response 

Rate and Business Units Participating in Action Planning targets were provided in Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.b.ii and February 16, 2017 Response to CHIR 

No. 14, question 3.c, respectively.

Sources: See also FY 2016 Annual Report at 15; FY 2015 Analysis at 5; FY 2015 Annual Report at 14; United States Postal Service 2014 Annual Report to Congress

at 39 (FY 2014 Annual Report); United States Postal Service 2013 Annual Report to Congress at 39 (FY 2013 Annual Report); United States Postal Service 2012 

Annual Report to Congress at 34, 39 (FY 2012 Annual Report).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 5 -

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

goals established in the annual performance plan and annual performance report. 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3653(d). It considers the Postal Service to have met a performance goal if the results of

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

applicable performance plan. The Commission may also provide recommendations to the 

Postal Service related to protecting or promoting public policy objectives in title 39. Id.

B. The FY 2017 Plan and FY 2016 Report

In past years, the Commission analyzed annual performance plans and annual performance 

reports as part of the Annual Compliance Determination (ACD). In Docket No. ACR2013, the 

Commission determined that its obligations under 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d) are distinguishable 

from its ACD obligations under 39 U.S.C. § 3653(b). Since then, the Commission has issued 

separate reports analyzing the Postal Service’s annual performance plans and annual 

performance reports.

3 By issuing separate reports, the Commission provides a more indepth analysis of the Postal Service’s progress toward meeting its performance goals and 

plans to improve performance in future years.

The Commission continues its current practice by issuing its analysis of the FY 2017 Plan 

and FY 2016 Report separately from the FY 2016 ACD.4 In conducting this year’s 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.

5 It also sought input on public policy recommendations, observations on 

strategic initiatives, and other relevant matters. Order No. 3718 at 2-3.

 

3

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

July 7, 2014 (FY 2013 Review); Docket No. ACR2014, Postal Regulatory Commission, Analysis of the Postal Service’s FY 2014 Program 

Performance Report and FY 2015 Performance Plan, July 7, 2015 (FY 2014 Analysis); FY 2015 Analysis.

4

See Annual Compliance Determination, March 28, 2017 (FY 2016 ACD).

5

Notice and Order Regarding the Postal Service FY 2016 Annual Performance Report and FY 2017 Annual Performance Plan, January 3, 2017 

(Order No. 3718).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Introduction

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 6 -

Several CHIRs were issued seeking clarification of the FY 2017 Plan and FY 2016 Report.

6

The Postal Service filed responses to all information requests.7 The Public Representative 

submitted comments8 to which the Postal Service provided reply comments.9

The Commission analyzes the FY 2016 Report and FY 2017 Plan in the following chapters:

 Chapter 2 analyzes the FY 2016 Report and FY 2017 Plan for compliance 

with legal requirements.

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

goals in FY 2016.

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

The Commission also provides an appendix listing Commission findings and 

recommendations contained in this Analysis.

 

6

Chairman’s Information Request No. 7, January 17, 2017 (CHIR No. 7); Chairman’s Information Request No. 10, January 27, 2017 (CHIR No. 10); 

Chairman’s Information Request No. 14, February 3, 2017 (CHIR No. 14); Chairman’s Information Request No. 15, February 10, 2017 (CHIR No. 

15); Chairman’s Information Request No. 19, February 17, 2017 (CHIR No. 19); Chairman’s Information Request No. 22, February 24, 2017 (CHIR 

No. 22); Chairman’s Information Request No. 25, March 3, 2017 (CHIR No. 25); Chairman’s Information Request No. 27, March 9, 2017 (CHIR 

No. 27).

7

Response to CHIR No. 7; February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10; February 10, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14; February 13, 2017 Response 

to CHIR No. 10; Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 4-7 and 10 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 14, February 15, 

2017 (February 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14); February 16, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14; February 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15; 

Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 8-9 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 14, February 24, 2017 (February 24, 

2017 Response to CHIR No. 14); Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 2 and 6 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 19, 

February 27, 2017 (February 27, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19); Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 7-11 of Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 19, March 1, 2017 (March 1, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19); Response of the United States Postal Service to Question 

6 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 15, March 7, 2017 (March 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15); Response to CHIR No. 25; Response of 

the United States Postal Service to Question 1 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 22, March 13, 2017 (Response to CHIR No. 22); 

Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-5 and 7 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 27, March 15, 2017 (March 15, 

2017 Response to CHIR No. 27); Response of the United States Postal Service to Question 6 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 27, March 

16, 2017 (March 16, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 27); Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1 and 3-5 of Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 19, March 17, 2017 (March 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19). Several CHIR responses were accompanied by motions 

requesting late acceptance. These motions were granted in the FY 2016 ACD. FY 2016 ACD at 9 n.15.

8

Public Representative Initial Comments on the FY 2016 Performance Report and FY 2017 Performance Plan, February 8, 2017 (PR Comments); 

see Public Representative Notice of Errata, February 16, 2017.

9

United States Postal Service Reply Comments Regarding FY 2016 Performance Report and FY 2017 Performance Plan, February 22, 2017 

(Postal Service Reply Comments).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 7 -

CHAPTER 2: COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL 

REQUIREMENTS

A. Legal Requirements

The FY 2017 Plan and FY 2016 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. The Postal Service must cover “each program activity set forth in the Postal Service 

budget....”

11 and must:

 Establish objective, quantifiable, and measurable performance goals that 

define a program activity’s performance level

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

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

performance goals

 Establish performance indicators to measure or assess each program 

activity’s relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes

 Provide a basis for comparing actual program results with established 

performance goals

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

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

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

objective, quantifiable, and measurable form.12

 

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 Postal Service’s mission is to 

“[p]rovide reliable, efficient, trusted and affordable universal delivery service that binds the nation together, as it has for more than 240 years.” 

FY 2016 Annual Report at 12. The Commission discusses program activities on pages 13-14, infra.

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

Id. § 2803(b)(1). The alternative form must also “state why it is infeasible or impractical to express a performance goal in any form for the 

program activity.” Id. § 2803(b)(2).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 8 -

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

reports. First, it requires the Postal Service to prepare annual performance reports that 

review whether it has met the performance goals previously established by the 

performance plan for that fiscal year. Id. § 2804(d)(1). Second, the Postal Service must “set 

forth the performance indicators established in the Postal Service performance plan, along 

with the actual program performance achieved compared with the performance goals 

expressed in the plan for that fiscal year.” Id. § 2804(b)(1). Third, the Postal Service must 

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

Service must evaluate the performance plan for the current fiscal year (in this case, the

FY 2017 Plan) relative to the performance achieved toward those goals in the year covered 

by the performance report (in this case, the FY 2016 Report). Id. § 2804(d)(2).

If the Postal Service does not meet a performance goal, it must explain why the goal was 

not met and its plans and schedules for achieving the performance goal.13 The Postal 

Service 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 asserts that the FY 2017 Plan and FY 2016 Report comply with 

39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. PR Comments at 8. However, she notes that the Postal Service 

does not set an “objective, quantifiable, and measurable” target for the Postal Pulse survey 

grand mean engagement score as required by section 2803(a)(2). Id. at 9. She suggests that 

section 2803(b) excuses the lack of target, but asserts that the Postal Service should be able 

to set reasonable goals once it has a few years of data. Id.

The Public Representative also comments that the FY 2016 Report fails to include all 

information required by section 2804(d)(2). Id. Section 2804(d)(2) requires the FY 2016 

Report to evaluate the FY 2017 Plan relative to the performance achieved toward the

performance goals during FY 2016. See 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(2). However, the Public 

Representative notes that the Postal Service provides the omitted information in CHIR 

responses. PR Comments at 9.

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

comments regarding the Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement score. Postal Service

Reply Comments at 10. However, it notes that it has instead set FY 2017 targets for 

employee survey response rate and geographic distribution. Id.

 

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

action. Id. § 2804(d)(3)(C).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 9 -

C. Commission Analysis

At the beginning of the FY 2017 Plan and FY 2016 Report, the Postal Service lists several of 

the requirements of 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804 and represents that the FY 2017 Plan and 

FY 2016 Report include the listed information. FY 2016 Annual Report at 14. The 

Commission appreciates the Postal Service’s efforts to highlight the requirements of 39 

U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804.

Although the Postal Service describes the requirements of sections 2803 and 2804, it does 

not explain how each of the performance goals meets these requirements. The FY 2016 

Report and FY 2017 Plan alone lacked sufficient information for the Commission to 

determine whether they complied with sections 2803 and 2804. In order to increase 

transparency and ensure the required information is included, the Commission recommends 

that the Postal Service link the specific information provided in future annual performance 

plans and annual performance reports to the specific requirements of 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 

2804.

The Commission previously stated that the Postal Service should provide the information 

necessary to meet the requirements of sections 2803 and 2804 in the annual performance 

plan and annual performance report. See FY 2015 Analysis at 16. In past years, the 

Commission has permitted the Postal Service to include some statutorily required

information in CHIR responses. However, the Postal Service’s continued reliance on CHIR 

responses to comply with statutory requirements has the overall effect of reducing the 

transparency and usefulness of its annual performance plans and annual performance 

reports and strays from the intent of sections 2803 and 2804. The large amount of required 

information provided at different times in response to various CHIRs also makes it difficult 

for interested persons to find important information that should be readily available in 

each annual performance plan and annual performance report.

The Commission is concerned that the need to issue extensive CHIRs to gather required 

information has become the norm. As a result, the Commission finds that the FY 2017 annual 

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

must contain all information necessary to show compliance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804.

Although some CHIRs may be necessary to clarify elements of the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 

Plan, the Commission in the future intends only to review information submitted within the 

annual performance reports and annual performance plans to determine statutory 

compliance.

Below the Commission analyzes the FY 2017 Plan and FY 2016 Report for compliance with 

sections 2803 and 2804. The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Plan complies with all but 

one requirement of 39 U.S.C. § 2803, and the FY 2016 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 10 -

1. FY 2017 Plan

The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Plan complies with all but one requirement of 39 

U.S.C. § 2803. First, the FY 2017 Plan must “establish performance goals to define the level 

of performance to be achieved by a program activity.”

14 This provision requires the FY 2017 

Plan to set forth the performance goals and establish targets for each performance 

indicator used to evaluate performance during FY 2017.

The FY 2017 Plan sets forth the four performance goals and establishes FY 2017 targets for 

most of the performance indicators that will be used to measure FY 2017 performance. See 

FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. The FY 2017 Plan does not set FY 2017 targets for the 

following performance indicators:

 First-Class Mail Packages Composite (Deliver High-Quality Service goal)

 Business Service Network (BSN), Point of Sale (POS), Delivery, Customer 

Care Center (CCC), and Enterprise Customer Care (eCC)15 (Provide 

Excellent Customer Experiences goal)

 Postal Pulse survey (Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce 

goal)

The Postal Service does, however, provide FY 2017 targets for each of these performance 

indicators in CHIR responses.16 For this reason, the Commission finds that the Postal Service 

has complied with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1). As the Commission previously discussed, future 

annual performance plans must contain all information necessary to show compliance with 

39 U.S.C. § 2803. To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1), the FY 2018 Plan must set targets for 

each performance indicator used to evaluate performance during FY 2018.

Second, the FY 2017 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 2017 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 

2015 Analysis at 12. The FY 2017 Plan sets quantitative FY 2017 targets for each 

 

14 See 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1). The Commission discusses program activities on pages 13-14, infra.

15 The Postal Service clarifies that the name of the performance indicator is “Enterprise Customer Care” rather than “Electronic Customer Care” 

as listed in the FY 2016 Annual Report. February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 6.

16 See id. question 7.b.ii; February 13, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 4.b.iii; February 16, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 3.c.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 11 -

performance indicator except for the performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse 

survey.

The same issue occurred last year when the Postal Service did not set a measurable FY 

2016 target for the Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement score in the FY 2016 Plan. 

See id. However, in a CHIR response, the Postal Service provided FY 2016 targets for the 

Postal Pulse survey response rate and number of participating business units. See id. The 

Commission found that these targets expressed the Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged 

Workforce performance goal “in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form” and that 

the information provided in the CHIR response was sufficient to meet the requirements of 

39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(2). Id. It noted that in future years, the Postal Service should include the 

required information in annual performance plans. Id.

This year, as the Public Representative notes, the Postal Service again failed to set a 

measurable FY 2017 target for the Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement score. 

Although the FY 2017 Plan discusses the Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement 

score, it is not included as a performance indicator in the table summarizing FY 2016 

results and FY 2017 targets for each performance goal. See FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. 

When asked to provide the FY 2017 target, the Postal Service responds that “[a] specific 

numeric target for the [Postal Pulse survey] score has not been set.” Response to CHIR No. 

7, question 3.b.i.

Based on this response, the Postal Service was asked to express the FY 2017 target for the 

Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement score using “an alternative form” under 39 

U.S.C. § 2803(b) if it determined that it is not feasible to express the Postal Pulse survey 

grand mean engagement score “in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form.” See 

CHIR No. 14, question 3. In its response, the Postal Service asserts that setting a measurable 

FY 2017 target for the Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement score is feasible but not 

desirable. February 16, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 3.a. However, it notes that 

it set related objective, quantifiable, and measurable FY 2017 targets for the Postal Pulse 

survey response rate (50 percent) and number of organizational units entering into 

executable action plans in the Gallup system (18,000). Id. questions 3.a and 3.c.

The Commission finds that the FY 2017 targets provided for the Postal Pulse survey response 

rate and number of organizational units entering into executable action plans in the Gallup 

system express the Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce goal “in an objective, 

quantifiable, and measurable form.” Consequently, the Commission finds that the Postal 

Service has complied with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(2).

Failing to include a measurable FY 2017 target for the Postal Pulse survey performance 

indicator is another example of the FY 2017 Plan lacking sufficient information for the 
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 12 -

Commission to evaluate compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 2803. The Commission obtained the 

necessary information only after two CHIR questions and responses. This process hinders 

transparency, reduces the usefulness of the Postal Service’s annual performance plans, and 

makes it difficult for interested persons to find required information. The Commission 

reiterates the importance of including all required information in annual performance plans 

and annual performance reports. To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(2) next year, the FY 

2018 Plan must include measurable FY 2018 targets for each performance indicator, 

including at least one of the performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse survey. FY 

2018 targets must be included in the FY 2018 Plan rather than in CHIR responses.

Third, the FY 2017 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 2017 Plan meets this requirement 

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

meet the Deliver High-Quality Service goal in FY 2017, the Postal Service states it will 

continue to use principles of continuous improvement and data analytics and deploy 

Network Operations Control Centers in each area. FY 2016 Annual Report at 17.

Fourth, the FY 2017 Plan must “establish performance indicators to be used in measuring 

or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program activity.”17

The FY 2017 Plan meets this requirement because each performance goal has at least two 

performance indicators that evaluate outputs, service levels, and outcomes. For example, 

the Sustain Controllable Income performance goal uses two performance indicators to 

measure productivity improvement efforts and financial results. FY 2016 Annual Report at 

22-24.

Fifth, the FY 2017 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 2017 Plan meets this 

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

comparing FY 2017 results with the targets established in the FY 2017 Plan.

Sixth, the FY 2017 Plan must “describe the means to be used to verify and validate 

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

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

using objective measurement systems. The FY 2017 Plan meets this requirement by, for 

example, explaining that Single-Piece First-Class Mail performance is objectively measured 

using the External First-Class Mail sampling system. See FY 2016 Annual Report at 16. The 

Postal Service explains that it validates data for the Occupational Safety and Health 

 

17 See 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(4). The Commission discusses program activities on pages 13-14, infra.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 13 -

Administration Illness and Injury Rate (OSHA I&I Rate) using the Enterprise Data 

Warehouse. February 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 7.c.

The FY 2017 Plan must also “cover[] each program activity set forth in the Postal Service 

budget....” See 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a). The Commission previously found that to comply with 

39 U.S.C. § 2803(a), the Postal Service must identify all program activities in its budget and 

explain how the annual performance plan covers each one. See FY 2014 Analysis at 10-11; 

FY 2015 Analysis at 14. The Commission also found that “Postal Service budget” in section 

2803(a) means the Postal Service’s operating budget that is part of the Integrated Financial 

Plan. Id.

The FY 2017 Plan does not explain how it covers each program activity in the FY 2017 

Integrated Financial Plan. The Postal Service has previously indicated that the budget it 

uses for its section 2803(a) assessment is its congressional budget submission.18 However, 

the FY 2017 Plan also does not explain how it covers each program activity in the FY 2017 

congressional budget submission.

Two CHIRs were issued related to 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a). CHIR No. 10, question 1 asked the 

Postal Service to provide a crosswalk between the program activities listed in the FY 2017 

Integrated Financial Plan and the Postal Service’s FY 2017 congressional budget 

submission.19 With this crosswalk, the Commission intended to analyze whether there is 

sufficient overlap between the program activities in the FY 2017 IFP and the FY 2017 

Congressional Budget. In its response, the Postal Service focuses on differences in projected 

mail volume, revenue, and expenses in the FY 2017 Congressional Budget and the FY 2017 

IFP, but does not address individual program activities from either budget. February 7, 

2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 1.

The FY 2017 Congressional Budget lists the following Postal Service program activities: 

postal field operations, transportation, building occupancy, supplies and services, research 

and development, administrative and area operations, interest, servicewide expenses, 

capital investments, and change in resources on order and inventory. FY 2017 

Congressional Budget at II-14. CHIR No. 22 asked the Postal Service to explain how the FY 

2017 Plan covers each of these program activities. CHIR No. 22. In its response, the Postal 

Service describes each program activity and related FY 2017 expenses. Response to CHIR 

 

18 Docket No. ACR2015, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1 and 2 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 5, February 

3, 2016, question 1.

19 CHIR No. 10, question 1; see United States Postal Service, Fiscal Year 2017 Integrated Financial Plan, December 2, 2016 (FY 2017 IFP); United 

States Postal Service FY 2017 Budget: Congressional Submission, Workpapers, and Summary Tables SE-1, 2 and 6, February 25, 2016 (FY 2017 

Congressional Budget).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 14 -

No. 22, question 1. However, it does not connect any of these program activities to the FY 

2017 Plan. Id.

The FY 2017 Plan does not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a). In the FY 2015 Analysis, the 

Commission stated that the FY 2017 Plan “must identify all program activities in the FY 

2017 IFP and explain how the FY 2017 Plan covers each one.” FY 2015 Analysis at 14 

(italics omitted). The FY 2017 Plan does not include this information nor do the responses 

to CHIR Nos. 10 and 22 provide the information necessary to make this determination.

Although the Commission has repeatedly stated that “budget” in 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a) refers 

to the Postal Service’s operating budget in the Integrated Financial Plan, the Commission 

would also accept an analysis that shows how the annual performance plan covers each 

program activity in the applicable year’s congressional budget submission and a crosswalk 

of the relationship between the program activities in the applicable Integrated Financial 

Plan and the applicable congressional budget submission. To connect the program 

activities to the annual performance plan, the Postal Service should describe how each 

program activity relates to one or more performance goals or performance indicators.

The Commission finds that the Postal Service has not complied with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a). To 

comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a) next year, the FY 2018 Plan must either: (1) identify all 

program activities in the FY 2018 Integrated Financial Plan and explain how the FY 2018 

Plan covers each one or (2) identify all program activities in the applicable congressional 

budget submission, explain how the FY 2018 Plan covers each one, and provide a crosswalk of 

the relationship between the program activities in the FY 2018 Integrated Financial Plan and 

congressional budget submission. The FY 2018 Plan must also relate each program activity to

one or more performance goals or performance indicators. As previously discussed, the Postal 

Service must include this explanation in the FY 2018 Plan rather than in CHIR responses.

2. FY 2016 Report

The Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804. First, the FY 

2016 Report reviews the Postal Service’s success in achieving its performance goals by 

stating whether the Postal Service met targets for each performance goal in FY 2016. See 39 

U.S.C. § 2804(d)(1). Second, the FY 2016 Report provides summary findings of program 

evaluations completed during FY 2016. See id. § 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). 

For example, in the FY 2016 Report, the Postal Service states it exceeded the Customer 

Insights (CI) Composite Score by almost 1 percentage point by training retail employees to 

ask customers for feedback and by using Quick Response codes and interactive voice 

response systems. FY 2016 Annual Report at 18.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 15 -

Third, 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). The FY 2016 Report does not provide this 

information for the Deliver High-Quality Service and Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged 

Workforce performance goals. The Postal Service failed to meet FY 2016 targets for all but 

one performance indicator that measured progress toward the Deliver High-Quality 

Service goal. See FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. However, the FY 2016 Report neither 

explains why the Postal Service missed FY 2016 targets nor describes what the Postal 

Service’s plans and schedules are for meeting FY 2017 targets. Similarly, for the Ensure a 

Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal, the FY 2016 Report does not 

explain why the Postal Service missed the FY 2016 target for the OSHA I&I Rate. See id. at 

20.

The Postal Service provided the explanations, plans, and schedules required by section 

2804(d)(3) in CHIR responses.20 For this reason, the Commission finds that the Postal Service 

has complied with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3). However, as previously discussed, the Postal 

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

hinders transparency, reduces the usefulness of annual performance reports, and makes it 

difficult for interested persons to find required information. In particular, section 

2804(d)(3) is an important requirement for annual performance reports because it 

promotes accountability when the Postal Service does not meet the goal. To comply with 39 

U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) next year, if the Postal Service did not meet a performance goal, the 

FY 2017 Report must explain why the goal was not met and the Postal Service’s plans and 

schedules for achieving the goal in future years. The Postal Service must provide the 

explanations, plans, and schedules required by 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) in the FY 2017 Report 

rather than in CHIR responses.

Fourth, 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). This provision requires the FY 2016 

Report to evaluate the FY 2017 Plan relative to the performance achieved toward the 

performance goals during FY 2016. In other words, the Postal Service must compare 

FY 2017 targets with FY 2016 results for each performance indicator the Postal Service will 

use during FY 2017.

The Public Representative comments that the Postal Service failed to include the 

information required by section 2804(d)(2) in the FY 2016 Report. PR Comments at 9. 

However, she notes that the Postal Service provided the omitted information in CHIR 

 

20 Table III-1 lists each performance goal, whether the goal was met in FY 2016, reasons provided by the Postal Service for not meeting the goal, 

and the Postal Service’s plans and schedules for meeting the goal in future years. See Chapter 3, infra.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 16 -

responses. Id. As previously discussed, the FY 2017 Plan does not set FY 2017 targets for 

First-Class Mail Package Composite, the CI subcomponent performance indicators, and the 

performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse survey. See Chapter 2, section C.1, supra. 

However, the Postal Service provides these targets in CHIR responses. See page 6 n.7, supra. 

Consequently, the Commission finds the Postal Service complied with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(2) by 

comparing FY 2017 targets with FY 2016 results. To ensure compliance next year, the Postal 

Service should include all FY 2018 targets in the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan.

The FY 2016 Report must meet two other requirements in 39 U.S.C. § 2804. First, it must 

“set forth the performance indicators established in the Postal Service performance plan, 

along with the actual program performance achieved compared with the performance 

goals expressed in the plan for that fiscal year.” 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1). Second, the FY 2016 

Report must “include actual results for the three preceding fiscal years.” Id. § 2804(c). Each 

statutory requirement is discussed below.

a. FY 2016 Target and Result Comparability

Section 2804(b)(1) requires annual performance reports to “set forth the performance 

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

program performance achieved compared with the performance goals expressed in the 

plan for that fiscal year.” Id. § 2804(b)(1). This provision requires results expressed in 

annual performance reports to be comparable with targets set in the annual performance 

plan for that fiscal year. Thus, the FY 2016 Report must set forth the performance indicators 

in the FY 2016 annual performance plan (FY 2016 Plan) and compare FY 2016 results with 

FY 2016 targets set for each performance indicator in the FY 2016 Plan.

For each performance indicator measuring progress toward the Deliver High-Quality 

Service goal, the FY 2016 Report sets forth the targets in the FY 2016 Plan and compares 

them with FY 2016 results. See FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. For this reason, the 

Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) for the Deliver 

High-Quality Service goal.

Last year, the Postal Service stated that the subcomponent performance indicators for the 

Provide Excellent Customer Experiences goal (BSN, POS, Delivery, and CCC) would have the 

same FY 2016 target as the CI Composite performance indicator (86.70).21 However, the 

FY 2016 Report lists FY 2016 targets as “N/A” for the subcomponent performance 

indicators. See FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service 

confirms that the FY 2016 target for each subcomponent performance indicator was 86.70. 

February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 7.b.i. Consequently, the Commission 

 

21 See Docket No. ACR2015, United States Postal Service Reply Comments Regarding FY 2015 Performance Report and FY 2016 Performance 

Plan, March 8, 2016, at 8.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 17 -

finds that the FY 2016 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) for the Provide Excellent 

Customer Experiences goal. To ensure compliance next year, the FY 2017 Report must list FY 

2017 targets for each performance indicator, including the subcomponent performance 

indicators for the Provide Excellent Customer Experiences goal.

In its FY 2015 Analysis, the Commission found that the FY 2015 Report did not comply with 

section 2804(b)(1) for the Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance 

goal because the FY 2015 target and result for the Postal Pulse survey grand mean 

engagement score performance indicator were not comparable. FY 2015 Analysis at 16. The 

FY 2016 Plan did not set a FY 2016 target for the Postal Pulse survey grand mean 

engagement score, but the Postal Service provided FY 2016 targets for the Postal Pulse 

survey response rate and number of business units participating in action planning in CHIR 

responses.22 The Commission stated that “[t]o comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) in 

FY 2016, the FY 2016 Report must express FY 2016 results that are comparable with the 

targets expressed in [a CHIR response].” FY 2015 Analysis at 16. This and another CHIR 

response provided FY 2016 targets for the Postal Pulse survey response rate and number 

of business units participating in action planning.23

The FY 2016 Report does not set forth FY 2016 targets for these performance indicators. 

However, the FY 2016 Report provides FY 2016 results for these performance indicators 

and the Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement score. FY 2016 Annual Report at 21. 

For this reason, the Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(b)(1) for the Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal.

The Postal Service provides FY 2017 targets for the Postal Pulse survey response rate and 

number of organizational units entering into executable action plans in the Gallup system. 

February 16, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, questions 3.a and 3.c. To ensure compliance 

next year, the FY 2017 Report must compare FY 2017 results with FY 2017 targets set for each 

performance indicator, including the performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse 

survey.

For the Sustain Controllable Income goal, the FY 2016 Plan set a FY 2016 target for the 

DPWH performance indicator. FY 2015 Annual Report at 14. However, in FY 2016 the 

Postal Service replaced DPWH with DPTWH as a performance indicator for the Sustain 

Controllable Income goal. FY 2016 Annual Report at 15 nn.11-12, 22. The FY 2016 Report

omits both the FY 2016 target and FY 2016 result for the old DPWH performance indicator. 

 

22 Docket No. ACR2015, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-6 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 3, January 21, 

2016, question 5.b (Docket No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR No. 3); Docket No. ACR2015, Responses of the United States Postal Service to 

Questions 1-4 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 18, March 8, 2016, question 1.c (Docket No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR No. 18).

23 Docket No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR No. 3, question 5.b; Docket No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR No. 18, question 1.c.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 18 -

However, the FY 2016 Report does provide both the FY 2016 target and FY 2016 result for 

the new DPTWH performance indicator. See id. at 15.

This mid-year change in performance indicators affects compliance with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(b)(1) because the DPWH target in the FY 2016 Plan differs from the FY 2016 

DPTWH result provided in the FY 2016 Report. Although the FY 2016 Report does not 

provide the FY 2016 result for the old DPWH performance indicator, the Postal Service 

provided this information in a CHIR response. February 10, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, 

question 11. For this reason, the Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report complies with 39 

U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) for the Sustain Controllable Income performance goal. However, to comply 

with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 2017 Report must express results for each 

performance indicator that are comparable to the targets the Postal Service set for FY 2017.

Inconsistencies between targets presented in annual performance plans and annual 

performance reports have been an ongoing issue. See FY 2015 Analysis at 21. The

Commission reiterates its recommendation that the Postal Service not change performance 

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

necessitate a revision, the Postal Service should explain these circumstances in the 

applicable annual performance report. In other cases, such as changes that affect the Postal 

Service’s ability to meet a target, the Postal Service should explain why a performance goal 

was not met in the applicable performance report rather than revising the performance 

indicator or target to account for these changes.

b. Comparable 3-Year Results

Section 2804(c) requires the FY 2016 Report to “include actual results for the three 

preceding fiscal years.” The Commission previously found that “actual results” under 

section 2804(c) must also be comparable across the three preceding fiscal years. FY 2014 

Analysis at 12; see FY 2015 Analysis at 17. Thus, for the FY 2016 Report to comply with 39 

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

indicator for, at minimum, FYs 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. See FY 2015 Analysis at 17, 45. 

When the Postal Service changed methodologies in past years, the Commission explained 

that the Postal Service could provide three years of comparable results by either (1) 

providing all results using the old methodology, if available, or (2) providing results using 

the new methodology and explaining how to compare results under the old and new 

methodologies. Id. at 17; FY 2014 Analysis at 12-13. The Commission also recommended 

that the Postal Service describe any methodology changes in its Annual Report to Congress

and analyze the impact of methodology changes on results. Id.

The Postal Service provided comparable results for FYs 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 for 

each Deliver High-Quality Service and Sustain Controllable Income performance indicator 

used in FY 2016. For this reason, the Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report complies with 
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 19 -

39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for the Deliver High-Quality Service and Sustain Controllable Income 

performance goals.

The Postal Service recently changed the methodology for calculating results for two 

performance goals. First, in FY 2014 the Postal Service changed the methodology for 

measuring the Provide Excellent Customer Experiences goal from the Customer Experience 

Measurement (CEM) system to the CI measurement system. FY 2015 Analysis at 33. The 

FY 2016 Report provides FY 2015 and FY 2016 results for the current performance 

indicators under the CI measurement system: CI Composite Score, BSN, POS, Delivery, and 

CCC. See FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. However, the FY 2016 Report lists “N/A” or 

“Baseline” for FY 2013 and FY 2014 results. Id.

CHIR No. 14 asked the Postal Service to provide comparable FY 2013 and FY 2014 results

for the Provide Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicators. CHIR No. 14, 

question 1. If comparable results could not be provided, the Postal Service was asked to 

explain how to compare results between the old methodology (CEM) and new methodology 

(CI). Id. The Postal Service responds that it cannot provide useful comparable FY 2013 and 

FY 2014 results for the CI Composite Score performance indicator because of changes in 

the weighting methodology used to calculate the result for each fiscal year. February 10, 

2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 1. However, it states that comparable results can 

be provided when analyzing individual unweighted metrics at the subcomponent level. Id.

The Postal Service provides comparable FY 2013 and FY 2014 results for the BSN and POS 

performance indicators.24 For the Delivery performance indicator, the Postal Service 

provides FY 2013 results for the delivery surveys used under the old CEM measurement 

system. Id. The Postal Service provides FY 2014 results for the new CI delivery surveys, but 

notes that results are only based on August and September of FY 2014. Id.

Although the Postal Service does not provide comparable results for the CI Composite 

Score, it does provide comparable results for FYs 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 for the BSN 

and POS performance indicators. For this reason, the Commission finds that the Postal 

Service has provided “actual results for the three preceding fiscal years” and thus complies 

with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for the Provide Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal.

Second, the Postal Service recently changed the methodology for calculating results for the 

performance indicators under the Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce 

performance goal. In FY 2015, the Postal Service changed the performance indicator for 

measuring employee engagement from the Voice of the Employee (VOE) survey to the 

Postal Pulse survey. FY 2015 Analysis at 47. CHIR No. 7 asked the Postal Service to provide 

 

24 Id. The Postal Service only provides FY 2014 results for the CCC performance indicator because the Postal Service did not administer the CCC 

survey until FY 2014. Id.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 20 -

comparable results across FYs 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, or to compare results between 

the old (VOE) and new (Postal Pulse) methodologies. CHIR No. 7, question 3.a.i. The Postal 

Service responds that the Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement score is not directly 

comparable to the VOE survey score. Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.a.i. However, the 

Postal Service does provide comparable results across these fiscal years for the employee 

survey response rate, which was also used to measure employee engagement during 

FY 2016. Id. question 3.a.ii. For this reason, the Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report 

complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for the Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce 

performance goal.

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) in future years, annual performance reports must contain 

the required information rather than it being provided in responses to CHIRs.

3. FY 2017 Performance Indicator Changes

The Postal Service is making a number of changes to the FY 2017 performance indicators 

for each performance goal. For the Deliver High-Quality Service goal, the Postal Service is 

introducing a new performance indicator, First-Class Mail Packages Composite, to measure 

service performance of commercial 2-Day and 3-5-Day packages. FY 2016 Annual Report at 

17. It is also replacing the First-Class Mail Composite and Standard Mail Composite 

performance indicators with First-Class Mail Letter & Flat Composite and Standard Mail & 

Periodicals Composite, respectively. See id. at 15 nn.3-4.

For the Provide Excellent Customer Experiences goal, the Postal Service is changing the 

methodologies for calculating results of the CI Composite Score and Delivery performance 

indicators. Id. at 15 n.7, 19. It is also adding eCC as a new performance indicator. February 

7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 6.

For the Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce goal, the Postal Service is 

replacing the OSHA I&I Rate with the Total Accidents Rate as the performance indicator for 

measuring employee safety. FY 2016 Annual Report at 15 n.9. For the Sustain Controllable 

Income goal, the Postal Service is replacing DPWH with DPTWH % SPLY as the 

performance indicator for measuring productivity improvement efforts. Id. at 15 n.12.

Continually changing performance indicators is problematic, decreases transparency, and 

raises two legal issues. First, the changes impede the Commission’s ability to fulfill its 

responsibility under 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d) to evaluate annually whether the Postal Service 

has met its performance goals. This evaluation requires the Commission to compare targets 

and results for each performance indicator. Continually changing performance indicators 

makes it difficult to evaluate progress year-to-year and over time.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 21 -

Second, the FY 2017 performance indicator changes will affect compliance with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(c). As previously discussed, this provision requires annual performance reports to 

provide comparable results for the three preceding fiscal years. For each new or revised 

performance indicator, the Postal Service was asked to confirm that it would either provide 

comparable results or explain how to compare results between the old and new 

methodologies.25 For the Provide Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicators, 

the Postal Service confirms that the FY 2017 Report will include comparable BSN, POS, 

Delivery, and CCC results for FYs 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. February 7, 2017 Response 

to CHIR No. 10, question 6.b.i. It states it will provide FY 2017 Delivery performance 

indicator results using the old and new methodologies. See id.

To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2017 Report should include the CI 

Composite Score, BSN, POS, Delivery, and CCC performance indicator results for FYs 2014, 

2015, 2016, and 2017. To ensure comparability across these fiscal years, the FY 2017 Report 

should include FY 2017 Delivery results calculated using both the old and new methodologies. 

Because the eCC is a new performance indicator, the FY 2017 Report does not need to include 

eCC results from past fiscal years.

The Postal Service asserts that it will not provide comparable results for the CI Composite 

Score because of the FY 2017 changes to the scoring methodology, weighting, and National 

Performance Assessment (NPA) scale. Id. However, it is unclear why it is not feasible to 

provide comparable CI Composite Score results considering the Postal Service already 

calculates results for each subcomponent performance indicator. To ensure comparability, 

the Commission recommends that the FY 2017 Report include the FY 2017 CI Composite Score 

results calculated using both the old and new methodologies. If the FY 2017 Report does not 

include comparable CI Composite Score results, the Postal Service should explain why it is not 

feasible to do so.

For the Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce goal, the Postal Service responds 

that it appreciates the Commission’s interest in having the ability to compare results 

between the old OSHA I&I Rate and new Total Accidents Rate performance indicators. 

Response to CHIR No. 7 question 2.b.ii. It states, however, that considering its financial 

situation, management determined that limited resources should only support the new 

Total Accidents Rate methodology. Id. It acknowledges that this approach impacts the 

ability to compare results from prior years. Id.

The Commission previously explained that results must be provided on a comparable basis 

to enable meaningful evaluation of performance across fiscal years. FY 2015 Analysis at 18; 

 

25 See CHIR No. 7, question 2.b; CHIR No. 10, questions 3.f and 6.b. The Postal Service confirms that DPWH and DPTWH results are comparable. 

Response to CHIR No. 7, question 2.a.i.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Compliance with Legal Requirements

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 22 -

FY 2014 Analysis at 12. Lacking comparable results makes it difficult to evaluate the Postal 

Service’s progress over time. The Commission appreciates that the Postal Service has 

limited resources. However, the Postal Service does not have to expend significant 

resources to comply with section 2804(c). In Chapter 3, the Commission describes how the 

Postal Service can calculate the FY 2017 OSHA I&I Rate using information the Postal 

Service is already required by OSHA to report and retain. See Chapter 3, section C.3.a.2, 

infra. The Postal Service should consider similar approaches when comparing results of the 

new or revised performance indicators for FY 2017.

For the FY 2017 Report to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c), the Postal Service must provide 

comparable results for each performance indicator for, at a minimum, FYs 2014, 2015, 2016, 

and 2017. If comparable results cannot be provided, the FY 2017 Report must explain how to

compare results between the old and new methodologies. The Postal Service must provide this 

information in the FY 2017 Report rather than in CHIR responses.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 23 -

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS OF POSTAL 

SERVICE PERFORMANCE

The Postal Service’s four performance goals in FY 2016 were:

 Deliver High-Quality Service

 Provide Excellent Customer Experiences

 Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce

 Sustain Controllable Income

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

performance goal in FY 2016 as required by 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d). The Commission 

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

performance indicator meet or exceed targets established in the applicable annual

performance plan. FY 2015 Analysis at 6. The Commission finds that the Postal Service 

partially met each performance goal in FY 2016.

Table III-1 lists each performance goal, whether the goal was met in FY 2016, reasons 

provided by the Postal Service for not meeting the goal, and the Postal Service’s plans for 

achieving the performance goal in future years. See 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 24 -

Table III-1

FY 2016 Progress Toward Performance Goals

Performance 

Goal

Goal Met

in FY 2016

Postal Service’s Reasons for Not 

Meeting Goal

Postal Service’s FY 2017 Plans and 

Schedules for Meeting the Goal

Deliver HighQuality Service Partially

Difficulties in optimizing the balance 

between air and surface transportation 

network due to growth in package mail; 

challenges in achieving key clearance time 

targets within the operating plan (24-Hour 

Clock)

Activate Area and National Operations 

Control Centers to mitigate potential 

service concerns; improve transportation 

modeling; utilize data analytics to 

pinpoint where in the processing and 

transportation cycles failures are 

occurring

Provide Excellent 

Customer 

Experiences

Partially Lack of field communication and training; 

need for improved survey response rates

Improve efficiencies in preparing 

customers prior to reaching the retail 

counter; reduce misdelivery and change 

of address complaints; provide training 

for employees; utilize data analytics

Ensure a Safe 

Workplace and 

Engaged 

Workforce

Partially

Ensure a Safe Workplace: Increase in 

exposure hours; large number of at-risk 

employees; increase in motor vehicle 

accidents

Ensure an Engaged Workforce: Some 

surveys mailed to employees’ homes

Ensure a Safe Workplace: Focus on 

prevention strategies and employees 

considered to be at higher risk for 

accidents; redesign driver training 

program

Ensure an Engaged Workforce: 

Administer Postal Pulse survey at work 

site; provide targeted leadership and 

training programs for executives, 

managers, and supervisors

Sustain 

Controllable 

Income

Partially

Growth in work hours due to increased 

shipping and packages volume; delay in 

plant consolidations; failure to capture all 

savings from the second phase of Network 

Rationalization; additional work hours 

from improving service and hiring, training,

and turnover rate of non-career workforce

Capture work hour reductions from 

operational initiatives

Sources: FY 2016 Annual Report at 16-22; Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.a.ii; March 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15, question 6; Postal 

Service Reply Comments at 3, 6, 9-10.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 25 -

In the sections below, the Commission discusses each performance goal and provides 

recommendations to help the Postal Service meet the goal and better assess its 

performance in future years.

A. Deliver High-Quality Service

1. Background

Performance indicators. For most Market Dominant products, the Postal Service sets a 

service standard for the number of days it takes to deliver a mailpiece 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 Deliver HighQuality Service performance goal.26 Seven performance indicators measured progress 

toward this goal in FY 2016:27

● 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 Composite

● Standard Mail Composite

The Single-Piece First-Class Mail (2-Day and 3-5-Day) performance indicators measure 

service performance using a combination of the following First-Class Mail products: 

Single-Piece Letters/Postcards, Flats, and Parcels. FY 2016 Annual Report at 16. In the 

past, the Postal Service also measured progress toward the Deliver High-Quality Service 

 

26 The Postal Service also reports service performance on all Market Dominant products in the Annual Compliance Report (ACR). 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3652(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 2016 Annual Report does not meet the same class- or group-specific granular reporting criteria as those service 

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

Presorted First-Class Mail Overnight, 2-Day, and 3-5-Day performance indicators in the FY 2016 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, and 3-5-Day service standards by First-Class Mail product. See, e.g., 39 C.F.R. § 3055.20(a).

27 The Postal Service also set FY 2016 targets for two non-public performance indicators: one for a combined Priority Mail Express and Priority 

Mail and another for Parcel Select. FY 2015 Analysis at 22. The Postal Service met one of these targets in FY 2016. March 15, 2015 Response to 

CHIR No. 27, question 7; Library Reference USPS-FY16-NP42, March 15, 2017.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 26 -

goal using the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (Overnight) performance indicator. However, 

this performance indicator was removed in FY 2016 due to service standard changes 

made during FY 2015.28

The Presorted First-Class Mail performance indicators (Overnight, 2-Day, and 3-5-Day) 

measure service performance for combined overall Presorted mail performance from mail 

acceptance to delivery. FY 2016 Annual Report at 16.

The First-Class Mail Composite performance indicator combines the service performance 

results for Single-Piece First-Class Mail and Presorted First-Class Mail for an aggregate of 

Overnight, 2-Day, and 3-5-Day service. Id. The First-Class Mail Composite performance 

indicator measures service performance for the following First-Class Mail products: 

Single-Piece Letters/Postcards, Presorted Letters/Postcards, Flats, and Parcels. February 

7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 3.a.

The Standard Mail Composite performance indicator measures service performance for a 

subset of selected Standard Mail products: High Density and Saturation Letters, High 

Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels, Carrier Route, Letters, and Flats. February 17, 2017 

Response to CHIR No. 15, question 1.b. However, the performance indicator includes only 

Standard Mail Letters and Standard Mail Flats entered at a destination entry sectional 

center facility (SCF Entry) or network distribution center (NDC Entry). February 7, 2017 

Response to CHIR No. 10, question 3.c.

Comparison of FY 2016 targets and results. In FY 2016, the Standard Mail Composite result 

(92.97) exceeded the target (91.00).29 However, the Postal Service failed to meet FY 2016 

targets set for any of the six performance indicators that measure First-Class Mail service 

performance.

In a CHIR response, the Postal Service identifies two main reasons for not meeting FY 

2016 targets for the First-Class Mail performance indicators. First, there was a failure of 

individual plants to meet 24-Hour Clock target clearance times, which influenced its ability 

to achieve subsequent 24-Hour Clock targets. February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, 

question 2.a. The 24-Hour Clock target clearance times require processing plants to 

 

28 FY 2016 Annual Report at 15 n.1. In FY 2013 and FY 2014, much of the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (Overnight) service standard volumes had 

already shifted to either the 2-Day or 3-5-Day service standard as a result of service standard changes associated with the Mail Processing 

Network Rationalization initiative. See Docket No. N2012-1, Advisory Opinion on Mail Processing Network Rationalization Service Changes, 

September 28, 2012.

29 FY 2016 Annual Report at 15; see page 3, Table I-1, supra. The Postal Service states that the primary reason why the FY 2016 Standard Mail 

Composite performance indicator (92.97) is higher than most of the Standard Mail service performance scores shown in its Annual Report on 

Service Performance for Market Dominant Products is because “[t]he letters and flats entered at destination SCF and NDC were delivered 

within the service standard at a higher [on-time] rate than origin entered end-to-end Standard Mail.” See February 17, 2017 Response to CHIR 

No. 15, question 1.c; see Library Reference USPS-FY16-29, December 29, 2016, file “FY16-29 Service Performance Report.pdf.”
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 27 -

complete the specific processing actions by certain times during the day.

30 The Postal 

Service asserts that failing to meet 24-Hour Clock target clearance times impacted the 

Postal Service’s ability to meet FY 2016 targets for the Deliver High-Quality Service 

performance indicators. See February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 2.a.

Second, the Postal Service explains that it failed to meet FY 2016 targets due to inefficient 

mail processing utilization or “sub-target utilization of mail processing equipment in some 

plants[,]” which affected the Postal Service’s ability to meet key 24-Hour Clock target 

clearance times. Id. The Postal Service states that achieving targets for hourly efficiency 

(mailpieces processed per hour) and daily volume targets (mailpieces processed per day) 

present opportunities for improvement. Id.

FY 2017 performance indicator changes. The Postal Service is making three changes to the 

Deliver High-Quality Service performance indicators for FY 2017. First, it will replace the 

First-Class Mail Composite performance indicator with the First-Class Mail Letter & Flat 

(FCLF) Composite performance indicator, which will measure service performance for 

First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards and Flats across all service standards. FY 2016 Annual 

Report at 15 n.3. Similar to First-Class Mail Composite, the FCLF Composite performance 

indicator will measure service performance for the following products: Single-Piece FirstClass Mail Letters/Postcards, Presorted First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards, and First-Class 

Mail Flats. February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 3.b. Unlike First-Class Mail 

Composite, the FCLF Composite performance indicator will not include First-Class Mail 

Parcels. Id.

Second, the Postal Service will replace the Standard Mail Composite performance indicator 

with the Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite performance indicator, which will 

measure performance for Standard Mail Letters, Standard Mail Flats, and Periodicals flats. 

FY 2016 Annual Report at 15 n.4. Similar to the Standard Mail Composite performance 

indicator, the Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite performance indicator will measure 

service performance for the following Standard Mail products: High Density and 

Saturation Letters, High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels, Carrier Route, Letters, and 

Flats. February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 3.d. Unlike Standard Mail 

Composite, the Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite performance indicator will also 

include Every Door Direct Mail-Retail, In-County Periodicals, and Outside County 

Periodicals. Id. Also, the Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite performance indicator will 

measure all letter and flat-shaped mailpieces for Standard Mail and Periodicals across all 

entry location types and all service standards. Id.

 

30 The Commission discusses 24-Hour Clock metrics and national performance goals used in FY 2016 in its FY 2016 ACD. See FY 2016 ACD at 

section V.A.3.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 28 -

Third, the Postal Service will introduce a new performance indicator, the First-Class Mail 

Packages (FCMP) Composite.31 The FCMP Composite performance indicator will measure 

service performance of domestic Market Dominant First-Class Retail and Commercial

Parcels. See February 13, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 4.b.i.

FY 2017 Plan. In the FY 2017 Plan, FY 2017 targets for the Single-Piece First-Class Mail and 

Presorted First-Class Mail performance indicators are the same as FY 2016 targets. See 

FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. The FY 2017 Plan also sets FY 2017 targets for the new FCLF 

Composite and Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite performance indicators. Id.

Although the FY 2017 Plan does not include a FY 2017 target for the FCMP Composite 

performance indicator, the Postal Service describes this performance indicator and 

provides the FY 2017 target (94.80) in a CHIR response. See February 13, 2017 Response 

to CHIR No. 10, question 4.b.iii.

2. Comments

The Public Representative comments that after two years of deteriorating service, the 

Postal Service’s performance improved for every performance indicator. PR Comments at 

4. She notes that improvements were significant, especially for the Single-Piece First-Class 

Mail and Presorted First-Class Mail 3-5-Day performance indicators. Id. However, the 

Public Representative observes that despite these improvements, the Postal Service did 

not meet any FY 2016 targets for the Single-Piece First-Class Mail and Presorted FirstClass Mail performance indicators. Id. at 5. She notes that the most significant shortfalls 

are for the 3-5-Day performance indicators for Single-Piece First-Class Mail and Presorted

First-Class Mail. Id.

The Public Representative states that the FY 2016 Report fails to explain why the Postal 

Service did not meet FY 2016 targets and explain how it will meet the Deliver High-Quality 

Service performance goal in FY 2017. Id. at 6. She asserts that the Postal Service sets 

unrealistic service performance targets in the FY 2017 Plan. Id. She notes that despite the 

improvement in FY 2016, service performance results would have to increase 

substantially to meet FY 2017 targets. Id.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service acknowledges opportunities to improve service 

performance for both the Single-Piece First-Class Mail and Presorted First-Class Mail (3-5-

Day) performance indicators. Postal Service Reply Comments at 3. It explains that the 

operating window change from FY 2015 continues to impact its ability to meet service 

performance targets. Id. It notes that specific factors influencing 3-5-Day service 

performance include challenges in achieving 24-Hour Clock targets, as well as difficulties 

in optimizing the balance between air and surface transportation. Id.

 

31 FY 2016 Annual Report at 17; February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 4.a.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 29 -

The Postal Service describes the strategies it has implemented to mitigate adverse effects 

on service performance resulting from the operating window change, as well as plans to 

improve service performance during FY 2017. Id. at 4-5. It disputes the Public

Representative’s contention that the service performance targets are not realistic and 

asserts that the targets allow the Postal Service to strive for continuous improvement. Id.

at 6. The Postal Service notes that service performance improved during the last two 

quarters of FY 2016, which it contends shows that the initiatives it employed produced 

positive results. Id. at 8.

3. Commission Analysis

In FY 2016, the Postal Service met one of the seven targets set for the Deliver High-Quality 

Service performance indicators. Consequently, the Commission finds that the Postal Service 

partially met the Deliver High-Quality Service performance goal in FY 2016.

In this section, the Commission first makes observations on the Postal Service's FY 2016

service performance. Second, the Commission evaluates the new Deliver High-Quality 

Service performance indicators the Postal Service is introducing for FY 2017. Third, the 

Commission makes recommendations for meeting FY 2017 targets.

a. Observations on FY 2016 Service Performance

As shown in Table III-2, in FY 2016, all service performance results improved over 

FY 2015. In fact, this was the first time since the Postal Service introduced its strategic 

initiatives to “close the gap between revenue and cost” in FY 201232 that all service 

performance indicator results improved over the previous fiscal year. Although the Postal 

Service did not meet most FY 2016 targets for the Deliver High-Quality Service 

performance indicators, results of the Single-Piece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) and 

Presorted First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) performance indicators showed a relatively large 

year-over-year improvement. As a result, the FY 2016 First-Class Mail Composite 

performance indicator result also showed a large year-over-year improvement from

FY 2015.

 

32 The Postal Service developed its strategic initiatives “to close the gap between revenue and cost over the next five years” in FY 2012. See 

Docket No. ACR2012, Library Reference USPS-FY12-17, December 28, 2012, at 38-39.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 30 -

Table III-2

FY 2016 Increase in Percent On-Time

Service Performance Indicator Results over FY 2015

Service Performance Indicator

FY 2016 

Percentage 

Point

Increase

Percent On-Time

FY 2016 FY 2015

Single-Piece

First-Class Mail

2-Day +1.38 94.66% 93.28%

3-5-Day +7.10 83.66% 76.56%

Presorted

First-Class Mail

Overnight +0.42 96.16% 95.74%

2-Day +1.49 95.05% 93.56%

3-5-Day +3.90 91.68% 87.78%

First-Class Mail Composite +3.36 93.00% 89.64%

Standard Mail Composite +3.39 92.97% 89.58%

Source: FY 2016 Annual Report at 15.

However, as shown in Table III-3, the 3-5-Day performance indicators, particularly for 

Single-Piece First-Class Mail, continue to have the largest gap between FY 2016 targets 

and on-time results.

Table III-3

FY 2016 Service Performance Indicator Performance Gap to Target

Service Performance Indicator

FY 2016

On-Time 

Result Target Percentage Point Performance Gap

Single-Piece

First-Class Mail

2-Day 94.66% 96.50% 1.84

3-5-Day 83.66% 95.25% 11.59

Presorted

First-Class Mail

Overnight 96.16% 96.80% 0.64

2-Day 95.05% 96.50% 1.45

3-5-Day 91.68% 95.25% 3.57

First-Class Mail Composite 93.00% 96.00% 3.00

Standard Mail Composite 92.97% 91.00% Target Exceeded

Source: FY 2016 Annual Report at 15.

Although Single-Piece First-Class Mail 3-5-Day performance results improved the most in 

FY 2016, they also remain furthest from the FY 2017 target and have the lowest FY 2016 

service performance overall. As the Commission discusses in greater detail in the FY 2016 

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

and continuing to improve service. FY 2016 ACD at 133-135.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 31 -

b. FY 2017 Performance Indicator Changes

As previously discussed, the Postal Service will introduce a new performance indicator, 

FCMP Composite, in FY 2017 to measure service performance of First-Class Mail Parcels.

In a CHIR response, the Postal Service provides the formula it plans to use to calculate 

results for this performance indicator:

FCMP Score Formula**:

((National Performance Assessment (NPA) Candidate On-Time Mailpieces / NPA Candidate Total 

Mailpieces) * 100)

**Note: NPA measurement excludes the Adjusted Service Period for 3-5-Day service standard mailpieces.

February 13, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 4.b.i. The formula indicates that the 

FY 2017 FCMP Composite result will be based on “NPA Candidate” mailpieces and 

adjusted by excluding First-Class Mail Parcels received during a certain service period for 

pieces with a 3-5-Day service standard.33 It is unclear which mailpieces are “NPA 

Candidates” and why the Postal Service excludes some mailpieces from the formula. The 

Commission recommends that the Postal Service provide this information in the FY 2017 

Report.

The Postal Service states that the new Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite 

performance indicator will measure all letter- and flat-shaped mailpieces of Standard Mail 

and Periodicals regardless of the entry location type beginning in FY 2017. February 7, 

2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 3.d. In FY 2016, the total number of Standard Mail 

mailpieces was 80.9 billion, which far exceeded the total number of Periodicals mailpieces 

(5.6 billion).34 Given the large difference in volumes between Standard Mail and 

Periodicals, the Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite FY 2017 result will likely be driven 

by Standard Mail. As a result, this composite performance indicator will not likely reflect 

Periodicals service performance, and there will be little insight into Periodicals 

performance as a result of this change in performance indicator.

In addition, it is also not clear for both the FY 2016 Standard Mail Composite performance 

indicator and the FY 2017 Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite performance indicator 

whether the performance indicators have reflected or will reflect the majority of some or 

all Standard Mail Flats on-time performance. By combining Standard Mail Letters and 

Flats in its composite measures, the “measured” volumes potentially reflect Standard Mail 

Letters performance rather than Standard Mail Flats performance. In FY 2016, 

approximately 56 billion of the nearly 81 billion Standard Mail mailpieces were lettershaped mailpieces. Id. cells L31 and L34.

 

33 The FY 2016 adjustment excluded the 3-5-Day First-Class Mail Parcels entered from November 21, 2015 through January 8, 2016. See id.

question 4.b.ii.

34 See Library Reference USPS-FY16-42, December 29, 2016, Excel file “Fy2016_RPWsummaryreport_public.xls,” cells L42 and L48.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 32 -

In the FY 2017 Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service provide a more 

detailed discussion related to the Standard Mail and Periodicals mailpieces that will be used 

to measure the Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite performance indicator. The Postal 

Service should also report on whether the combined mail classes, shapes, and products for 

the Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite performance indicator primarily reflect the 

performance of Standard Mail Letters rather than Standard Mail Flats or Periodicals flats.

Similarly for the new FCLF Composite performance indicator, approximately 40 billion out 

of the total 62 billion First-Class Mail mailpieces are Presorted Letters/Postcards. Id. cells 

L20 and L28. Thus, it is not clear whether FY 2017 results of the FCLF Composite 

performance indicator will be more reflective of Presorted Letters/Postcards than SinglePiece Letters/Postcards or Flats.

In the FY 2017 Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service discuss how 

combining different First-Class Mail products with potentially different service performance 

results affected the FY 2017 result of the FCLF Composite performance indicator. The 

Commission also recommends that the Postal Service consider including its supporting 

workpapers for the service performance indicators not included elsewhere in its ACR filings.

c. Recommendations for Meeting FY 2017 Targets

As shown in Table III-3, supra, the Postal Service missed FY 2016 targets set for six of the 

seven Deliver High-Quality Service performance indicators.35 The Public Representative 

comments that service performance results for some performance indicators would have 

to increase substantially to meet FY 2017 targets. PR Comments at 6. The Commission 

agrees that results for the Single-Piece First-Class Mail 3-5-Day performance indicator in 

particular must improve substantially in order for the Postal Service to meet the FY 2017 

target. The improvement needed for all service performance indicators to meet the 

respective FY 2017 targets ranges from 0.64 to 11.69 percentage points.

The Postal Service states that Single-Piece First-Class Mail (3-5-Day) “continued to provide 

opportunities for improvement” as it “balanced the air and surface transportation network 

due to the growth in package mail.” FY 2016 Annual Report at 16. Growth in package mail 

is expected to also continue in FY 2017 with Shipping and Packages volume expected to 

grow nearly 8 percent over FY 2016 volume.36

The Postal Service explains that it did not meet FY 2016 targets for the Deliver HighQuality Service performance indicators due to ineffective utilization of mail processing 

 

35 In FY 2017, the Postal Service retained the same service performance indicator targets it has used since FY 2014 for the First-Class Mail 

performance indicators specific to a service standard category. See page 30, Table III-3, supra. For the new FY 2017 composite measures, the 

FY 2017 targets are: Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite (91.00); FCLF Composite (96.00); FCMP Composite (94.80). FY 2016 Annual Report

at 15; February 13, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 4.b.iii.

36 The FY 2017 IFP projects 5.5 billion mailpieces in FY 2017 and reports FY 2016 actual volume as 5.1 billion mailpieces. FY 2017 IFP at 5.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 33 -

equipment in some plants that affected the ability to achieve key 24-Hour Clock targets. 

February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 2.a. However, the Postal Service does 

not explain what type of mail processing equipment was ineffectively utilized or why. As a 

result, it is unclear how its plans for improvement by meeting hourly efficiency and daily 

volume targets will impact FY 2017 service performance.

B. Provide Excellent Customer Experiences

1. Background

a. FY 2016 Performance Indicators

One of the Postal Service’s performance goals is to Provide Excellent Customer 

Experiences. FY 2016 Annual Report at 17. Since FY 2014, the Postal Service has evaluated 

customer experience using the CI measurement system.37 According to the Postal Service, 

the CI measurement system “provides a comprehensive view of the customer experience 

across the most frequently used customer contact channels.” FY 2016 Annual Report at 17.

The CI measurement system is based on surveys of Residential, Small/Medium Business, 

and Large Business customers.

38 These customer surveys are provided in the ACR.39 In FY 

2016, the Postal Service evaluated customer experience using five surveys. FY 2016 

Annual Report at 18. Table III-4 lists those surveys and the customer experiences they 

measure.

 

37 In its FY 2014 Analysis, the Commission described the change from the former Customer Experience Measurement system to the current CI 

measurement system in detail. FY 2014 Analysis at 22-24.

38 Residential customers live in households in the United States. Small/Medium Business customers have fewer than 250 employees. Large 

Business customers have more than 250 employees. Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, December 29, 2016, file “USPS-FY16-38 Preface.pdf,” at 

1.

39 The Postal Service must 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. The Postal Service provided this information in Library Reference USPSFY16-38.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 34 -

Table III-4

FY 2016 Customer Insights Measurement System

Survey Names and Descriptions

Customer Survey Name Description

Business Service Network

Measures business customers’ level of satisfaction 

with their Business Service Network account 

representative

Point of Sale Measures retail customers’ level of satisfaction at 

locations with Point of Sale equipment

Delivery (Residential) Measures Residential customers’ level of 

satisfaction with receiving mail

Delivery (Small/Medium Business) Measures Small/Medium Business customers’ level 

of satisfaction with receiving mail

Customer Care Center

Measures Residential customers’ level of 

satisfaction with their interaction with Postal 

Service live agent when calling the Customer Care 

Center

Sources: Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, file “USPS-FY16-38 Preface.pdf,” at 2; FY 2016 Annual Report at 17.

The Postal Service used these customer surveys to develop four performance indicators 

that measure progress toward achievement of the Provide Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance goal. These performance indicators evaluate:

 The Business Service Network (BSN)

 The Point of Sale (POS)

 Delivery

 The Customer Care Center (CCC)

The BSN, POS, and Delivery performance indicators are expressed as the percentages of 

customers who respond “Very Satisfied” or “Mostly Satisfied” to a question on the 

corresponding customer survey.40 Results for the Delivery performance indicator are a 

combination of responses from Residential and Small/Medium Business customers.

41

Results for the CCC performance indicator are expressed as the percentage of customers

 

40 See Docket No. ACR2014, United States Postal Service Responses to Questions 1-5, 8 and 9 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 5, 

February 10, 2015, questions 1.a and 1.b (Docket No. ACR2014 Response to CHIR No. 5); Docket No. ACR2014, Library Reference USPS-FY14-

47, February 10, 2015, Excel file “ChIR5.Q1b.Calculation Worksheet.xlsx;” 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 34 (Docket No. ACR2014, 

March 13, 2015 Response to CHIR No. 13); Docket No. ACR2014, March 13, 2015 Response to CHIR No. 13, file “ChIR13.34.FY15_CI_NPA.pdf;” 

Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, files “CI Question Response Counts FY2016.xlsx” and “CCC...USPS FY2016 CCC Web Survey&Counts.pdf.”

41 See Library Reference USPS-FY14-47, Excel file “ChIR5.Q1b.Calculation Worksheet.xlsx,” tab “Delivery.”
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 35 -

who selected the top four survey question responses.42

The BSN, POS, Delivery, and CCC performance indicators are subcomponents of an overall 

performance indicator, the CI Composite Score.43 Each subcomponent performance 

indicator is assigned a percentage weight and aggregated to calculate the CI Composite 

Score. See FY 2016 Annual Report at 18. The BSN result constitutes 40 percent of the CI 

Composite Score, and the POS, Delivery, and CCC results each constitute 20 percent.44

Although the Large Business survey results are not incorporated into the performance

indicators for the Provide Excellent Customer Experiences goal, the Postal Service 

conducts the Large Business survey to measure Large Business customers’ satisfaction 

with Market Dominant products. The Commission evaluated the Large Business survey in 

its FY 2015 Analysis and discussed Large Business survey results in the FY 2016 ACD. See

FY 2015 Analysis at 45-46; FY 2016 ACD at 154-157.

b. Comparison of FY 2016 Targets and Results

The FY 2016 Report provides FY 2016 results for each Provide Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance indicator. FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. The FY 2016 target for 

the CI Composite Score performance indicator was 86.70. Id. In a CHIR response, the 

Postal Service confirms that the FY 2016 target for each subcomponent performance 

indicator was the same as the FY 2016 target for the CI Composite Score. February 7, 2017 

Response to CHIR No. 10, question 7.b.i. Table III-5 shows FY 2016 targets and results for 

each Provide Excellent Customer Experiences performance indicator.

 

42 The CCC response scale changed from a 5-point to a 9-point scale in FY 2015. Compare Docket No. ACR2014, Library Reference USPS-FY14-

38, December 29, 2014, file “CCC - USPS FY14 CCC Web Survey.pdf,” question 6 with Docket No. ACR2015, Library Reference USPS-FY15-38, 

December 29, 2015, file “CCC Live Agent Survey - FY2015.pdf,” question 11 and Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, file “CCC...USPS FY16 CCC 

Web Survey&Counts.pdf,” question 11.

43 See also Excel file “ChIR.5.Q1b.Calculation Worksheet.xlsx,” tab “Calculating CI Metric” provided in Library Reference USPS-FY14-47 and 

included as an attachment to Docket No. ACR2014 Response to CHIR No. 5, question 1.b.

44 Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, file “USPS-FY16-38 Preface.pdf,” at 2.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 36 -

Table III-5

Provide Excellent Customer Experiences Performance Indicators

FY 2016 Targets and Results45

Performance Indicator FY 2016 Target FY 2016 Result

. Target Not Met

Customer Insights Composite 

Score 86.70a

87.62a

Business Service Network 86.70% 95.13%

Point of Sale 86.70% 86.38%

Delivery (Residential and 

Small/Medium Business) 86.70a

76.26a

Customer Care Center 86.70% 85.18%

a

Because CI Composite Score and Delivery results are calculated by weighting and aggregating various survey 

results, they are not presented as percentages.

Sources: FY 2016 Annual Report at 15; February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 7.b.i.

In FY 2016, the CI Composite Score and the BSN performance indicator results both 

exceeded the FY 2016 target. However, the Postal Service did not meet FY 2016 targets for 

the POS, Delivery, and CCC performance indicators. The POS and CCC results are slightly 

short of the target, while the Delivery result is about 10 points below the target.46

c. Proposed Changes to the FY 2017 Performance 

Indicators

The Postal Service is making three changes to the Provide Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance indicators for FY 2017. First, the Postal Service is introducing Enterprise 

Customer Care (eCC) as a new subcomponent performance indicator.47 The Postal Service 

explained that when a CCC agent is unable to resolve a customer issue, an eCC case is 

created and routed to the appropriate contact person for resolution. Docket No. ACR2014, 

March 13, 2015 Response to CHIR No. 13, question 25.a. Results for the eCC performance 

indicator are expressed as the percentage of reopened cases the Postal Service could not 

initially resolve. February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 6.a.i.

 

45 The BSN, POS, and Delivery survey results are the percentage of respondents who chose the top two survey responses (Very Satisfied, 

Mostly Satisfied) to the respective survey “overall satisfaction” question. The BSN survey question asks, “When thinking about your specific 

interaction with [(BSN representative name)]...How satisfied are you with the OVERALL service provided during this interaction?” The POS 

survey question asks, “Thinking about this visit to the Post Office, overall, how satisfied were you?” The Delivery survey questions ask, “Just 

thinking about your overall experience with the mail or packages you recently RECEIVED, how satisfied are you with USPS performance?” The 

CCC survey question asks, “Now 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?” The CCC responses of 6 and higher are used to calculate the overall satisfaction percentage. See Library 

Reference USPS-FY16-38, files “BSN - USPS FY16 BSN Web Survey.docx,” “POS...USPS FY16 POS Survey.docx,” “Delivery - USPS FY16 Residential 

Delivery SURVEY.docx,” “Delivery -USPS FY16 Small Business Delivery SURVEY.docx,” “CCC...USPS FY16 CCC Web Survey&Counts.pdf,” and “CI 

Question Response Counts FY2016.xlsx.”

46 In a CHIR response, the Postal Service explains why it failed to meet FY 2016 targets for the POS, Delivery, and CCC performance indicators 

and its plans and schedules for meeting FY 2017 targets. March 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15, question 6.

47 FY 2016 Annual Report at 15 n.7. The Postal Service clarifies that the name of the performance indicator is “Enterprise Customer Care” 

rather than “Electronic Customer Care” as listed in the FY 2016 Annual Report. February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 6.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 37 -

Second, to accommodate the addition of the new eCC subcomponent performance 

indicator into the CI Composite Score, the subcomponent performance indicators will be 

weighted as follows: BSN indicator (30 percent); POS, Delivery, and CCC indicators (20 

percent each); and eCC indicator (10 percent).48 February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 

10, question 7.a.

Third, the Postal Service is changing the methodology for calculating results for the 

Delivery performance indicator. FY 2016 Annual Report at 19. The changes to the FY 2017 

performance indicators are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, section B.3.c, infra.

In addition to these changes, the FY 2017 Plan sets a new FY 2017 target of 89.00 for the CI 

Composite Score performance indicator. FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. Targets for the 

subcomponent performance indicators are provided in a CHIR response. See February 7, 

2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 7.b.ii. Table III-6 lists the FY 2017 targets for each 

performance indicator.

Table III-6

Provide Excellent Customer Experiences Performance Indicators

FY 2017 Targets

Performance Indicator FY 2017 Target

Customer Insights

Composite Score 89.00a

Business Service Network 96.73%

Point of Sale 90.42%

Delivery

(Residential and 

Small/Medium Business)

82.67a

Customer Care Center 86.80%

Enterprise Customer Care

(% Reopened Cases) 3.44%b

a

Because CI Composite Score and Delivery results are calculated by 

weighting and aggregating various survey results, they are not 

presented as percentages.

b

The Postal Service will have met this target if the FY 2017 result is at 

or below 3.44 percent.

Sources: FY 2016 Annual Report at 15; February 7, 2017 Response to 

CHIR No. 10, question 7.b.ii.

 

48 See page 43, Table III-9, infra, for the FY 2017 CI Composite Score differentially aggregated and weighted subcomponent performance 

indicator results by unit level.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 38 -

2. Comments

The Public Representative points out that FY 2016 results for the CI Composite Score 

exceeded the FY 2016 target, but only because the BSN performance indicator exceeded 

its FY 2016 target. PR Comments at 7. She notes that the results for all of the other 

performance indicators (the POS, Delivery, and CCC indicators) fell below their FY 2016 

targets. Id. Notwithstanding the failure of these three performance indicators to meet their 

targets, the Public Representative concludes that the Postal Service met the Provide 

Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal in FY 2016. Id.

To recognize the diversity of Postal Service customers and to track whether all customer 

needs are met, the Public Representative recommends adding demographic questions to 

the POS and CCC surveys to track customer satisfaction for different demographic groups. 

Id. at 17. She suggests that the Postal Service set target customer satisfaction scores for 

different demographic groups and targets for the differentials between customer groups. 

Id. at 18.

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

comment that the BSN performance indicator result helped the Postal Service exceed the 

FY 2016 target for the CI Composite Score. Postal Service Reply Comments at 9. The Postal 

Service states that it intends to continue its efforts in providing excellent customer 

experiences through the BSN, but notes that it will also work to improve results for the 

other subcomponent performance indicators. Id.

3. Commission Analysis

In this section, the Commission evaluates the FY 2016 customer experience performance 

results and provides recommendations for improving the evaluation of performance 

results. The Commission also discusses the proposed FY 2017 methodology changes to the 

performance indicators and analyzes survey response rates.

a. FY 2016 Performance Results

Table III-7 shows results for all available Provide Excellent Customer Experiences 

performance indicators from FY 2013 to FY 2016. Between FY 2014 and FY 2016, the 

results for each performance indicator improved, except for Delivery. By contrast, 

Delivery results declined between FY 2013 and FY 2016. Despite this decline in Delivery 

performance and the POS, Delivery, and CCC results not meeting their targets, the Postal 

Service met the CI Composite Score target (86.70) in FY 2016.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 39 -

Table III-7

Provide Excellent Customer Experiences

Performance Indicator Results, FY 2013 to FY 2016

Performance Indicator FY 2016 FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2013

Customer Insights Composite Scorea87.62 85.73 84.65 n/a

Business Service Network 95.13% 94.32% 94.05% 91.70%

Point of Sale 86.38% 86.28% 81.59% 62.71%

Delivery (Residential and Small/Medium 

Business)a 76.26 77.49 79.55 89.34b

Customer Care Center 85.18% 76.22% 74.00% n/a

n/a – not available

a

Because CI Composite Score and Delivery results are calculated by weighting and aggregating various survey results, 

they are not presented as percentages.

b

The Commission made this calculation using the comparable weighting methodology for the combined Delivery 

(Residential) and Delivery (Small/Medium Business) survey responses ((90.99% X .50) + (87.68% X .50)).

Sources: FY 2016 Annual Report at 15; February 10, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 1; Docket No. ACR2014

Response to CHIR No. 5, question 2.e.

The improvement in the CI Composite Score results appears to be due to the fact that the 

BSN performance indicator results, which have historically been higher than results for 

the other subcomponent performance indicators, are weighted twice as much as the other 

subcomponent performance indicators. See page 41, Table III-8, infra.

Because the CI Composite Score and BSN performance indicators exceeded the FY 2016 

target, but the POS, Delivery, and CCC performance indicators missed the FY 2016 target, the 

Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met the Provide Excellent Customer 

Experiences performance goal in FY 2016.

b. Recommendations for Improving the Evaluation of 

Performance Results

The Commission previously recommended that the Postal Service add another customer 

experience performance indicator based on the Large Business survey and include it as 

part of the CI Composite Score. FY 2015 Analysis at 46. The Postal Service has not adopted 

the Commission’s recommendation. As a result, Large Business survey results are not part 

of the CI Composite Score, and the Postal Service does not use the Large Business survey 

as a performance indicator for the Provide Excellent Customer Experiences goal.

In its ACR, the Postal Service states it “recognizes that the customer service area most in 

need of focus for FY 2017 is its Large Business portfolio.”49 In its FY 2016 ACD, the 

 

49 United States Postal Service FY 2016 Annual Compliance Report, December 29, 2016, at 76 (FY 2016 ACR).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 40 -

Commission notes that Large Business customer satisfaction with Single-Piece 

International Mail and Library Mail declined significantly between FY 2015 and FY 2016. 

FY 2016 ACD at 156. The Commission also observes that Large Business customers’ 

satisfaction with local post office staff declined from 79.3 percent in FY 2013 to 73.2 

percent in FY 2016.50 The Postal Service acknowledges that it must take steps to increase 

customer satisfaction for large businesses. FY 2016 ACR at 76. A separate performance 

indicator for large businesses would help the Postal Service track the effectiveness of its 

initiatives aimed to accomplish this improvement.

51 The Commission reiterates its 

recommendation that the Postal Service establish a performance indicator based on the 

Large Business survey.

The FY 2016 Report lists results for each performance indicator at the national level. See 

FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. Additional insights are provided by performance results that 

the Postal Service calculates at the area and district levels.52 Table III-8 shows how the 

Postal Service currently calculates CI Composite Score results at the national, area, and 

district levels by aggregating and weighting results for each subcomponent performance 

indicator. Because the Postal Service calculates CI Composite Score results differently at 

the national, area, and district levels, only 1 out of 67 districts and 3 out of 7 postal areas 

met the CI Composite Score target in FY 2015.53

 

50 Compare FY 2013 Review at 21 with the results in Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, Excel file “CI Question Response Counts FY2016.xlsx,” tab 

“LargeBusiness,” cells B889:B895. In FY 2016, 934 out of 1,276 Large Business customers, or 73.2 percent, responded that they were “Very 

Satisfied” or “Mostly Satisfied” with their experience contacting their local post office. See Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, Excel file “CI 

Question Response Counts FY2016.xlsx,” tab “LargeBusiness,” cells B889:B895.

51 The Postal Service previously stated that the BSN survey “encompasses [its] [L]arge [B]usiness customers.” Docket No. ACR2014 Response to 

CHIR No. 5, question 4. In its FY 2015 Analysis, the Commission explained why the Large Business survey better reflects Large Business 

customer experiences compared to the BSN survey. FY 2015 Analysis at 45-46.

52 Districts map to groups of 3-Digit ZIP Codes and to postal areas. There are 67 districts and 7 postal areas. See the 3-Digit ZIP Codes map to 

district by postal area provided in Docket No. ACR2015, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-15 of Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 14, February 23, 2016, question 1 (Docket No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR No. 14); Docket No. ACR2015 Response to 

CHIR No. 14, Excel file “ChIR14.Q.1.3Digit.District.xlsx.”

53 The Postal Service previously provided FY 2015 unit-level results using the methodology depicted in Table III-8. See Docket No. ACR2015, 

Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-12, 16-18 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 13, February 18, 2016, 

question 4, Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 (Docket No. ACR2015, February 18, 2016 Response to CHIR No. 13). FY 2015 CI Composite Score results at 

the national, area, and district levels are listed in Docket No. ACR2015, February 18, 2016 Response to CHIR No. 13, question 4, Table 1.1 and 

Table 1.2, column “NPA.”
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 41 -

Table III-8

Existing Customer Insights Composite Score Methodology

Differentially Weighted and Aggregated National, Area, and District Levels

Customer Insights Composite Score

Results Aggregated and Subcomponent Weight

National Area District

Subcomponent Performance Indicator

Business Service Network 40% 40% Not Included

Point of Sale 20% 30% 50%

Delivery (Residential and Small/Medium 

Business) 20% 30% 50%

Customer Care Center 20% Not Included Not Included

Sources: Docket No. ACR2014, March 13, 2015 Response to CHIR No. 13, question 34; id. file “ChIR13.34.FY15_CI_NPA.pdf.” FY 2015 unit-level 

results using this methodology were provided in Docket No. ACR2015, February 18, 2016 Response to CHIR No. 13, question 1.

Note: The FY 2015 unit-level CI Composite Score result is listed in Docket No. ACR2015, February 18, 2016 Response to CHIR No. 13, question 

4, Table 1.1 and Table 1.2, column “NPA.”

In a CHIR response, the Postal Service provides a comparison of the FY 2015 and FY 2016 

CI Composite Score results at the area and district levels.54 The Postal Service’s 

comparison is problematic because it does not use the same methodology as it did in prior 

years to calculate the CI Composite Score results at the area and district levels. As a result, 

it appears to show significant improvement between FY 2015 and FY 2016; however, the 

comparison is misleading due to the different methodologies for calculating FY 2015 and 

FY 2016 results.

The FY 2015 CI Composite Score results at the area and district levels were calculated by 

weighting the subcomponent performance indicators consistent with Table III-8. By 

contrast, the FY 2016 CI Composite Score results at the area level simply restate the FY 

2016 CI Composite Score result at the national level (86.72).55 Similarly, the FY 2016 

district-level results are simply a restatement of results from the corresponding areas.

56

The inconsistent methodologies for calculating FY 2015 and FY 2016 results are 

problematic because CI Composite Score results are typically higher at the area level 

compared to the district level due to the use of BSN results at the area level and the 

differential weighting of the subcomponent performance indicators. However, because the 

 

54 March 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 1.c; id. Excel file “ChIR.19.Q.1.FY15.16 CorpIndic Comp.xlsx,” tab “Customer Insights.”

55 The Postal Service notes, “FY[]2016 Areas were measured at the ‘National’ level.” March 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, Excel file 

“ChIR.19.Q.1.FY15.16 CorpIndic Comp.xlsx,” tab “Customer Insights,” cell M2.

56 The Postal Service notes, “FY 2016 Districts were measured at the ‘Area’ level.” Id. cell M13. FY 2016 area results provided in the March 17, 

2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 1.c and March 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, Excel file “ChIR.19.Q.1.FY15.16 CorpIndic 

Comp.xlsx,” tab “Customer Insights” were identified by using the district to area map provided in Docket No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR No. 

14, question 1; id. Excel file “ChIR14.Q.1.3Digit.District.xlsx.” For example, the FY 2016 Detroit “district” result is actually the FY 2016 Great

Lakes area result. Likewise, the Ohio Valley “district” result is the Eastern area result; the Atlanta “district” result is the Capital Metro area 

result; the Alabama “district” result is the Southern area result; the San Francisco “district” result is the Pacific area result; the Dakotas 

“district” result is the Western area result; and the Greater Boston “district” result is the Northeast area result.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 42 -

national result was presented as the district- and area-level results, the comparison 

provided in the Postal Service’s CHIR response overstates the FY 2016 CI Composite Score 

results at the district level and shows all areas having met the target, even though results 

in three areas decreased from FY 2015.57 Because the Postal Service used inconsistent 

methodologies for calculating FY 2015 and FY 2016 results, the Commission was unable to 

determine which districts met their targets in FY 2016.

In past fiscal years, the district- and area-level results for the CI Composite Score provided 

insight into where customer experience results fell below the national composite. As a 

result, the district- and area-level results allowed the Postal Service to focus efforts to 

improve customer experience in lagging districts or areas. The Postal Service’s 

unexplained change in methodology this year made district- and area-level results 

meaningless and misleading. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service report FY 

2017 results for the CI Composite Score and subcomponent performance indicators at the 

national, area, and district levels to help identify customer satisfaction by successes and 

areas for improvement. The Postal Service should use the comparable weighting 

methodology shown in Table III-8 and provide data in the same format and detail as the data 

provided in a CHIR response.58

c. Proposed FY 2017 Performance Indicator Methodology 

Changes

In FY 2017, the Postal Service is changing the methodology for calculating results of the CI 

Composite Score and Delivery performance indicators. It is also adding eCC as a new 

subcomponent performance indicator of the CI Composite Score. Each change is discussed 

below.

CI Composite Score. Table III-9 shows how the Postal Service will calculate FY 2017 CI 

Composite Score results at the national, area, and district levels using the new 

methodology by aggregating and weighting results for each subcomponent performance 

indicator.

 

57 Compare FY 2016 area results with FY 2015 area results provided in Docket ACR2015, February 18, 2016 Response to CHIR No. 13, question 

4, Table 1.1. The FY 2015 area- and district-level CI Composite Score results are listed in Docket No. ACR2015, February 18,2016 Response to 

CHIR No. 13, question 4, Table 1.1 and Table 1.2, column “NPA.” In FY 2016, the Great Lakes area result of 87.68 was a slight decline from the 

FY 2015 result of 87.90; the Southern area result of 85.97 was a decline from the FY 2015 result of 86.52; and the Western area result of 85.51 

was a decline from the FY 2015 result of 86.16. See March 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 1.c; id. Excel file “ChIR.19.Q.1.FY15.16 

CorpIndic Comp.xlsx,” tab “Customer Insights.”

58 See Docket No. ACR2015, February 18, 2016 Response to CHIR No. 13, question 4, Table 1.1 and Table 1.2.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 43 -

Table III-9

FY 2017 Customer Insights Composite Score Methodology

Differentially Weighted and Aggregated National, Area, and District Levels

FY 2017 Customer Insights

Composite Score

Results Aggregated and Subcomponent Weighta

National Area District

Subcomponent Performance Indicator

Business Service Network 30% 30% 30%

(Area Score)

Point of Sale 20% 25% 25%

Delivery (Residential and Small/Medium Business) 20% 25% 25%

Customer Care Center 20% Not Included Not Included

Enterprise Customer Care (% Reopened Cases) 10% 20% 20%

a

The Commission uses “Not Included” to indicate the Postal Service does not include this subcomponent in the CI Composite Score.

Source: February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 7.a.

At the national level, the FY 2017 target for the CI Composite Score is 89.00. FY 2016 

Annual Report at 15. The Commission is concerned about the Postal Service’s ability to 

meet this target using the new methodology. Even if all subcomponent performance 

indicators meet their FY 2017 targets, the FY 2017 CI Composite Score result would be 

81.34, almost 8 points below the FY 2017 target of 89.00. The reason appears to be that 

the eCC result, which is expressed in single digits, is far lower than the results of the other 

subcomponent performance indicators, which are expressed in double digits. The 

Commission recommends that the FY 2017 Report further explain the Postal Service’s

methodology for calculating the FY 2017 CI Composite Score result.

At the district level, 30 percent of the CI Composite Score result will be based on the area 

BSN result, which has historically been higher than results of other subcomponent 

performance indicators. Under the existing methodology, the BSN result is not used in 

calculating the CI Composite Score at the district level. See page 41, Table III-8, supra. This 

methodology change could cause the FY 2017 CI Composite Score result at the district 

level to meet the FY 2017 target even if the Delivery result declines, and none of the other 

subcomponent performance indicators meet their targets.59

Delivery performance indicator. In FY 2017, the Postal Service is also changing the 

methodology for calculating the Delivery performance indicator. From FY 2014 to FY 

2016, the Postal Service calculated Delivery performance indicator results based on one 

question about “Overall Satisfaction.”60 In FY 2017, the Postal Service is adding two new 

 

59 This conclusion assumes that the Delivery performance indicator result is calculated using the existing methodology. The new methodology 

will increase the Delivery performance indicator result, which complicates trend analysis.

60 The overall satisfaction question asked, “Just thinking about your overall experience with the mail or packages you recently RECEIVED, how 

satisfied are you with USPS performance?” See Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, files “Delivery - USPS FY16 Residential Delivery SURVEY.docx” 

and “Delivery -USPS FY16 Small Business Delivery SURVEY.docx.”
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 44 -

questions to the Delivery (Residential) and Delivery (Small/Medium Business) surveys 

that ask about customers’ satisfaction with their letter carrier or Post Office (P.O.) Box.61

The Postal Service will use responses to these and other questions on the Delivery surveys 

to calculate the FY 2017 Delivery performance indicator result. FY 2016 Annual Report at 

19. Figure III-1 depicts the new methodology for calculating the FY 2017 Delivery 

performance indicator result as a composite score by showing the specific survey 

components and weights used.

Figure III-1

FY 2017 Delivery Performance Indicator

Components and Weighting Methodology

Source: FY 2016 Annual Report at 19.

Note: For purposes of this figure, SMB refers to Small/Medium Business.

 

61 February 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 10, question 5. The new survey questions are “Just thinking about your overall experience with the 

mail or packages you have RECEIVED in the last 30 days, how satisfied are you with the performance of your [l]etter [c]arrier?” and “Just 

thinking about the last 30 days, how satisfied are you with your [P.O.] Box?” Id. question 5.b.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 45 -

Figure III-1 shows that the FY 2017 Delivery performance indicator result is a composite

score comprising a weighted carrier survey score and a weighted P.O. Box survey score.

The Postal Service will calculate the weighted carrier survey score using four questions 

from the Delivery surveys as index questions.62 These index questions will ask customers 

to rate their level of agreement with statements regarding their delivery experience 

(whether mail was delivered to the correct address and in good condition and their carrier 

was friendly and courteous), as well as their overall level of satisfaction with their letter 

carrier. Id. The P.O. Box survey score will be based on the weighted responses to one

question on the Delivery surveys asking customers about their overall satisfaction with 

their P.O. Box. Id.

Table III-10 shows how the FY 2016 Delivery performance indicator result would have 

been calculated using the new methodology displayed in Figure III-1. Under the new 

methodology, the FY 2016 result would have been 84.77, more than 8 points higher than 

the FY 2016 result calculated using the existing methodology (76.26). There appear to be 

at least two reasons for this difference. First, there are generally more favorable responses 

to index questions on the Delivery (Residential) survey than there are to index questions 

on the Delivery (Small/Medium Business) survey. Second, the new methodology weights 

the higher Delivery (Residential) survey results more heavily than the Delivery 

(Small/Medium Business) survey results. As a consequence, the FY 2017 Delivery 

performance indicator result (calculated using the new methodology) will likely meet or 

exceed the FY 2017 target.

 

62 Id. The index questions are the same on both the Delivery (Residential) and Delivery (Small/Medium Business) surveys.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 46 -

Table III-10

FY 2016 Delivery Performance Indicator Result 

Calculated Using New Methodology

Delivery Survey Index Questions

Agreement with Statementa

FY 2016 

Resulta

New Methodology Component Weight

(FY 2016 Result X Component Weight)

Component 

Result

Residential Customers

Letter carriers perform their job wellb82.18 82.18 X .25 20.55

Delivered to the correct address 85.22 85.22 X .25 21.30

Delivered in good condition 91.78 91.78 X .25 22.94

Carrier friendly and courteous 81.19 81.19 X .25 20.30

Weighted Residential Index QuestionscTotal 85.09

Small/Medium Business Customers

Letter carriers perform their job wellb77.91 77.91 X .25 19.48

Delivered to the correct address 80.81 80.81 X .25 20.20

Delivered in good condition 89.67 89.67 X .25 22.42

Carrier friendly and courteous 81.03 81.03 X .25 20.26

Weighted Small/Medium Business Index QuestionscTotal 82.36

Combined and Weighted Residential and Small/Medium Business Index QuestionscTotals

Residential 85.09 X .85 72.33

Small/Medium Business 82.36 X .15 12.35

Carrier Delivery Component Total 84.68

Carrier Delivery Component 84.68 X .95 80.45

Overall Satisfaction P.O. Box Componentd86.38 X .05 4.32

FY 2016 Delivery Performance Indicator Result (New 

Methodology) Combined Carrier Delivery and P.O. Box Components Total 84.77

FY 2016 Delivery Performance Indicator Result (Existing 

Methodology)e

(Residential Overall Satisfaction Result X .50)

+ (Small/Medium Business Overall Satisfaction Result X .50)

(79.93 X .50) + (72.60 X .50) = 76.26

a

The Delivery surveys question asks about agreement with the four statements shown. The percentage who chose the “Strongly Agree” or 

“Somewhat Agree” response is the FY 2016 result for each statement listed under the “Please indicate your agreement with the following 

statements based on your experiences with the mail or packages you recently RECEIVED:” survey question.

b

Agreement with the “Letter carriers perform their job well” statement was used as a proxy for the new FY 2017 “overall satisfaction” carrier 

Delivery surveys question, ”Just thinking about your overall experience with the mail or packages you have received in the last 30 days, how 

satisfied are you with your letter carrier?”

c

The Postal Service describes these as “Index Questions.” FY 2016 Annual Report at 19. However, three of the statements, “Delivered to the 

correct address,” “Delivered in good condition,” and “Carrier friendly & courteous” appear to be from the same survey question that asks about 

agreement with the statements described in note a above.

d

The “overall satisfaction” POS survey question, “Thinking about this visit to the Post Office, overall, how satisfied were you?,” was used as a 

proxy for the new FY 2017 “overall satisfaction” P.O. Box Delivery surveys question, “Just thinking about the last 30 days, how satisfied are you 

with your P.O. Box?”

e

The FY 2016 Delivery Performance Indicator Result (Existing Methodology) is calculated as the percentage who chose the “Very Satisfied” or 

“Mostly Satisfied” response to the “Just thinking about your overall experience with the mail or packages you recently RECEIVED, how satisfied 

are you with USPS performance?” Delivery surveys question.

Sources: The Commission calculated the percentage of “Strongly Agree” or “Somewhat Agree” responses to the Delivery surveys question 

(question 2) for the new methodology and percent of “Very Satisfied” or “Mostly Satisfied” responses from the Delivery surveys question 

(question 1) for the existing methodology provided in Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, Excel file “CI Question Response Counts_FY2016.xlsx,” 

tabs “Delivery_RES” and “Delivery_SMB.” The POS proxy question for P.O. Box satisfaction was calculated from the “Very Satisfied” or “Mostly 

Satisfied” responses to the POS survey question 1, results are shown in Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, Excel file “CI Question Response Counts

FY2016.xlsx,” tab “POS.” See also Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, files “Delivery - USPS FY16 Residential Delivery SURVEY.docx,” “Delivery -

USPS FY16 Small Business Delivery SURVEY.docx,” and “POS...USPS FY16 POS Survey.docx.”

The Postal Service filed FY 2016 Delivery performance indicator results by month, which 

show that results improved between April and September 2016. March 7, 2017 Response 

to CHIR No. 15, question 6.a. Despite this improvement, the overall trend based on FY 
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 47 -

2016 results suggests that without substantial improvement, the FY 2017 Delivery result 

would likely miss the FY 2017 target if the Postal Service did not change the methodology 

for calculating the Delivery performance indicator.

As discussed in Chapter 2, to ensure comparability across prior fiscal years, the Commission 

recommends that the FY 2017 Report include FY 2017 Delivery results calculated using both 

the existing and new methodologies. See Chapter 2, section C.3, supra. To better analyze why 

Delivery performance indicator results declined at the national level, the Commission 

recommends that the Postal Service provide FY 2016 and FY 2017 Delivery performance 

indicator results disaggregated by area and district using both the existing and new 

methodologies. This information is important for the Commission to assess the Postal 

Service’s initiatives to improve Delivery performance indicator results.

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service compare Delivery performance 

indicator results for FYs 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 using the existing methodology (based 

on the “Overall Satisfaction” question) to evaluate customer satisfaction with mail delivery 

during this time period. If the FY 2017 Delivery performance indicator result using the 

existing methodology shows little change over FY 2016, the Commission recommends that 

the Postal Service evaluate and report responses to another survey question: “In the future, 

what should the USPS do to improve your satisfaction with how we DELIVER your mail or 

packages?” The open-ended, detailed responses to this question are likely to be more 

informative than the new FY 2017 “Overall Satisfaction” question for which respondents 

can only choose one response between “Very Satisfied” and “Very Dissatisfied.”

New eCC performance indicator. The Commission identifies several issues with the new 

eCC performance indicator. First, it measures different things compared to the other CI 

subcomponent performance indicators. The existing indicators measure customer 

satisfaction directly based on responses to customer surveys. The eCC subcomponent 

performance indicator does not necessarily measure customer satisfaction. Instead, it 

measures the percentage of reopened cases that the Postal Service could not initially 

resolve.

Second, the significance of eCC results is unclear. For example, a lower eCC result could be 

interpreted to suggest that customer experience improved because the need for reopening 

cases declined. By contrast, a higher eCC performance indicator could give the Postal 

Service credit for taking additional steps to address a customer’s concerns without 

producing a result that satisfies the customer. Moreover, it is unclear how a successful 

outcome of a reopened case will be tallied.

Third, as shown in Table III-9, supra, the Postal Service will use the eCC result to calculate 

the FY 2017 CI Composite Score result. Although a higher eCC result could indicate a 

decline in customer experience, it would, numerically, improve the CI Composite Score 

result and thereby suggest the opposite: namely, that the customer experience improved.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 48 -

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service clarify its eCC methodology and explain 

how the eCC performance indicator reflects changes in customer experience. The Postal 

Service should also explain how including the eCC result in the FY 2017 CI Composite Score 

more accurately captures overall customer experience.

d. Survey Response Rates and Estimating Customer 

Satisfaction

To improve the POS performance indicator result in FY 2017, the Postal Service states it 

will “[i]ncreas[e] the response rate to include a wider range of national perception across 

the retail network[.]” March 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15, question 6.a. As part of this 

effort, the Postal Service reviewed POS survey response rates and identified ZIP Codes 

with minimal response rates. March 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 27, question 2.d. The 

Postal Service states that personnel followed up with sites in those ZIP Codes “to ensure 

that clerks were circling the receipt and inviting customers to go online and take the POS 

Survey.” Id. As a result, the Postal Service experienced a decline in the number of sites with 

zero POS survey responses. Id.

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service adopt a similar approach for improving 

Delivery survey response rates. Although the Postal Service initiated a similar number of 

Delivery surveys in FY 2013 and FY 2016, the response rate declined significantly during 

this time period.63 In FY 2013, the Postal Service received more than 300,000 completed 

Delivery (Residential) surveys and almost 300,000 completed Delivery (Small/Medium 

Business) surveys.64 By contrast, in FY 2016, the Postal Service received only 35,675 

completed Delivery (Residential) surveys and 35,484 completed Delivery (Small/Medium 

Business) surveys. FY 2016 Annual Report at 18.

Delivery survey response rates declined significantly because the Postal Service changed 

the way it administers the survey. The Postal Service stated that in FY 2014, “[t]he survey 

methodology changed from a paper-based survey return system to a technology-based 

survey return system.” Docket No. ACR2014, March 13, 2015 Response to CHIR No. 13, 

question 29.a. It asserted further that “[h]istorically, a paper-based survey return system 

has received a greater response rate.” Id. The Postal Service states that for the Delivery 

survey, it has “conducted pilots using alternate media methods to identify opportunities to 

increase the number of responses beyond the minimum amount required.” March 15, 

2017 Response to CHIR No. 27, question 2.a. The Commission recommends that the Postal 

Service report the results of these pilot tests and its assessment of whether alternative media 

methods will increase the Delivery survey response rates.

 

63 In FY 2013, the Postal Service initiated 2,215,626 Delivery (Residential) surveys and 4,074,717 Delivery (Small/Medium Business) surveys. 

See Docket No. ACR2013, Library Reference USPS-FY13-38, December 27, 2013, file “USPS-FY13-38.Preface.pdf,” table under section I.C. In FY 

2016, the Postal Service initiated 2,149,867 Delivery (Residential) surveys and 3,598,945 Delivery (Small/Medium Business) surveys. See

Library Reference USPS-FY16-38, file “USPS-FY16-38.Preface.pdf,” table under section I.C.

64 See Library Reference USPS-FY13-38, file “USPS-FY13-38.Preface.pdf,” table under section I.C.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 49 -

Obtaining sufficient Delivery survey responses enables the Postal Service to estimate with 

a certain degree of confidence how close the true population proportion is likely to be to 

the sample proportion of “Very Satisfied” or “Mostly Satisfied” customers under the 

existing methodology. The Postal Service states that for the Delivery (Residential) and 

Delivery (Small/Medium Business) customer surveys, “Residential [customers] and 

Small/Medium businesses are sampled sufficiently to ensure, at the [d]istrict level, a 

minimum precision level of +/- 5 percentage points, at the 90 percent level of confidence 

per postal quarter.”65 In a CHIR response, the Postal Service clarifies that this confidence 

level applies to Delivery (Residential) and Delivery (Small/Medium Business) surveys as a 

whole. March 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 27, questions 1.a and 1.b. The Postal Service 

states that its annual goal is to attain a statistically valid number of responses by receiving 

a minimum of 270 completed Delivery surveys in each district by the end of the fiscal year. 

Id. This minimum number is the aggregate number of completed Delivery (Residential) 

and Delivery (Small/Medium Business) surveys combined. Id. question 1.c.i. At the district 

level, the Postal Service states that it has set an internal goal of receiving a minimum of 

270 completed Delivery surveys per district during each quarter. Id. questions 1.a and 1.b.

Despite the much smaller number of Delivery surveys responses received in FY 2016, the 

Postal Service asserts that “[t]he Delivery survey is maintaining the level of responses 

required to meet the level of statistical validity at the annual level....” March 15, 2017 

Response to CHIR No. 27, question 2.a. However, it is unclear whether the Postal Service 

received enough survey responses to meet its internal district-level quarterly goal in FY 

2016. See id. questions 1.a and 1.b. Given that the districts use the Delivery survey results 

as part of the CI Composite Score, the Postal Service should ensure that it has the 

necessary number of district-level Delivery survey responses to accurately reflect actual 

customer satisfaction with the stated degree of confidence. The Commission recommends 

that the Postal Service take steps to meet its internal goal to ensure the Delivery survey 

results are statistically valid and accurate reflections of customer experience at the district 

level.

In FY 2017, the Postal Service plans to improve customer satisfaction with mail delivery 

by doing an in-depth root cause analysis of misdelivery and change-of-address complaints.

March 7, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15, question 6.b. The Commission recommends that 

the Postal Service monitor delivery-related complaints in areas or districts with infrequent or 

a small number of Delivery survey responses. The Commission also suggests that the FY 2017 

Report describe whether its root cause analysis of misdelivery and change-of-address 

complaints improved the FY 2017 Delivery result.

 

65 FY 2016 ACR at 72; March 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 27, question 1.a.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 50 -

C. Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged 

Workforce

1. Background

The Postal Service relies on several performance indicators to evaluate progress toward 

its performance goal to Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce. The OSHA

Illness and Injury (I&I) Rate is used to measure progress toward ensuring a safe 

workplace. To measure the effects of the Postal Service’s efforts to improve employee 

engagement, the Postal Service uses three performance indicators related to the Postal 

Pulse survey.

OSHA I&I Rate. OSHA requires employers, including the Postal Service, to record 

information about work-related illnesses, injuries, and deaths. This information is used to 

calculate the OSHA I&I Rate, a formula recommended by OSHA to track workplace illness 

and injuries. The OSHA I&I Rate formula is:

Total number of recordable illnesses and injuries66 X 200,000 hours

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Number of hours worked by all employees67

February 24, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 8.

The OSHA I&I Rate is the performance indicator the Postal Service used in FY 2016 to 

measure progress toward achieving its goal of ensuring a safe workplace. The FY 2016 

Plan set a target of 6.05 for actual performance for this indicator. See FY 2015 Annual 

Report at 14. The FY 2016 result for actual performance was 6.25, which failed to meet the 

target. FY 2016 Annual Report at 15.

In FY 2017, the Postal Service will replace the OSHA I&I Rate with the Total Accidents 

Rate, a new performance indicator that will measure the total number of all accidents per 

exposure hour. FY 2016 Annual Report at 15 n.9, 20. The OSHA I&I Rate is subsumed 

within the Total Accidents Rate because the Total Accidents Rate includes both recordable 

accidents, as required by OSHA, as well as less severe, non-recordable accidents. The two 

 

66 FY 2016 Annual Report at 15 n.8. “Recordable” illnesses and injuries are accidents that result in medical treatment (beyond first aid), days 

away from work, restrictions or transfer to another job, death, or loss of consciousness. February 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15, question 

5.a. Not all injuries are “recordable” for purposes of OSHA—the agency has promulgated specific regulations governing which injuries meet 

this criteria. See generally 29 C.F.R. part 1904 et seq.

67 See 29 C.F.R. § 1960.2(j) (For purposes of OSHA, “[t]he term incidence rates means the number of injuries and illnesses, or lost workdays, 

per 100 full-time workers. Rates are calculated as N X 200,000 ÷ EH[,] [where] N = number of injuries and illnesses, or number of lost 

workdays[;] EH = total hours worked by all employees during a month[,] a quarter, or fiscal year[;] and 200,000 [represents the] base for 100 

full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year).”).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 51 -

performance indicators both use the same formula shown above for calculating the workrelated I&I Rate.

The FY 2017 Plan sets a FY 2017 Total Accidents Rate target of 15.0. FY 2016 Annual 

Report at 15. In the FY 2017 Plan, the Postal Service states it will improve workplace safety 

by focusing more on prevention strategies and taking a more proactive approach toward 

employee safety. Id. at 20. According to the Postal Service, its focus will be on the total 

number of accidents, regardless of severity, and it plans to reduce both recordable and 

non-recordable accidents. Id.; Response to CHIR No. 7, question 1.b.

Postal Pulse survey. The Postal Service measures employee engagement through the Postal 

Pulse survey.68 The Postal Service administered the Postal Pulse survey to 600,000 career 

and non-career employees during the second quarter of FY 2016. FY 2016 Annual Report

at 21. Figure III-2 contains a copy of the Postal Pulse survey.

 

68 FY 2016 Annual Report at 21. The Postal Pulse survey is also referred to as 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 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 52 -

Figure III-2

Postal Pulse Survey69

 

69 Figure III-2 is a copy of the FY 2015 Postal Pulse survey. The Postal Service confirms that it sent the same Postal Pulse survey-related 

information to employees in FY 2016. Response to CHIR No. 7, question 4.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 53 -

As shown in Figure III-2, the Postal Pulse survey asks participants to rate their level of 

agreement with 13 statements concerning the workplace on a scale of 1 to 5, with higher 

numbers reflecting either a greater level of employee satisfaction or stronger agreement 

with a survey statement. In FY 2016, the Postal Service used three performance indicators 

related to the Postal Pulse survey to measure progress toward improving employee 

engagement: the grand mean engagement score, the survey response rate, and the number 

of business units participating in action planning.

Grand mean engagement score. The mean score is the average score for each question on 

the Postal Pulse survey. The grand mean engagement score is the average of the mean 

scores for questions 1 through 12. The Postal Service states that it will use the Postal Pulse 

survey grand mean engagement score to measure employee engagement during FY 2017. 

Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.b. However, the Postal Service does not set a specific 

numeric target for the Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement score. Id. question 

3.b.i.; Docket No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR No. 3, question 5.b.

To improve employee engagement in FY 2017, the Postal Service states it will continue to 

provide targeted training to executives, managers, and supervisors and will work with 

other groups within the Postal Service to increase awareness of the importance of 

employee engagement. FY 2016 Annual Report at 21. It notes that it will create action 

plans and goals for improved employee engagement and align efforts of supervisors, 

managers, and executives to meet these objectives. Id. at 22.

Survey response rate. The survey response rate identifies the percentage of employees who 

complete and return the Postal Pulse survey.70 The Postal Service set the FY 2016 target 

for the Postal Pulse survey response rate at 51 percent. Docket No. ACR2015 Response to 

CHIR No. 3, question 5.b. In FY 2016, the survey response rate was 32 percent, and as a 

result, the Postal Service failed to meet its target for the survey response rate. See FY 2016 

Annual Report at 21. The FY 2017 target for the Postal Pulse survey response rate is 51 

percent. Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.b.ii.

In a CHIR response, the Postal Service explains that the survey response rate decreased in 

FY 2016 due to a “modality change” in that surveys were mailed to some employees at 

their homes, something which had not been done in 17 years. Id. question 3.a.ii. The Postal 

Service asserts that since returning to an onsite, on-the-clock implementation of the Postal 

Pulse survey, the survey response rate for FY 2017, Quarter 1 increased to 49 percent, 

which the Postal Service states compares favorably to response rates for FYs 2013, 2014, 

and 2015. Id.

 

70 FY 2016 Annual Report at 21; see Docket No. ACR2015, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-6 of Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 17, March 3, 2016, question 6 (Docket No. ACR2015, March 3, 2016 Response to CHIR No. 17).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 54 -

Number of business units participating in action planning. The number of business units 

participating in action planning refers to the number of business units entering into 

improvement plans responsive to prior employee engagement evaluations. See FY 2016 

Annual Report at 21. The Postal Service set the FY 2016 target for the number of business 

units participating in action planning at 18,000. Docket No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR 

No. 18, question 1.c. In FY 2016, more than 18,000 business units participated in action 

planning. See FY 2016 Annual Report at 21. Thus, the Postal Service exceeded its target for 

the number of business units participating in action planning. The FY 2017 target for the 

number of organizational units entering into action plans is 18,000. February 16, 2017

Response to CHIR No. 14, question 3.c.

2. Comments

OSHA I&I Rate. The Public Representative comments that the FY 2016 OSHA I&I Rate not 

only failed to meet the FY 2016 OSHA I&I target, but also constituted an increase over the 

FY 2015 OSHA I&I Rate. PR Comments at 7. The Public Representative also notes that 

frequent changes to the metrics used to evaluate workplace safety impede the Postal 

Service’s ability to analyze trends. Id.

The Postal Service disputes the Public Representative’s assertion that the FY 2016 OSHA 

I&I Rate constituted an increase over the FY 2015 rate. Postal Service Reply Comments at 

9. The Postal Service maintains that the FY 2016 OSHA I&I Rate was 6 percent lower than 

the FY 2015 rate. Id. The Postal Service attributes its failure to achieve its FY 2016 OSHA 

I&I Rate target to an increase in exposure hours compared to FY 2015. Id.

Postal Pulse survey. The Public Representative encourages the Postal Service to set targets 

for the Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement score performance indicator. PR 

Comments at 7. According to the Public Representative, “[a]fter having some time series 

data, [the Postal Service] should be able to set reasonable targets to measure the 

effectiveness of the Postal Service’s actions....” Id.

In addition, the Public Representative commends the Postal Service for its initiatives 

aimed at improving employee diversity. Id. at 12. She suggests that the Postal Service use 

the Postal Pulse survey to determine whether there are differences in employee 

engagement among different ethnic and gender groups. Id. at 15. The Public 

Representative recommends that the Postal Service utilize metrics, including demographic 

information, which the Public Representatives suggests could be obtained from the Postal 

Pulse survey, in order to more accurately analyze the effectiveness of such initiatives. Id. at 

12-16.

The Postal Service responds that “while it has set goals for a minimum response rate and 

number of organization units entering executable action plans, it does not believe score 

targets are desirable.” Postal Service Reply Comments at 9-10. It asserts that it appreciates 

the Public Representative’s comments regarding the Postal Service’s commitment to 

diversity and the “ripple effects” that commitment has on other employers around the 
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 55 -

country. Id. at 11. It states that it will take the Public Representative’s recommendations 

with regard to obtaining demographic information into consideration. Id.

3. Commission Analysis

The Postal Service uses four performance indicators to evaluate its achievement of the 

Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal. These performance 

indicators are the OSHA I&I Rate and three performance indicators related to the Postal 

Pulse survey.

The Postal Service did not meet the FY 2016 OSHA I&I Rate target. With regard to the 

three performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse survey, the Postal Service failed 

to set a FY 2016 target for the grand mean engagement score and did not meet the FY 

2016 target for the survey response rate. However, the Postal Service exceeded the FY 

2016 target for the number of business units participating in action planning. 

Consequently, the Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met the Ensure a Safe 

Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal in FY 2016.

In this section, the Commission examines the OSHA I&I Rate and the Postal Pulse survey 

performance indicators to evaluate FY 2016 performance and recommends actions for 

improving measurement and performance in future years.

a. OSHA Illness & Injury Rate

The Postal Service asserts that the OSHA I&I Rate is a “dual metric” that included FY 2016 

targets for both actual performance (6.05) and rate of improvement (3-percent reduction 

from FY 2015). February 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 6. It notes that the 

FY 2016 OSHA I&I Rate of 6.25 reflected a 6-percent improvement over FY 2015 and 

exceeded the FY 2016 target for rate of improvement (3 percent). Id. The Postal Service 

maintains that despite failing to achieve its FY 2016 target for actual performance, “[t]he 

combination of an improved [OSHA I&I] rate and a reduction of recordable accidents 

allowed the Postal Service to finish the year at the target.” Id.

The Commission previously stated that it considers the Postal Service to have met a 

performance goal if results of each performance indicator for that goal meet or exceed 

targets established in the applicable performance plan. FY 2015 Analysis at 6. The FY 2016 

Plan set a FY 2016 OSHA I&I Rate target for actual performance but did not set FY 2016 

targets for rate of improvement or reduction in recordable accidents. The Commission 

cannot evaluate the Postal Service’s performance based on performance indicators that are 

not included in the applicable performance plan.

In the sections below, the Commission compares the OSHA I&I Rate and new Total 

Accidents Rate performance indicators. It also discusses comparability, newer employees, 

and motor vehicle accidents.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 56 -

(1) OSHA I&I Rate versus Total Accidents Rate

In FY 2017, the Postal Service states that it will replace the OSHA I&I Rate with the Total 

Accidents Rate performance indicator. FY 2016 Annual Report at 15 n.9. The Postal Service 

reported OSHA I&I Rate results effective as of the end of each fiscal year in its annual 

performance report. February 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15, questions 5.b-5.d. A 

recurring issue with the OSHA I&I Rate has been that subsequent annual performance 

reports sometimes revise results from past fiscal years to reflect new claims or changes in 

the status of existing claims. These revisions lead to inconsistencies in reported OSHA I&I 

Rate results among annual performance reports.71

The new Total Accidents Rate performance indicator will calculate the total number of all 

accidents per exposure hour compared to the previous year. FY 2016 Annual Report at 15 

n.9, 20. The Total Accidents Rate will include both recordable accidents, which are 

currently tracked under the OSHA I&I Rate, and non-recordable accidents. Response to 

CHIR No. 7, question 1.b. The Total Accidents Rate result will be calculated by taking the 

total number of recordable and non-recordable accidents multiplied by 200,000 and then 

divided by the number of exposure hours. February 24, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, 

question 9. The Total Accidents Rate will include accidents that result in only property 

damage, as well as all motor vehicle accidents.72

The Postal Service asserts that the Total Accidents Rate will be a more stable metric than 

the OSHA I&I Rate. February 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 7.b. It 

acknowledges that similar to the OSHA I&I Rate, the end-of-year numbers for the Total 

Accidents Rate may fluctuate due to accidents being added after the final data are 

compiled at the end of the fiscal year. Id. However, it contends that Total Accidents Rate 

results will not fluctuate as much as OSHA I&I Rate results. Id. The Postal Service explains 

that the Total Accidents Rate will measure every accident regardless of recordability. Id.

Thus, new cases involving accidents that occurred in a prior fiscal year may be added to 

that fiscal year’s end-of-year numbers, but the status of an individual case already counted 

as an accident will not change. Id.

Although the Commission supports the Postal Service’s exploration of improved 

performance indicators, the Total Accidents Rate may not be a better performance 

indicator than the OSHA I&I Rate for measuring workplace safety improvements for 

several reasons. First, based on the information provided by the Postal Service, it is 

unclear whether the Total Accidents Rate will be more stable than the OSHA I&I Rate. 

 

71 Compare FY 2015 Annual Report at 14 with FY 2016 Annual Report at 16; see FY 2015 Analysis at 46.

72 March 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 27, questions 4.a and 4.b. Specifically, the Total Accidents Rate includes: accidents that resulted in 

damage of $500 or more to Postal Service property regardless of whether an injury was involved; motor vehicle accidents that result in death, 

injury, or only property damage, regardless of cost, who was injured (if anyone), or what property was damaged; and injury, illness, or death 

of a Postal Service employee on Postal Service premises or on the job. Id. The Total Accidents Rate excludes other accidents which 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.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 57 -

Second, because it includes both injuries which are less severe and accidents that only 

result in property damage, it does not appear that the Total Accidents Rate will be as 

effective as the OSHA I&I Rate for tracking and reducing serious injuries, illnesses, and 

deaths. Third, unlike the Total Accidents Rate, the OSHA I&I Rate is a widely accepted, 

standard workplace safety measure used nationally and globally for comparison both 

across and within firms and industries.73 Fourth, replacing the OSHA I&I Rate with the 

Total Accidents Rate may impact the Postal Service’s ability to provide comparable results 

for past fiscal years. See Chapter 3, section C.3.a.2, infra.

For these reasons, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service retain the OSHA I&I 

Rate performance indicator. The Commission recognizes that revisions to the OSHA I&I Rate 

are necessary to ensure accuracy. It recommends that future annual performance reports 

include OSHA I&I Rate results both as of the end of the fiscal year and revised to reflect new 

claims or changes in the status of existing claims.74

The Commission previously recommended that the Postal Service consider adding another 

workplace safety performance indicator for which results are complete and not revised after 

the end of the fiscal year.75 The Commission reiterates that recommendation because using a 

performance indicator that is based on complete data at the end of the fiscal year and does 

not change substantially would allow the Postal Service to better assess and report its safety 

and training programs and analyze whether changes to existing programs are needed.

(2) Comparable 3-Year Results

As discussed in Chapter 2, replacing the OSHA I&I Rate with the Total Accidents Rate may 

affect the Postal Service’s ability to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c), which requires the 

Postal Service to provide comparable “actual results for the three preceding fiscal years.” 

39 U.S.C. § 2804(c); see Chapter 2, section C.3, supra. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service 

states that due to its financial situation, the FY 2017 Report will neither provide 

comparable Total Accidents Rate results for FYs 2014, 2015, and 2016, nor explain how to 

compare results between the OSHA I&I Rate and the Total Accidents Rate. Response to 

CHIR No. 7, questions 2.b.i and 2.b.ii. The Postal Service acknowledges that not providing 

comparable results affects the ability to compare safety-related results from prior years. 

Id. question 2.b.ii.

The Commission recognizes that the results of the OSHA I&I Rate and Total Accidents Rate 

cannot be directly compared. However, the FY 2017 Report can comply with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(c) by providing FY 2017 results for both the OSHA I&I Rate and Total Accidents 

 

73 See United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, How to Compute a Firm’s Incidence Rate for Safety Management 

(available at: https://www.bls.gov/iif/osheval.htm).

74 See page 3, Table I-1, supra.

75 For example, the Commission had noted that because very severe injuries must be reported to OSHA within 24 hours, the recordability 

status would be known and the total number would conceivably be complete or nearly complete at the end of the fiscal year. See FY 2015 

Analysis at 50.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 58 -

Rate performance indicators. The Commission appreciates the Postal Service’s financial 

situation and limited resources. However, it appears that the Postal Service can calculate 

the FY 2017 OSHA I&I Rate result without expending significant resources.

The Postal Service states that OSHA requires it to maintain current and updated records 

for recordable accidents for a period of five years. February 17, 2017 Response to CHIR 

No. 15, question 5.a. This is consistent with the Postal Service’s Employee and Labor 

Relations Manual, which describes the process for reporting accidents to comply with 

OSHA requirements.76 For each recordable accident reported, employees are required to 

complete certain forms that the Postal Service must retain for five years after the end of 

the calendar year. ELM 41 § 821.144. Thus, it appears that the Postal Service can calculate 

the FY 2017 OSHA I&I Rate result using information the Postal Service is already required 

by OSHA to report and retain.

For the FY 2017 Report to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c), the Postal Service must provide 

comparable results for, at a minimum, FYs 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. The Commission 

recommends that the Postal Service include FY 2017 results for both the OSHA I&I Rate and 

Total Accidents Rate. If the Postal Service decides to use solely the Total Accidents Rate 

performance indicator in FY 2017, it must ensure that the FY 2017 Report complies with 39 

U.S.C. § 2804(c).

If the FY 2017 Report does not include the FY 2017 OSHA I&I Rate result, the Commission 

recommends that the FY 2017 Report explain why it is not feasible to calculate the FY 2017 

OSHA I&I Rate result using accident-related information the Postal Service is required by 

OSHA to report and retain.

(3) Newer Employees

The Postal Service explains that the reason it failed to meet the FY 2016 OSHA I&I Rate 

target for actual performance was due to a higher-than-expected number of accidents per 

exposure hour involving newer employees. February 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, 

question 6.b. Specifically, the Postal Service notes that the OSHA I&I Rate calculation takes 

into account both the total number of recordable accidents and the total number of 

exposure hours. Id. It states that during FY 2016, it experienced an overall reduction in 

total recordable accidents, but an increase in both exposure hours and accidents involving 

newer employees, who have a higher accident rate per exposure hour than more 

experienced employees. Id.

The number of newer employees (those with fewer than two years of on-the-job 

experience) increased between FY 2015 and FY 2016. Id. question 4. The increase in 

newer employees appears to have contributed to the increase in the number of accidents. 

 

76 United States Postal Service, ELM 41 - Employee and Labor Relations Manual (September 2016) § 821.123 (available at: 

http://about.usps.com/manuals/elm/html/elmc8_010.htm) (ELM 41).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 59 -

For example, the Postal Service notes that Sunday delivery is performed by City Carrier 

Assistants and Rural Carrier Assistants, who are generally the Postal Service’s newer 

employees. March 1, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 11.c. The Postal Service 

reports that the number of accidents occurring on Sundays increased from 3,405 in 

FY 2015 to 4,308 in FY 2016. Id. question 11.b.

The Postal Service states that in FY 2017, it will place additional emphasis on employees 

considered to be at higher risk for accidents. FY 2016 Annual Report at 20. The Postal 

Service explains that it has developed roadmaps to focus on preventing motor vehicle 

accidents through improved driver training and increased supervisory observations. 

Response to CHIR No. 7, question 1.b. It states that it will redesign the Safe Driver Training 

Program in FY 2017 to reinstate the testing portion of the program in order to increase 

both the number of classroom hours and on-the-road experience. March 1, 2017 Response 

to CHIR No. 19, question 8. It notes that the program will also include virtual reality 

portions to help new drivers learn skills before using them on the road with other drivers. 

Id. question 8.b. The Commission finds that these initiatives address areas of needed 

improvement and recommends that the Postal Service report the results of these initiatives in 

the FY 2017 Report.

(4) Motor Vehicle Accidents

The number of motor vehicle accidents increased from 26,936 in FY 2015 to 28,937 in FY 

2016.77 The Postal Service asserts that the greatest increase in motor vehicle accidents 

involving recordable (more severe) injuries was due to third parties striking Postal 

Service vehicles, either while parked or while delivering mail. March 1, 2017 Response to 

CHIR No. 19, question 7.c. There also was a sharp increase in stationary vehicles being 

struck from behind or being struck by another vehicle attempting to pass. Id. The Postal 

Service states that to reduce these types of motor vehicle accidents in FY 2016, it installed 

mirror stations in which carriers can adjust their vehicle mirrors before leaving for their 

route so that carriers can become more aware of their surroundings and better see other 

drivers approaching. Id. The Postal Service notes that many facilities have a “hot spot” 

board that warns carriers about road hazards, blind spots, and other situations that might 

increase the risk of motor vehicle accidents. Id.

The Commission finds that adjustable mirror stations installed by the Postal Service could 

increase driver visibility and prevent motor vehicle accidents. However, because the number 

of motor vehicle accidents increased between FY 2015 and FY 2016, it is unclear how 

adjusting vehicle mirrors affected the number of motor vehicle accidents in FY 2016. Also, 

in FY 2015 the Postal Service identified a relatively large number of accidents caused by 

distracted driving. See FY 2015 Analysis at 51. It is unclear what steps, if any, the Postal 

Service has taken to prevent these types of accidents.

 

77 March 1, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, questions 7.a and 7.b; see March 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 27, question 3.c.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 60 -

A separate motor vehicle accident performance indicator could help better monitor and 

measure the outcome of the Postal Service’s plans to reduce the number of motor vehicle 

accidents. Because the motor vehicle accidents are subsumed in the Total Accidents Rate, 

and not completely captured in the OSHA I&I Rate, the Commission recommends adding a 

new performance indicator that tracks the number of motor vehicle accidents or the motor 

vehicle accident rate.

b. Postal Pulse Survey

(1) Performance Indicators

In FY 2016, the Postal Service used three performance indicators related to the Postal 

Pulse survey to measure progress toward improving employee engagement: the grand 

mean engagement score, the survey response rate, and the number of business units 

participating in action planning.

Grand mean engagement score. This performance indicator is the average of the mean 

scores for questions 1 through 12 on the Postal Pulse survey. Table III-11 depicts results 

for the FY 2016 and FY 2015 grand mean engagement scores, as well as the mean scores 

for each question.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 61 -

Table III-11

FY 2016 and FY 2015 Postal Pulse Survey

Mean Scores and Grand Mean Engagement Scores

Nation Overall

FY 2016 FY 2015

Question-Specific Mean 

Scoreb

Q0. How satisfied are you with the Postal Service as a place to work? 3.52 3.44

Grand Mean Engagement Score - Overall Workplace Engagementa

(Average of Q1-Q12 Mean Scoresb)

3.24 3.16

Question-Specific Mean 

Scoreb

Q1. I know what is expected of me at work. 4.22 4.20

Q2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right. 3.55 3.52

Q3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. 3.68 3.63

Q4. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good 

work. 2.70 2.60

Q5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person. 3.33 3.29

Q6. There is someone at work who encourages my development. 2.93 2.86

Q7. At work, my opinions seem to count. 2.84 2.71

Q8. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important. 3.54 3.42

Q9. My fellow employees are committed to doing quality work. 3.46 3.40

Q10. I have a best friend at work. 2.94 2.84

Q11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress. 2.71 2.62

Q12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow. 3.04 2.92

a

The grand mean engagement score measures overall workplace engagement, which is an average of the 12 Workgroup Engagement items 

survey questions 1 through 12, listed above as Q1-Q12.

b

The mean score is the average score using the 5-point survey scale, with 5.00 being the highest score and 1.00 being the lowest. For question 

Q0, the 5-point survey scale is shown as a range of possible response options from 1 to 5, with survey response box 1 labeled “Extremely 

Dissatisfied” and survey response box 5 labeled “Extremely Satisfied.” For questions Q1 to Q12, survey response box 1 is labeled 

“Strongly Disagree,” and survey response box 5 is labeled “Strongly Agree.”

Sources: February 27, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, questions 6.a and 6.b; Docket No. ACR2015, February 26, 2016 Response to CHIR No. 13, 

question 14; id. Excel file “ChIR.13.Q.14.Resp.Postal_Pulse.xls.”

Table III-11 shows that both the grand mean engagement score and mean scores for each 

question improved between FY 2015 and FY 2016. However, it is unclear whether these 

improvements are due to greater workforce engagement or to the means by which the 

Postal Pulse survey was administered.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 62 -

In FY 2016, the Postal Service changed its method for administering the Postal Pulse 

survey: bargaining employees received paper surveys at their home address, while nonbargaining employees continued to receive their surveys via email.78 The Postal Service 

acknowledges that this change caused the survey response rate to decline in FY 2016. 

Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.a.ii. It appears that this change reduced response rates 

for bargaining employees specifically because they received the Postal Pulse survey by 

mail. See n.78, supra. Consequently, it is unclear if the grand mean engagement score and 

mean scores improved because more employees are engaged, or because FY 2016 survey 

results disproportionately reflect employee engagement of non-bargaining employees, 

who were not affected by the change in survey administration. The Commission 

recommends that the FY 2017 Report discuss these types of measurement issues and changes

and provide information concerning how the interpretation of results may be impacted by 

such issues and changes in future annual performance reports.

The Postal Service did not set measurable targets for the grand mean engagement score 

for either FY 2016 or FY 2017. Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.b.i. The Postal Service 

asserts that it “do[es] not consider a target on the score to be desirable.” February 16, 

2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 3.a. Instead, the Postal Service states it will focus 

on “accelerat[ing]...employee engagement training[] and increasing action planning 

effectiveness[] for postal managers.” Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.b.i. It states that it 

believes that “more fully trained managers will create an improved work environment, 

leading to steady continuous improvement in the area of employee engagement.” Id. The 

Commission recommends that the Postal Service set measurable targets for the Postal Pulse 

survey grand mean engagement score. Setting measureable targets is important to evaluate 

whether the Postal Service’s related initiatives have been successful and whether changes to 

the initiatives are needed to further improve results.

Survey response rate. This performance indicator identifies the percentage of employees 

who complete and return the Postal Pulse survey. The Postal Service reports that the 

Postal Pulse survey response rate result was 47 percent in FY 2015 and 32 percent in FY 

2016.

79 In a CHIR response, the Postal Service states that the number of employees 

answering at least one question on the Postal Pulse survey was 270,093 in FY 2015 and 

178,753 in FY 2016. February 27, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 6.c. The 

Commission calculated the survey response rate results using these numbers and the total 

number of surveys administered in FY 2015 (595,000) and FY 2016 (600,000).80 These 

 

78 See United States Postal Service, Postal Pulse, Survey deadline extended, (March 8, 2016) (available at: 

https://link.usps.com/2016/03/08/postal-pulse-2/). The Postal Service defines a bargaining unit employee as “[a] career or non[-]career 

employee who is represented by a labor organization (union) that negotiates with [the Postal Service] for wages, hours, and other terms and 

conditions of employment. Bargaining unit employees include city carriers, clerks, information technology employees (Information 

Technology/Accounting Service Center), machinists (tool-and-die), mail handlers, maintenance employees, motor vehicle operators, nurses, 

postal police officers, and rural carriers. Transitional employees are non[-]career bargaining unit employees.” See Publication 32, Postal Terms 

(available at: http://about.usps.com/publications/pub32/pub32_terms.htm).

79 FY 2015 Annual Report at 19; FY 2016 Annual Report at 21.

80 See FY 2015 Annual Report at 19; FY 2016 Annual Report at 21.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 63 -

calculations resulted in response rates 2 to 3 percentage points lower than those reported 

by the Postal Service. The Commission recommends that the FY 2017 Report explain the 

methodology for calculating the Postal Pulse survey response rate results.

The Postal Service states that it will continue to use the Postal Pulse survey response rate 

as one of its FY 2017 performance indicators for employee engagement. Response to CHIR 

No. 7, question 3.b. The Commission notes that the Postal Pulse survey includes an opt-out 

box for employees who do not wish to participate in the Postal Pulse survey. See page 52, 

Figure III-2, supra. The Postal Service previously explained that survey response rate 

includes employees who checked the opt-out response box. Docket No. ACR2015, March 3, 

2016 Response to CHIR No. 17, question 6. This limits the usefulness of the survey 

response rate as a measure of employee engagement. For example, if the FY 2017 

response rate increases, it will not be clear if the increase is due to increased employee 

engagement, or an increase in the number of employees checking the opt-out response 

box. For this reason, the Commission finds that the Postal Pulse survey grand mean 

engagement score is better than the survey response rate as a performance indicator for 

measuring employee engagement. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

distinguish between employees who complete the survey and those who opt-out when 

calculating results for the survey response rate performance indicator.

Number of business units participating in action planning. This performance indicator 

measures the number of business units entering into improvement plans responsive to 

prior engagement evaluations.81 The FY 2016 Report omits performance indicators related 

to the Postal Pulse survey in the table comparing targets and results for each performance 

goal. See FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. This omission hinders transparency because it is 

unclear which performance indicators the Postal Service used in FY 2016 to measure 

progress toward improving employee engagement. This omission is particularly 

problematic for the performance indicator measuring the number of business units 

participating in action planning. When reporting the FY 2016 result for this performance 

indicator, the Postal Service states that it “[d]eveloped more than 18,000 ‘State of the 

Team’ conversations and action plans to achieve engagement goals.” Id. at 21. It appears 

that “‘State of the Team’ conversations and action plans to achieve engagement goals” 

refers to the number of business units participating in action planning, but it is unclear 

because the terminology is not consistent.82

 

81 See FY 2016 Annual Report at 21; February 16, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 2.

82 In a CHIR response, the Postal Service states that in FY 2016, 18,329 units participated in action planning. February 16, 2017 Response to 

CHIR No. 14, question 2.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 64 -

This issue, and others like it,83 would have been less likely to occur if the FY 2016 Report

had included performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse survey in the table 

comparing targets and results for each performance goal. The Commission recommends 

that the FY 2017 Report include a similar table comparing targets and results for each 

performance indicator, including those related to the Postal Pulse survey.

(2) Legal Compliance

As discussed in Chapter 2, the three performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse 

survey raised issues that could have affected compliance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. 

First, the FY 2017 Plan does not set forth FY 2017 targets for the performance indicators 

related to the Postal Pulse survey. Because the Postal Service provides these targets in a 

CHIR response, the Commission finds that the Postal Service has complied with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2803(a)(1). To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1) next year, the FY 2018 Plan must set 

targets for each performance indicator used to evaluate performance during FY 2018, 

including the performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse survey. See Chapter 2, 

section C.1, supra.

Second, the FY 2017 Plan does not set a measurable FY 2017 target for the Postal Pulse 

survey grand mean engagement score as required by 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(2). Because the 

Postal Service set related objective, quantifiable, and measurable FY 2017 targets for the two 

other performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse survey, the Commission finds that 

the Postal Service has complied with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(2). To comply with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2803(a)(2) next year, the FY 2018 Plan must include at least one measurable FY 2018 

target for the performance indicators related to the Postal Pulse survey. See Chapter 2, 

section C.1, supra.

Third, the FY 2016 Report does not set forth FY 2016 targets for the Postal Pulse survey 

response rate and number of participating business units. Because the Postal Service 

provides the targets in a CHIR response, the Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report 

complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1). To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the FY 

2017 Report must include all FY 2017 targets for the Postal Pulse survey performance 

indicators and compare them with FY 2017 results. See Chapter 2, section C.2.a, supra.

Fourth, the FY 2016 Report must include comparable results for FYs 2013, 2014, 2015, and 

2016.84 In FY 2015, the Postal Service changed the performance indicator for measuring 

employee engagement from the Voice of the Employee (VOE) survey to the Postal Pulse 

 

83 The Postal Service has also reported inconsistent targets and results for the Postal Pulse survey response rate. The Postal Service provided 

different FY 2016 targets for the survey response rate in Docket No. ACR2015 (51 percent) and Docket No. ACR2016 (35 percent). Compare 

Docket No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR No. 3, question 5.b with Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.a.ii. Similarly, the FY 2016 survey response 

rate result was different in the FY 2016 Report (32 percent) compared to a CHIR response (30 percent). Compare FY 2016 Annual Report at 21 

with Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.a.ii.

84 See 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c); FY 2014 Analysis at 12. The Commission previously found that “actual results” must also be comparable across all 

three preceding fiscal years to ensure meaningful evaluation of performance across these years. FY 2014 Analysis at 12; see FY 2015 Analysis

at 17.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 65 -

survey. FY 2015 Analysis at 47. The Postal Service provides VOE survey score results for 

FYs 2013 and 2014, but lists “N/A” for FYs 2015 and 2016. FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. 

However, the Postal Service provides comparable results across FYs 2013, 2014, 2015, 

and 2016 for the survey response rate, which was also used as a performance indicator for 

measuring employee engagement during FY 2016. Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.a.ii.

For this reason, the Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2804(c). To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) in FY 2017, the FY 2017 Report must include 

comparable results for FYs 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 for at least one performance 

indicator related to the Postal Pulse survey. See Chapter 2, sections C.2.b and C.3, supra.

The Postal Service asserts that the questions contained in the VOE and Postal Pulse 

surveys are too different to be comparable. Response to CHIR No. 7, question 3.a.i. 

However, in the FY 2015 Analysis, the Commission provided examples of how to compare 

results between the two surveys. FY 2015 Analysis at 55. It noted that Item 0 (Overall 

Satisfaction) on the Postal Pulse survey is similar to Item 32 on the VOE survey, which 

asks respondents to rate their level of agreement with the statement, “I would recommend 

the Postal Service as a place to work to family and friends.” Id. In FY 2010, 52 percent of 

respondents provided a favorable response (strongly agree or agree) to Item 32 on the 

VOE survey.

85 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service consider comparing the

results between questions from the Postal Pulse and VOE surveys to provide comparable 

satisfaction or employee engagement results for FY 2014.86

(3) Diversity

The Public Representative suggests that the Postal Service use the Postal Pulse survey to 

determine whether there are differences in employee engagement among different ethnic 

and gender groups. PR Comments at 15. She recommends adding demographic questions 

to the survey and disaggregating employee engagement scores by gender and ethnicity. Id.

The Commission observes that the VOE survey contained several demographic questions 

that potentially could have been used to disaggregate employee engagement results by 

demographic category if the data were complete.87 These questions do not appear on the 

Postal Pulse survey.

The Public Representative’s suggestion to disaggregate employee engagement scores by 

gender and ethnicity raises the question as to whether the Postal Pulse survey can be used 

to measure specific results by employee categories, employee groups, or employee types. 

The Postal Service has discussed providing survey results by unit (office, district, area, and 

 

85 Docket No. ACR2010, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-22, 24-26 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 4, 

February 28, 2011, question 21.b.

86 Both the VOE and Postal Pulse surveys rate the elements on a scale of 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). The VOE survey 

reported results as a percentage of favorable ratings (the percentage of respondents who rated 4s and 5s). See Docket No. ACR2015 Response 

to CHIR No. 3, question 5. The Postal Pulse survey could also report results in the same manner.

87 See Docket No. ACR2010, Library Reference USPS-FY10-44, February 28, 2011, file “ChIR.4.Q.21.VOE.Survey.pdf,” at 2.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 66 -

national levels), and it provided survey response rates for career employees and noncareer employees in CHIR responses. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

explore the feasibility and utility of disaggregating Postal Pulse survey results by employee 

groups to target its employee engagement efforts.

(4) Non-Career Turnover Rates

In the FY 2015 Report, the Postal Service stated that the Postal Pulse survey items are 

research-based and “have proven to be statistically valid and reliable over time for 

measuring employee engagement and its relationship to key business indicators 

like...accident reduction and employee retention.” FY 2015 Annual Report at 18. For this 

reason, the Commission recommended in its FY 2015 Analysis that the Postal Service use 

the Postal Pulse survey data to identify the causes of employee turnover and design 

programs to reduce turnover rates for non-career employees. FY 2015 Analysis at 52-53.

However, in a CHIR response, the Postal Service asserts that it has not had sufficient time 

using the Postal Pulse survey to establish the relationship between employee engagement 

and key business indicators for employee retention and accident reduction within the 

Postal Service. February 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 10.

The Postal Service provided non-career employee turnover targets and results in a CHIR 

response, which are shown in Table III-12. Non-career employee turnover rates vary by 

non-career employee type.

Table III-12

Selected Non-Career Employee Turnover Rates

Non-Career Employee Type FY 2016 FY 2015

City Carrier Assistant 59.66% 54.24%

Rural Part-time 35.29% 30.10%

Postal Support Employee 36.59% 36.60%

Mail Handler Assistant 37.67% 29.86%

Sources: Docket No. ACR2015, Responses of the United States Postal Service to 

Questions 1-6 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 9, February 11, 2016, 

question 2.c (Docket No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR No. 9); February 15, 2017 

Response to CHIR No. 14, question 5.a.i.

Table III-13 shows the overall non-career employee turnover rates from FYs 2013 to 2016 

and targets the Postal Service had set from FYs starting in FY 2014.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 67 -

Table III-13

Overall Non-Career Employee Turnover Rates and Targets

Overall Non-Career Employee FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2013

Actual Turnover Rate TBD 42.82% 38.69% 45.00% 14.00%

Target 34.08% 34.80% 20.00% 14.00% n/a

TBD-To be determined; n/a-No target

Sources: General Accounting Office, United States Postal Service, Status of Workforce Reductions and Related Planning 

Efforts, GAO-15-43 (November 13, 2014) at 29- FY 2013 Actual Turnover Rate and FY 2014 Target; Docket No. ACR2014, 

United States Postal Service Response to Question 6 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 14, March 26, 2015; Docket 

No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR No. 9, questions 2.a and 2.d; February 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, questions 5.a.i 

and 5.b.

The Postal Service previously stated that non-career employee turnover was an area for 

improvement. See February 15, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 5.b. Given the 

relatively large increase between FY 2015 and FY 2016, the Commission recommends that

the Postal Service continue to target this issue and include the non-career employee turnover 

rates by employee type as well as the overall non-career turnover rate in its FY 2017 Report 

and FY 2018 Plan.

D. Sustain Controllable Income

1. Background

In FY 2016, the Postal Service used two performance indicators to measure progress 

toward its Sustain Controllable Income goal: Deliveries per Total Work Hours (DPTWH)

(as a percent improvement over the same period last year) (DPTWH % SPLY) and 

Controllable Income (Loss).

DPTWH % SPLY. From FY 2011 to FY 2015, the Postal Service measured productivity 

improvements using the Deliveries per Work Hour (DPWH) performance indicator, which 

evaluated the Postal Service’s productivity improvement efforts by comparing the total 

number of deliveries of all types with the total number of work hours used in all employee 

categories.88 In FY 2016, the Postal Service replaced DPWH with DPTWH % SPLY, which 

measures the percent change in deliveries per total work hours from the current year over 

the prior year. March 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 5.

The FY 2016 target for DPTWH % SPLY was an increase of 1.2 percent over the FY 2015 

result.89 The FY 2016 actual result was an increase of 0.1 percent, and therefore was 1.1 

percentage points lower than the FY 2016 target. FY 2016 Annual Report at 22. The Postal 

Service explains that it did not meet the FY 2016 DPTWH % SPLY target “due to a growth 

 

88 See Docket No. ACR2011, Annual Compliance Determination, March 28, 2012, at 46; FY 2015 Analysis at 4, 57.

89 FY 2016 Annual Report at 15, 22. As discussed below, the FY 2016 Plan set a FY 2016 target for DPWH. The Postal Service did not mention 

the new DPTWH % SPLY performance indicator until the FY 2016 Report. See Chapter 3, section D.3.a, infra.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 68 -

in work hours.” Id. It states that several factors contributed to the overrun of its work hour 

plan:

 Delaying plant consolidations

 Not capturing all work hour savings from the second phase of Network 

Rationalization

 Accruing additional work hours to improve service

 Accruing additional work hours due to hiring, training, and turnover rates for noncareer workforce

Id.

The FY 2017 target for DPTWH % SPLY is 0.6 percent, which is lower than the FY 2016 

target of 1.2 percent. See FY 2016 Annual Report at 15. The Postal Service states it will 

meet the FY 2017 target by “capturing work[]hour reductions from operational 

initiatives.” Id. at 22.

Controllable Income (Loss). The results of this performance indicator are calculated as the 

Postal Service’s total revenue minus controllable expenses. Controllable expenses exclude 

the following expenses:

 Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund pre-funding expense

 Amortization of the Postal Service’s unfunded liability for its portion of the Federal 

Employees Retirement System

 Non-cash expenses related to changes in liability due to fluctuations in workers’ 

compensation expenses caused by actuarial revaluation and discount rate changes

Id. The Postal Service explains that because these expenses are not under management’s 

control, analyzing operating results without these expenses provides better insight into 

Postal Service operations. Id. at 23. In FY 2016, Controllable Income (Loss) was $0.61 

billion, which was $0.51 billion better than the FY 2016 target of $0.10 billion. Id. at 15.

The Postal Service explains that overall revenue increased in FY 2016 primarily due to an 

increase in Shipping and Packages revenue, but was partially offset by the expiration of 

the temporary exigent surcharge on Market Dominant products on April 10, 2016.90

The Controllable Income (Loss) target for FY 2017 is $0.10 billion. FY 2016 Annual Report

at 15. The Postal Service states that it expects controllable income to decrease in FY 2017 

due to the expiration of the exigent surcharge, the ongoing decline in First-Class Mail 

volume, and contractual wage increases and higher benefits costs. Id. at 24.

 

90 Id. at 23; see Docket No. R2013-11, Order No. 3186, Order on Removal of the Exigent Surcharge and Related Changes to the Mail 

Classification Schedule, March 29, 2016.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 69 -

2. Comments

DPTWH % SPLY. The Public Representative finds that the Postal Service partially met the 

Sustain Controllable Income goal in FY 2016. PR Comments at 8. She observes that the 

Postal Service fell significantly short of its FY 2016 target for DPTWH % SPLY, but she 

asserts that the Postal Service provides a sufficient explanation for the shortfall. Id.

The Public Representative comments that the FY 2016 Report does not provide 

comparable results for DPTWH % SPLY for FYs 2013, 2014, and 2015. Id. However, she 

notes that the Postal Service provided this information in a CHIR response. Id. Based on 

this response, the Public Representative finds the FY 2017 target for DPTWH % SPLY to be 

reasonable. Id.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service reiterates that the shortfall in DPTWH % SPLY 

was due to a variety of factors that increased work hours. Postal Service Reply Comments 

at 10. It adds that work hours also increased due to the continued shift in the type of mail 

the Postal Service delivers. Id. Specifically, it notes that First-Class Mail volume decreased 

while Shipping and Packages volume increased. Id. The Postal Service asserts that the shift 

toward increased Shipping and Packages volume “resulted in increased work hours, 

affecting the DPTWH [% SPLY] calculation, but also increased the Postal Service’s 

revenue.” Id. For this reason, the Postal Service asserts that it met the Sustain Controllable 

Income goal in FY 2016. Id.

Controllable Income (Loss). For the Controllable Income (Loss) performance indicator, the 

Public Representative observes that the FY 2016 result of $610 million exceeded the FY 

2016 target of $100 million. PR Comments at 8. In its reply comments, the Postal Service 

agrees with the Public Representative that the FY 2016 Controllable Income (Loss) target 

was met. Postal Service Reply Comments at 10.

3. Commission Analysis

In FY 2016, the Postal Service exceeded the Controllable Income (Loss) target, but missed 

the DPTWH % SPLY target. Consequently, the Commission finds that the Postal Service 

partially met the Sustain Controllable Income performance goal in FY 2016.

Below the Commission analyzes the DPTWH % SPLY and Controllable Income (Loss) 

performance indicators in more detail.

a. DPTWH % SPLY

The FY 2016 Plan set a FY 2016 target for DPWH, but the FY 2016 Report omits both the 

FY 2016 target and FY 2016 result for this performance indicator. See FY 2016 Annual 

Report at 15. As discussed in Chapter 2, because the Postal Service provides the FY 2016 
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 70 -

DPWH result in a CHIR response,91 the Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report complies 

with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1). However, to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the 

FY 2017 Report must provide the FY 2017 result for the new DPTWH % SPLY performance 

indicator. See Chapter 2, section C.2.a, supra.

In the sections below, the Commission explains how the Postal Service calculates DPTWH 

% SPLY, compares the DPWH and DPTWH % SPLY performance indicators, and makes 

observations and recommendations about the Postal Service’s plans to meet the FY 2017 

DPTWH % SPLY target.

(1) Calculation of DPTWH % SPLY

The Postal Service’s former DPWH metric gauged productivity by calculating the average 

number of deliveries per employee work hour, based on the following formula:

DPWH =

Annual Number of Delivery Days X Total Number of Delivery Points

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Work Hours

Response to CHIR No. 19, question 4.a.

The DPTWH metric makes two major changes to this methodology. First, the Postal 

Service has adjusted the number of delivery days to account for the impact of Sunday 

package delivery.92 Second, the Postal Service has adjusted Total Work Hours to account 

for work hours associated with volume growth/decline.93 Specifically, the Postal Service 

asserts that over half of the additional work hours its employees worked in FY 2016, as 

compared to FY 2015, were attributable to parcel growth (offset by declines for certain 

non-parcel products). March 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 3.b. The Postal 

Service maintains that these work hours should not be counted against productivity 

(which is what would happen if these additional work hours are retained in the 

denominator for purposes of calculating DPTWH). Id. questions 3.b and 4.b. Otherwise, 

any growth in volume that adds work hours would result in a decreased productivity 

measurement. Id. question 4.b.

 

91 February 10, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, question 11.

92 See Docket No. ACR2015, Response of the United States Postal Service to Question 7 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 17, March 9, 

2016, question 7.

93 Also, work hours are adjusted for the delivery network expansion and growth of certain negotiated service agreements (NSAs) which are 

handled outside normal costing systems. March 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 3.a.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 71 -

As a result of these changes, the formula for calculating the current fiscal year under 

review using the new DPTWH metric is:

DPTWH =

Annual Number of Delivery Days (adjusted for Sunday Deliveries) X Total Number of

Delivery Points

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Work Hours (adjusted to account for workload changes over prior fiscal year)

Id. question 5.

DPTWH % SPLY compares DPTWH results for the current fiscal year under review (in this 

report, FY 2016) and the prior fiscal year (in this report, FY 2015).

To calculate the DPTWH % SPLY result, the Postal Service divides the DPTWH result for 

the fiscal year under review (in accordance with the DPTWH formula above) by the DPWH 

result for the prior fiscal year (with an adjustment for Sunday delivery), in order to 

determine the percent change over the same period last year.94 In this way the Postal 

Service can isolate any work hours during the fiscal year under review which were 

associated with an increased workload change and exclude them from the current fiscal 

year under review DPTWH calculation, producing a pure workload comparison of yearover-year deliveries per total work hour. Response to CHIR No. 19, question 4.b. The 

Postal Service uses the following formula:95

DPTWH % SPLY=

((Current Year DPTWH ÷ Prior Year DPWH [adjusted for Sunday delivery]) -1) X 100

March 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 4.d.

 

94 The Postal Service provides FY 2015 and FY 2016 DPTWH inputs and results in a CHIR response. February 10, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 14, 

question 11.

95 Current year DPTWH is calculated using the adjusted work hours total to account for workload change over prior year while prior year 

DPTWH is calculated using the total work hours since it is the comparison or baseline year from which current year workload changes are 

measured.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 72 -

(2) Comparison of DPWH and DPTWH % SPLY

The new DPTWH % SPLY performance indicator modifies the DPWH methodology in two 

respects. First, the Postal Service calculates the incremental workload impact for the year 

under review compared to the prior year.96 This change is due to changes in the Postal 

Service’s workload content as packages increase and letters and flats decrease. The Postal 

Service states that work hours have recently increased in part due to the growth of its 

labor-intensive Shipping and Packages business.97 It explains that the DPTWH % SPLY 

calculation accounts for additional work hour increases due to increased workload by 

removing them from the current fiscal year DPTWH denominator in order to compare 

current and prior year results strictly on a productivity basis. See FY 2016 Annual Report

at 22.

Based on the supporting workpapers provided in a CHIR response, the new DPTWH % 

SPLY performance indicator adjusted for the workload increase in FY 2016 by subtracting 

18 million work hours from the FY 2016 total year-to-date work hours. February 10, 2017 

Response to CHIR No. 14, question 11. The Postal Service states that of the approximately 

30 million work hour increase in FY 2016 over FY 2015, 18 million were “directly due 

to...additional weighted volume impact or network growth, and should not be counted 

against productivity (and are therefore removed from the [current year DPTWH] 

denominator).” March 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 3.b.

Second, the DPTWH % SPLY calculation increases the total number of delivery days by an

incremental amount. The adjustment to delivery days accounts for the smaller subset of 

addresses that receive delivery on Sunday.98 The adjusted delivery days total has only a 

small impact on the DPTWH % SPLY result. By contrast, subtracting 18 million work hours 

from the current fiscal year total to adjust for the workload or work hours increase over 

the prior fiscal year has a larger impact on DPTWH, which improves the DPTWH % SPLY 

result. The Commission appreciates the explanations provided by the Postal Service to 

explain methodological changes in response to the Commission’s recommendations from FY 

2015. See FY 2015 Analysis at 60-63. In future years, the Commission recommends that the 

Postal Service provide such explanations in its annual performance reports.

 

96 FY 2016 Annual Report at 22. The Postal Service calculates the work hours due to increased or decreased volume in each mail category by 

multiplying the incremental volume (year-over-year) by the appropriate unit cost per piece, and converting the aggregate cost amount to 

work hours, which are excluded from the current fiscal year DPTWH calculation. The Postal Service also excludes from its current fiscal year 

DPTWH calculation work hours resulting from the impact of specific NSAs and the delivery network expansion. March 17, 2017 Response to 

CHIR No. 19, question 3.b.

97 FY 2016 Annual Report at 22; United States Postal Service, Annual Report on Form 10-K, November 15, 2016, at 21 (Postal Service FY 2016 

Form 10-K).

98 The Postal Service determines the number of stops each Sunday and keeps a cumulative total of stops year-to-date. It then takes that 

number and divides by the number of delivery points for the full year to get a fraction of a delivery days represented by all the Sundays in that 

time frame. See March 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 4.c.i.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 73 -

The adjustment for Sunday deliveries is an improvement over the former DPWH 

performance indicator. The Postal Service states that it “determines the number of stops 

each Sunday...and keeps a cumulative total of stops per year to date.” Id. It is unclear 

whether the Postal Service will use full year or partial year data when calculating the 

DPTWH % SPLY result. The Commission notes that calculating DPTWH % SPLY using 

Sunday delivery data from the entire fiscal year may improve the FY 2017 result.

The Commission identifies an issue with the new DPTWH % SPLY performance indicator. 

The Postal Service states that the “intent of the...metric is to measure how many hours are 

being used to service the Postal Service’s delivery point network.” March 17, 2017 

Response to CHIR No. 19, question 4.b. However, a portion of the workload increase in 

FY 2016 is described as being due to delivery network expansion. Id. question 3.b. These 

work hours are eliminated from the current year DPTWH calculation. Id. question 4.b. 

Although this workload adjustment (by eliminating work hours) purports to control for 

year-to-year changes, eliminating work hour increases due to delivery network expansion 

appears contrary to the stated purpose of the DPTWH % SPLY performance indicator: “to 

measure how many hours are being used to service the Postal Service’s delivery point 

network.” See id. Nonetheless, the Commission finds that accounting for differences in yearover-year workload is an improvement. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

provide more information about the meaning and derivation of the workload from the

delivery network expansion in its FY 2017 Report.

The Commission also notes that the resource inputs used to estimate workload are not as 

refined or as comprehensive as those used for the Total Factor Productivity (TFP) index. 

Despite the Postal Service’s attempt to make a workload adjustment that is comparable 

between fiscal years, eliminating work hours appears to make the actual result less 

comprehensive. Further, it is not clear that the workload adjustment is accurate or 

complete.

A preferable alternative would be for the Postal Service to return to using the TFP index as 

the performance indicator for measuring productivity improvements under the Sustain 

Controllable Income performance goal, as the Postal Service did in the past.

99 In FY 2010, 

the Postal Service replaced the TFP index with the DPWH performance indicator. Id. In the 

FY 2010 ACD, the Commission recommended against replacing the TFP index with DPWH 

as a measure of productivity. Id. at 54. Because the new DPTWH % SPLY performance 

indicator uses the adjusted DPWH rate to calculate the percent improvement over the same

period last year, the same limitations noted by the Commission in the FY 2010 ACD for the 

DPWH also apply to the new DPTWH % SPLY performance indicator. The Commission 

reiterates its prior recommendation that the Postal Service use the TFP index as a 

performance indicator for measuring productivity improvements rather than the less robust

DPTWH % SPLY derived from the adjusted DPWH.

 

99 See Docket No. ACR2010, Annual Compliance Determination, March 29, 2011, at 39 (FY 2010 ACD).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 74 -

(3) Plans to Meet FY 2017 Target

The Postal Service states it will achieve the FY 2017 DPTWH % SPLY percent target by 

“capturing work hour reductions from operational initiatives.” FY 2016 Annual Report at 

22. In a CHIR response, the Postal Service identifies both processing and delivery 

operations initiatives that will help it meet the FY 2017 target. February 7, 2017 Response 

to CHIR No. 10, question 2.c. The Postal Service states that completion dates for some of 

these initiatives are mid-year and end-of-year in FY 2017. Id.

The Commission is concerned that none of these initiatives appear to specifically address 

the factors that caused the Postal Service to miss the FY 2016 target.

100 Also, given the 

later completion dates of some of these initiatives, it is unclear whether these initiatives 

will reduce work hours sufficiently during FY 2017 to allow the Postal Service to meet the 

FY 2017 target. Historically, the Postal Service’s reduced work hour performance targets 

have neither been met nor accurately forecast.

101

b. Controllable Income

Between FY 2015 and FY 2016, total expenses increased 4.2 percent or $3.1 billion due to 

higher operating expenses and the impact of lower discount rates on the workers’ 

compensation liability.102 Total compensation for employees increased by $0.7 billion 

compared to FY 2015.103 According to the Postal Service, this increase was primarily 

caused by contractual salary increases and additional work hours necessitated by the 

growing demand for shipping services. Postal Service FY 2016 Form 10-K at 20. Between 

FY 2015 and FY 2016, total work hours increased by nearly 30 million, or 2.6 percent. This 

was despite the fact that the Postal Service’s FY 2016 operating plan had forecast a 

reduction of 7 million work hours as a result of Phase II of Network Rationalization, in 

addition to the expected continued decreases in mail volume. FY 2016 IFP at 4.

Work hour increases between FY 2014 and FY 2016 were primarily due to increases in 

delivery and customer service operations work hours. FY 2016 Financial Analysis at 15.

Work hours for postmasters, on the other hand, decreased by approximately 20 million 

during this time period.104

 

100 These factors include delaying plant consolidations, not capturing all work hour savings from the second phase of Network Rationalization, 

accruing additional work hours to improve service, and accruing additional work hours from hiring, training, and turnover rates for non-career 

workforce. FY 2016 Annual Report at 22.

101 See page 78, Table IV-2, infra; FY 2015 Analysis at 71.

102 Financial Analysis of United States Postal Service Financial Results and 10-K Statement Fiscal Year 2016, March 31, 2017, at 10 (FY 2016 

Financial Analysis).

103 FY 2016 Financial Analysis at 12. Total compensation for employees comprises salaries, overtime and leave pay, and performance or 

arbitration awards. Id.

104 Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, 15-19, 23, 28, and 31-33 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 

3, January 13, 2017, question 1 (January 13, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 3); January 13, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 3, Excel file 

“ChIR.3.Q.1.LDC.Workhours.xlsx,” tab "Work hours."
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Analysis of Postal Service Performance

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 75 -

The Postal Service states that as work hours increase, the opportunities for accidents also 

increase. See March 1, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 19, question 11.b. The increase in work 

hours may have also contributed to the increased liability for motor vehicle accident tort 

claims, which rose from $48 million in FY 2015 to $88 million in FY 2016.105 Efforts to 

prevent motor vehicle accidents will help reduce expenses as well as promote safety for 

employees and the public.106 The Commission encourages the Postal Service to accelerate its 

efforts to reduce motor vehicle accidents so that associated damages, losses, and expenses 

can be reduced.

 

105 Compare National Trial Balance, September, FY 2015, November 13, 2015, Excel file “National_Trial_Balance_-

_Redacted_September_2015_(FY_2015).xls” with National Trial Balance, September FY 2016, November 15, 2016, Excel file “National Trial 

Balance - Redacted, September, 2016 (FY 2016).xls.”

106 Continued increases in motor vehicle accidents and related tort claims will have a deleterious effect on controllable income. For example, 

the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health found that in 2013, work-related motor vehicle accidents cost employers about 

$65,000 per non-fatal injury and $671,000 per death. See National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Center for Motor Vehicle 

Safety, Progress Report 2016, at 2 (available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/motorvehicle/pdfs/progressreport.pdf).
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 76 -

CHAPTER 4: STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

A. Background

In FY 2017, the Postal Service issued its Five-Year Strategic Plan for FYs 2017 to 2021.107

The Postal Service explains that its vision for these fiscal years is to help people connect, 

businesses grow, and communities thrive in the digital economy. FY 2016 Annual Report at 

14. To realize this vision, the Postal Service established four strategic goals:

 Deliver A World-Class Customer Experience

 Equip, Empower, and Engage Employees

 Innovate Faster to Deliver Value

 Invest in Our Future Platforms

Id.; Strategic Plan at 7.

In a CHIR response, the Postal Service explains that these strategic goals differ from the 

four performance goals established in annual performance plans and annual performance 

reports. Response to CHIR No. 25, question 1. The Postal Service explains that it will 

execute the strategic goals through a portfolio of strategic initiatives called “Ready Now 

Future Ready.” Id. The Postal Service states that the strategic initiatives are designed to 

improve and sustain the Postal Service’s performance against the targets set for each 

performance goal. Id.

In FY 2016, the Postal Service focused on implementing a portfolio of 15 strategic 

initiatives to meet its performance goals.108 It provided FY 2017 strategic initiatives in a 

CHIR response. Id. question 2.b. Table IV-1 compares FY 2016 and FY 2017 strategic 

initiatives and links each one to the performance goal it supports. The “Change From Prior 

Year” column identifies the changes between FY 2016 and FY 2017, which are:

 New — Strategic initiative was newly created to address an emerging 

business need

 Refined — Strategic initiative was refined to reflect the current business 

situation and achieve greater alignment with organizational goals

 

107 See Future Ready: United States Postal Service Five-Year Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2017 to 2021 (available at: 

http://about.usps.com/strategic-planning/five-year-strategic-plan-2017-2021.pdf) (Strategic Plan).

108 FY 2016 Annual Report at 70-71. The Postal Service refers to performance goals as “corporate goals” and strategic initiatives as the 

Delivering Results, Innovation, Value and Efficiency (DRIVE) portfolio of initiatives. Id. at 69-71. The Postal Service confirms that strategic 

initiatives and the DRIVE portfolio of initiatives are the same. February 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15, question 2.a.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 77 -

 Closed — Strategic initiative was closed as a result of a completed activity 

or change in business need

As shown in Table IV-1, the Postal Service closed 3 strategic initiatives, added 3 new ones, 

and refined 12 strategic initiatives.

Table IV-1

Comparison of FY 2016 and FY 2017 Strategic Initiatives

Performance 

Goal FY 2016 Strategic Initiatives

Change 

From Prior 

Year

FY 2017 Strategic Initiatives

Deliver HighQuality 

Service

Optimize Network Platform Refined Optimize Network Platform

Optimize Delivery Platform Refined Optimize Delivery Platform 

Optimize Retail Platform Refined Optimize Retail and Customer Service Platform

Build a World-Class Package Platform Refined Build a World-Class Package Platform

Leverage Technology and Data to Drive 

Business Value Refined Renameda

and Moved to Sustain Controllable 

Income Performance Goal

Optimize Customer and Revenue Visibility Closed

Obtain PRC Approval for Alternative Pricing 

Model Closed

Refined Build a Bench of Effective Leadersb

New Effectively Leverage Complement

Provide 

Excellent 

Customer 

Experiences

Build a World-Class Customer Care Process Refined Build a World-Class Customer Experience

Create a World-Class Social Media Platform Refined Create a World-Class Social Media Platform

Refined Implement Informed Deliveryc

New Build a World-Class International Platform

Ensure a Safe 

Workplace 

and Engaged 

Workforce

Engage and Empower Employees Refined Build a Culture of Engagement

Contract Negotiations Closed

Corporate Succession Planning Refined Renamedb

and moved to the Deliver HighQuality Service Goal

Improve Safety Programs Refined Deliver a Safe Workplace

Sustain 

Controllable 

Income

Accelerate Innovation to Maximize

Revenue and Profit Refined Accelerate Innovation to Maximize Customer Value

Informed Delivery Refined Renamedc

and moved to the Provide Excellent 

Customer Experiences Goal

Refined Accelerate Innovation to Maximize Business 

Valuea

New Develop an Innovation Framework

a

The Leverage Technology and Data to Drive Business Value initiative under the Deliver High-Quality Service goal in FY 2016 was refined and 

renamed the Accelerate Innovation to Maximize Business Value initiative in FY 2017 and moved to the Sustain Controllable Income goal.

b

The Corporate Succession Planning initiative under the Ensure a Safe and Engaged Workforce goal in FY 2016 was refined and renamed the 

Build a Bench of Effective Leaders initiative in FY 2017 and moved to the Deliver High-Quality Service goal.

c

The Informed Delivery initiative under the Sustain Controllable Income goal in FY 2016 was refined and renamed the Implement Informed 

Delivery initiative in FY 2017 and moved to the Provide Excellent Customer Experiences goal.

Source: February 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15, question 2.b.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 78 -

The Postal Service measures the performance of strategic initiatives using cross-portfolio 

performance indicators. FY 2015 Analysis at 71. The FY 2016 strategic initiatives and crossportfolio performance indicators used to measure performance are shown below in Table 

IV-2 by FY 2016 performance goal.

Table IV-2

FY 2016 Performance Goals, Strategic Initiatives, and

Cross-Portfolio Performance Indicators

FY 2016 

Performance 

Goal

FY 2016 Strategic Initiatives FY 2016 Cross-Portfolio Performance 

Indicator(s)

Deliver HighQuality 

Service

Optimize Network Platform Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions)

Total Work Hours Reduced (Millions)

Optimize Delivery Platform Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions)

Customer Insights Composite Score

Optimize Retail Platform Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions)

Customer Insights Composite Score

Build a World-Class Package Platform Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions)

Customer Insights Composite Score

Provide 

Excellent 

Customer 

Experiences

Build a World Class Customer Care Process Customer Insights Composite Score

Leverage Technology and Data to Drive Business 

Value

Revenue ($ Billions)

Customer Insights Composite Score

Create a World Class Social Media Platform Customer Insights Composite Score

Ensure a Safe 

Workplace 

and Engaged 

Workforce

Engage and Empower Employees Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions)

Contract Negotiations Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions)

Corporate Succession Planning None

Improve Safety Programs Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions)

Sustain 

Controllable 

Income

Accelerate Innovation to Maximize Revenue and 

Profit Revenue ($ Billions)

Optimize Customer and Revenue Visibility Revenue ($ Billions)

Obtain PRC Approval for an Alternative Pricing 

Model Revenue ($ Billions)

Sources: FY 2015 Analysis at 74; Docket No. ACR2015, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-10 of Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 15, March 2, 2016, question 10. The Corporate Planning Strategic initiative is not measured by a cross-portfolio 

performance indicator. Id.

The Postal Service set FY 2016 targets for three cross-portfolio performance indicators: 

Total DRIVE Cost Savings, Total Work Hours Reduced, and Revenue. FY 2015 Analysis at 71.

The Postal Service provided FY 2016 results and FY 2017 targets for these cross-portfolio 
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 79 -

performance indicators in a CHIR response, which are shown in Table IV-3 below along 

with available performance results for FY 2012 through FY 2016.

109

Table IV-3

Current Cross-Portfolio Performance Indicator Results

Cross-Portfolio

Performance Indicator

FY TARGET

FY RESULT

Target Not Met

2017 2016 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Total DRIVE Cost Savings 

($ Millions)a

$690 $955 $158 $157 $837 $872 $346

Total Work Hours 

Reduced (Millions) 6.00 13.00 3.10 0.93 6.70 9.81 1.94

Revenue ($ Billions) $70.7 $69.4 $71.6bIndicator Introduced in FY 2016

 Shaded result denotes target not met in fiscal year under review.

a DRIVE is a structured management process for improving business strategy development and progress toward performance goals. FY 2016 

Annual Report at 69. DRIVE incorporates measurement, analysis, and evaluation of a portfolio of strategic initiatives. Id.

b The Postal Service included other revenue and interest and investment income in its revenue total. See Postal Service FY 2016 Form 10-K at 39.

Sources: February 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15; question 4.a; Docket No. ACR2015 Response to CHIR No. 9, question 6.a; Docket No. 

ACR2014 Response to CHIR No. 5, question 9; Docket No. ACR2014, March 11 Response to CHIR No. 13, questions 1 and 3, Docket No. ACR2014, 

March 30 Response to CHIR No. 13, question 28.c; Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-3, 5 of 

Chairman’s Information Request No. 17, May 15, 2015, question 3 (corrected FY 2014 Total Work Hours Reduced from 7.7 to 6.7 million) (Docket 

No. ACR2014, May 15, 2015 Response to CHIR No. 17); Docket No. ACR2013, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1, 5-6, 

8-11 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 15, March 21, 2014, question 5; Docket No. ACR2013, Responses of the United States Postal Service 

to Questions 1-9 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 10, March 4, 2014, question 6; FY 2012 Annual Report at 39.

The Postal Service confirms that there were no changes to the FY 2016 cross-portfolio 

performance indicators or targets from those identified in the FY 2015 Analysis. The Postal 

Service provides FY 2016 results in response to a CHIR. February 17, 2017 Response to 

CHIR No. 15, question 4.b.

Table IV-4 shows how the Postal Service aligns the strategic goals with the FY 2017 

strategic initiatives and cross-portfolio performance indicators. Only 5 of its 15 FY 2017 

strategic initiatives and 3 of its 4 strategic goals are measured using cross-portfolio 

performance indicators. Four strategic initiatives are linked to the same cross-portfolio 

indicator: Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions). The Postal Service does not align the 

Deliver a World-Class Customer Experience strategic goal with any FY 2017 cross-portfolio 

performance indicators.

 

109 Other cross-portfolio performance indicators results and targets discontinued prior to FY 2015 and used during the Postal Service’s FY 2012-

FY 2016 Strategic Plan period were presented in the FY 2015 Analysis. See FY 2015 Analysis at 73.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 80 -

Table IV-4

Strategic Goals, Strategic Initiatives, and

Cross-Portfolio Performance Indicators

Strategic Goal FY 2017 Strategic Initiatives

FY 2017 Cross-Portfolio Performance 

Indicator(s)

Invest in Our 

Future 

Platforms

Optimize Network Platform Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions)

Total Work Hours Reduced (Millions)

Optimize Delivery Platform Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions)

Build a World-Class Package Platform Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions)

Innovate 

Faster to 

Deliver Value

Accelerate Innovation to Maximize Customer Value Revenue ($ Billions)

Equip, 

Empower and 

Engage 

Employees

Build a Culture of Engagement Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions)

Source: February 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15, question 4.c.

B. Comments

The Public Representative comments that the Postal Service included the strategic 

initiatives as part of the FY 2016 Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations rather 

than as part of the FY 2016 Report and FY 2017 Plan. PR Comments at 9. She observes that 

the Postal Service did not follow the Commission’s recommendation to include strategic 

initiatives for the upcoming fiscal year (FY 2017). Id. at 10. She encourages the Postal 

Service to implement the Commission’s recommendation in the next annual performance 

report. Id.

The Postal Service acknowledges the Public Representative’s recommendation and states 

that it will take this recommendation under advisement in developing its FY 2018 Plan. 

Postal Service Reply Comments at 11.

C. Commission Analysis

The Postal Service explains that it executes the strategic goals through a portfolio of 

strategic initiatives that are designed to improve and sustain the Postal Service's 

performance against the targets set for the performance goals. Response to CHIR No. 25, 

question 1. In other words, the strategic initiatives connect the strategic goals established 

in the Strategic Plan and the performance goals established in the annual performance plan 

and annual performance report. However, this connection was not explained in the FY 2016 

Report and FY 2017 Plan. The Commission recommends that the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 81 -

Plan clearly explain how the strategic initiatives relate to the Postal Service’s performance 

goals and performance indicators.

Because strategic initiatives are designed to help the Postal Service meet its performance 

goals, the FY 2016 strategic initiatives should have been included in the FY 2016 Report and 

FY 2017 Plan instead of the FY 2016 Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations. 

However, these documents are all contained in the Postal Service’s FY 2016 Annual Report 

to Congress. See page 2 n.1, supra. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

discuss FY 2017 strategic initiatives in the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan. The Commission 

also suggests that the Postal Service include strategic initiatives for both the current and 

upcoming fiscal years in its Annual Report to Congress.110

The Commission previously recommended that the Postal Service replace cross-portfolio 

performance indicators with performance measures that link to only one strategic 

initiative. FY 2014 Analysis at 59. In the FY 2015 Report, the Postal Service did not follow 

this recommendation and increased the number of strategic initiatives measured by the 

same cross-portfolio performance indicators. FY 2015 Analysis at 76. Applying one 

performance measure to several strategic initiatives prevents the Postal Service from 

evaluating the individual performance of each strategic initiative. In addition, because the 

Total DRIVE Cost Savings ($ Millions) and Total Work Hours Reduced (Millions) crossportfolio performance indicators results have not met their targets for the past five fiscal 

years, the strategic initiatives linked to these cross-portfolio performance indicators 

appear to have failed or partially failed to meet their objectives.

The Commission reiterates its recommendation that each strategic initiative have a unique 

performance measure that only measures performance for that strategic initiative. This 

would allow the Postal Service to determine whether strategic initiatives are effective in 

helping the Postal Service meet performance goals and to make targeted changes when 

results indicate a strategic initiative is not generating the expected benefits.

In a CHIR response, the Postal Service reports that the FY 2016 result for the Total Work 

Hours Reduced cross-portfolio performance indicator was a reduction of 3.1 million work

hours. February 17, 2017 Response to CHIR No. 15, question 4.a. However, the Postal 

Service FY 2016 Form 10-K states that as of the end of FY 2016, total work hours increased 

by approximately 30 million. Postal Service FY 2016 Form 10-K at 20. The Postal Service 

previously stated that cross-portfolio performance indicator results vary from the work 

hours reported in the Integrated Financial Plan. Docket No. ACR2014, May 15, 2015 

Response to CHIR No. 17, question 3. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

explain in more detail how it derives the results for the Total Work Hours Reduced cross-

 

110 The Postal Service’s FY 2017 Plan would have been more transparent and better understood if it had also provided some of the same detail 

for the FY 2017 strategic initiatives in its Annual Report as it did in its Strategic Plan.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Strategic Initiatives

and FY 2017 Performance Plan

- 82 -

portfolio performance indicator in future annual performance plans and annual performance 

reports.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2017 Performance Plan Page 1 of 9

Appendix: Commission Findings and 

Recommendations

Chapter 2 - Compliance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804:

 In order to increase transparency and ensure the required information is included, the 

Commission recommends that the Postal Service link the specific information provided 

in future annual performance plans and annual performance reports to the specific 

requirements of 39 U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. Chapter 2 at 9.

 The Commission is concerned that the need to issue extensive CHIRs to gather required 

information has become the norm. As a result, the Commission finds that the FY 2017 

annual performance report (FY 2017 Report) and FY 2018 annual performance plan 

(FY 2018 Plan) must contain all information necessary to show compliance with 39 

U.S.C. §§ 2803 and 2804. Although some CHIRs may be necessary to clarify elements of 

the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan, the Commission in the future intends only to 

review information submitted within the annual performance reports and annual 

performance plans to determine statutory compliance. Id.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2017 Plan complies with all but one requirement of 

39 U.S.C. § 2803. Id. at 10.

o The Commission finds that the Postal Service has complied with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2803(a)(1). As the Commission previously discussed, future annual performance 

plans must contain all information necessary to show compliance with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2803. To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a)(1), the FY 2018 Plan must set targets 

for each performance indicator used to evaluate performance during FY 2018. Id.

at 10, 64.

o The Commission finds that the FY 2017 targets provided for the Postal Pulse survey 

response rate and number of organizational units entering into executable action 

plans in the Gallup system express the Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged 

Workforce goal “in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form.” Consequently, 

the Commission finds that the Postal Service has complied with 39 U.S.C. § 

2803(a)(2). Id. at 11, 64.

o The Commission reiterates the importance of including all required information in 

annual performance plans and annual performance reports. To comply with 39 
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2017 Performance Plan Page 2 of 9

U.S.C. § 2803(a)(2) next year, the FY 2018 Plan must include measurable FY 2018 

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

indicators related to the Postal Pulse survey. FY 2018 targets must be included in 

the FY 2018 Plan rather than in CHIR responses. Id. at 12, 65.

o The Commission finds that the Postal Service has not complied with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 2803(a). To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2803(a) next year, the FY 2018 Plan must 

either: (1) identify all program activities in the FY 2018 Integrated Financial Plan 

and explain how the FY 2018 Plan covers each one or (2) identify all program 

activities in the applicable congressional budget submission, explain how the FY 

2018 Plan covers each one, and provide a crosswalk of the relationship between 

the program activities in the FY 2018 Integrated Financial Plan and congressional 

budget submission. The FY 2018 Plan must also relate each program activity to one 

or more performance goals or performance indicators. As previously discussed, the 

Postal Service must include this explanation in the FY 2018 Plan rather than in 

CHIR responses. Id. at 14.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804. Id.

o The Commission finds that the Postal Service has complied with 39 U.S.C. § 

2804(d)(3). Id. at 15. To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) next year, if the Postal 

Service did not meet a performance goal, the FY 2017 Report must explain why the 

goal was not met and the Postal Service’s plans and schedules for achieving the 

goal in future years. The Postal Service must provide the explanations, plans, and 

schedules required by 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(3) in the FY 2017 Report rather than in 

CHIR responses. Id.

o The Commission finds the Postal Service complied with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(d)(2) by 

comparing FY 2017 targets with FY 2016 results. To ensure compliance next year, 

the Postal Service should include all FY 2018 targets in the FY 2017 Report and FY 

2018 Plan. Id. at 16.

o The Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) 

for each performance goal. Id. at 16-18. To ensure compliance next year, the FY 

2017 Report must list FY 2017 targets for each performance indicator and 

compare FY 2017 results with FY 2017 targets set for each performance indicator.

Id. at 17, 64. The FY 2017 Report must express results for each performance 

indicator that are comparable to the targets the Postal Service set for FY 2017. Id.

at 18.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2017 Performance Plan Page 3 of 9

o The Commission reiterates its recommendation that the Postal Service not change 

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

plan. Id.

 The Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) for 

each performance goal. Id. at 18-20, 65. To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) in future 

years, annual performance reports must contain the required information rather than 

it being provided in responses to CHIRs. Id. at 20.

o For the FY 2017 Report to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c), the Postal Service must 

provide comparable results for each performance indicator for, at a minimum, FYs 

2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Id. at 22, 65. If comparable results cannot be 

provided, the FY 2017 Report must explain how to compare results between the old 

and new methodologies. The Postal Service must provide this information in the FY 

2017 Report rather than in CHIR responses. Id. at 22.

o To comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c) next year, the FY 2017 Report should include 

the CI Composite Score, BSN, POS, Delivery, and CCC performance indicator results 

for FYs 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. To ensure comparability across these fiscal 

years, the FY 2017 Report should include FY 2017 Delivery results calculated using 

both the old and new methodologies. Because the eCC is a new performance 

indicator, the FY 2017 Report does not need to include eCC results from past fiscal 

years. Id. at 21.

o To ensure comparability, the Commission recommends that the FY 2017 Report 

include the FY 2017 CI Composite Score results calculated using both the old and 

new methodologies. If the FY 2017 Report does not include comparable CI 

Composite Score results, the Postal Service should explain why it is not feasible to 

do so. Id.

o The Postal Service should consider similar approaches when comparing results of 

the new or revised performance indicators for FY 2017. Id. at 22.

Chapter 3 - Evaluation of Performance Goals:

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met each performance goal in 

FY 2016. Chapter 3 at 23.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2017 Performance Plan Page 4 of 9

Deliver High-Quality Service:

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

Service performance goal in FY 2016. Id. at 29.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service provide further information 

about the FCMP Composite formula in the FY 2017 Report. Id. at 31.

 In the FY 2017 Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service provide a 

more detailed discussion related to the Standard Mail and Periodicals mailpieces that 

will be used to measure the Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite performance 

indicator. The Postal Service should also report on whether the combined mail classes, 

shapes, and products for the Standard Mail & Periodicals Composite performance 

indicator primarily reflect the performance of Standard Mail Letters rather than 

Standard Mail Flats or Periodicals flats. Id. at 32.

 In the FY 2017 Report, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service discuss 

how combining different First-Class Mail products with potentially different service 

performance results affected the FY 2017 result of the FCLF Composite performance 

indicator. The Commission also recommends that the Postal Service consider including 

its supporting workpapers for the service performance indicators not included 

elsewhere in its ACR filings. Id.

Provide Excellent Customer Experiences:

 Because the CI Composite Score and BSN performance indicators exceeded the FY 

2016 target, but the POS, Delivery, and CCC performance indicators missed the FY 

2016 target, the Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met the Provide 

Excellent Customer Experiences performance goal in FY 2016. Id. at 39.

 The Commission reiterates its recommendation that the Postal Service establish a 

performance indicator based on the Large Business survey. Id. at 40.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service report FY 2017 results for the CI 

Composite Score and subcomponent performance indicators at the national, area, and 

district levels to help identify customer satisfaction successes and areas for 

improvement. The Postal Service should use the comparable weighting methodology 

shown in Table III-8 and provide data in the same format and detail as the data 

provided in a CHIR response. Chapter 3 at 42; see Docket No. ACR2015, February 18, 

2016 Response to CHIR No. 13, question 4, Table 1.1 and Table 1.2.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2017 Performance Plan Page 5 of 9

 The Commission recommends that the FY 2017 Report further explain the Postal 

Service’s methodology for calculating the FY 2017 CI Composite Score result. Chapter 

3 at 43.

 As discussed in Chapter 2, to ensure comparability across prior fiscal years, the 

Commission recommends that the FY 2017 Report include FY 2017 Delivery results 

calculated using both the existing and new methodologies. See Chapter 2, section C.3, 

supra. To better analyze why Delivery performance indicator results declined at the 

national level, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service provide FY 2016 

and FY 2017 Delivery performance indicator results disaggregated by area and 

district using both the existing and new methodologies. Chapter 3 at 47.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service compare Delivery performance 

indicator results for FYs 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 using the existing methodology 

(based on the “Overall Satisfaction” question) to evaluate customer satisfaction with 

mail delivery during this time period. If the FY 2017 Delivery performance indicator 

result using the existing methodology shows little change over FY 2016, the 

Commission recommends that the Postal Service evaluate and report responses to 

another survey question: “In the future, what should the USPS do to improve your 

satisfaction with how we DELIVER your mail or packages?” Id.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service clarify its eCC methodology and 

explain how the eCC performance indicator reflects changes in customer experience. 

The Postal Service should also explain how including the eCC result in the FY 2017 CI 

Composite Score more accurately captures overall customer experience. Id. at 48.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service adopt an approach similar to the 

POS survey for improving Delivery survey response rates. Id.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service report the results of these pilot 

tests and its assessment of whether alternative media methods will increase Delivery 

survey response rates. Id.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service take steps to meet its internal 

goal to ensure the Delivery survey results are statistically valid and accurate 

reflections of customer experience at the district level. Id. at 49.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service monitor delivery-related 

complaints in areas or districts with infrequent or a small number of Delivery survey 

responses. The Commission also suggests that the FY 2017 Report describe whether its 
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2017 Performance Plan Page 6 of 9

root cause analysis of misdelivery and change-of-address complaints improved the FY 

2017 Delivery result. Id.

Ensure a Safe Workplace and Engaged Workforce:

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met the Ensure a Safe 

Workplace and Engaged Workforce performance goal in FY 2016. Id. at 55. The 

Commission cannot evaluate the Postal Service’s performance based on performance 

indicators that are not included in the applicable performance plan. Id.

 OSHA I&I Rate

o For these reasons, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service retain the 

OSHA I&I Rate performance indicator. The Commission recognizes that revisions to 

the OSHA I&I Rate are necessary to ensure accuracy. It recommends that future 

annual performance reports include OSHA I&I Rate results both as of the end of the 

fiscal year and revised to reflect new claims or changes in the status of existing 

claims. Id. at 57.

o The Commission previously recommended that the Postal Service consider adding 

another workplace safety performance indicator for which results are complete 

and not revised after the end of the fiscal year. The Commission reiterates that 

recommendation because using a performance indicator that is based on complete 

data at the end of the fiscal year and does not change substantially would allow the 

Postal Service to better assess and report its safety and training programs and 

analyze whether changes to existing programs are needed. Id.

o For the FY 2017 Report to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c), the Postal Service must 

provide comparable results for, at a minimum, FYs 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. 

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service include FY 2017 results for 

both the OSHA I&I Rate and Total Accidents Rate. If the Postal Service decides to 

use solely the Total Accidents Rate performance indicator in FY 2017, it must 

ensure that the FY 2017 Report complies with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(c). Id. at 58.

o If the FY 2017 Report does not include the FY 2017 OSHA I&I Rate result, the 

Commission recommends that the FY 2017 Report explain why it is not feasible to 

calculate the FY 2017 OSHA I&I Rate result using accident-related information the 

Postal Service is required by OSHA to report and retain. Id.

o The Commission finds that initiatives for preventing motor vehicle accidents 

address areas of needed improvement and recommends that the Postal Service 
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2017 Performance Plan Page 7 of 9

report the results of these initiatives in the FY 2017 Report. Id. at 59. The 

Commission finds that adjusting vehicle mirrors could increase driver visibility and 

prevent motor vehicle accidents. Id.

o Because the motor vehicle accidents are subsumed in the Total Accidents Rate, and 

not completely captured in the OSHA I&I Rate, the Commission recommends 

adding a new performance indicator that tracks the number of motor vehicle 

accidents or the motor vehicle accident rate. Id. at 60.

 Postal Pulse Survey

o The Commission recommends that the Postal Service discuss survey administration 

measurement issues and changes and provide information concerning how the 

interpretation of results may be impacted by such issues and changes in future 

annual performance reports. Id. at 62.

o The Commission recommends that the Postal Service set measurable targets for the 

Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement score. Setting measureable targets is 

important to evaluate whether the Postal Service’s related initiatives have been 

successful and whether changes to the initiatives are needed to further improve 

results. Id.

o The Commission recommends that the FY 2017 Report explain the methodology for 

calculating the Postal Pulse survey response rate results. Id. at 63.

o The Commission finds that the Postal Pulse survey grand mean engagement score 

is better than the survey response rate as a performance indicator for measuring 

employee engagement. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

distinguish between employees who complete the survey and those who opt-out 

when calculating results for the survey response rate performance indicator. Id.

o The Commission recommends that the FY 2017 Report include a similar table 

comparing targets and results for each performance indicator, including those 

related to the Postal Pulse survey. Id. at 64.

o The Commission recommends that the Postal Service consider comparing the 

results between questions from the Postal Pulse and VOE surveys to provide 

comparable satisfaction or employee engagement results for FY 2014. Id. at 65.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2017 Performance Plan Page 8 of 9

o The Commission recommends that the Postal Service explore the feasibility and 

utility of disaggregating Postal Pulse survey results by employee groups to target 

its employee engagement efforts. Id. at 66.

o Given the relatively large increase between FY 2015 and FY 2016, the Commission 

recommends that the Postal Service continue to target this issue and include noncareer employee turnover rates by employee type as well as the overall non-career 

turnover rate in its FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan. Id. at 67.

Sustain Controllable Income:

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service partially met the Sustain Controllable 

Income performance goal in FY 2016. Id. at 69.

 As discussed in Chapter 2, because the Postal Service provides the FY 2016 DPWH 

result in a CHIR response, the Commission finds that the FY 2016 Report complies with 

39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1). However, to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 2804(b)(1) next year, the 

FY 2017 Report must provide the FY 2017 result for the new DPTWH % SPLY 

performance indicator. Id. at 69-70; see Chapter 2, section C.2.a, supra.

 The Commission appreciates the explanations provided by the Postal Service to explain 

methodological changes in response to the Commission’s recommendations from 

FY 2015. See FY 2015 Analysis at 60-63. In future years, the Commission recommends 

that the Postal Service provide such explanations in its annual performance reports.

Chapter 3at 72.

 The Commission notes that calculating DPTWH % SPLY using Sunday delivery data 

from the entire fiscal year may improve the FY 2017 result. Id. at 73.

 Nonetheless, the Commission finds that accounting for differences in year-over-year 

workload is an improvement. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service 

provide more information about the meaning and derivation of the workload from the 

delivery network expansion in its FY 2017 Report. Id.

 Because the new DPTWH % SPLY performance indicator uses the adjusted DPWH rate 

to calculate the percent improvement over the same period last year, the same 

limitations noted by the Commission in the FY 2010 ACD for the DPWH also apply to 

the new DPTWH % SPLY performance indicator. The Commission reiterates its prior 

recommendation that the Postal Service use the TFP index as a performance indicator 

for measuring productivity improvements rather than the less robust DPTWH % SPLY 

derived from the adjusted DPWH. Id.
Analysis of FY 2016 Performance Report Appendix

and FY 2017 Performance Plan Page 9 of 9

 The Commission notes that calculating DPTWH % SPLY using Sunday delivery data 

from the entire fiscal year may improve the FY 2017 result. Id. at 73.

 The Commission encourages the Postal Service to accelerate its efforts to reduce motor 

vehicle accidents so that associated damages, losses, and expenses can be reduced. Id.

at 75.

Chapter 4 - Strategic Initiatives:

 The Commission recommends that the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan clearly 

explain how the strategic initiatives relate to the Postal Service’s performance goals 

and performance indicators. Chapter 4 at 80-81.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service discuss FY 2017 strategic 

initiatives in the FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan. The Commission also suggests that 

the Postal Service include strategic initiatives for both the current and upcoming fiscal 

years in its Annual Report to Congress. Id. at 81.

 The Commission reiterates its recommendation that each strategic initiative have a 

unique performance measure that only measures performance for that strategic 

initiative. This would allow the Postal Service to determine whether strategic 

initiatives are effective in helping the Postal Service meet performance goals and to 

make targeted changes when results indicate a strategic initiative is not generating 

the expected benefits. Id.

 The Commission recommends that the Postal Service explain in more detail how it 

derives the results for the Total Work Hours Reduced cross-portfolio performance 

indicator in future annual performance plans and annual performance reports. Id. at 

81-82.