United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

February 1996 SOCIAL SECURITY

Telephone Access

Enhanced at Field

Offices Under

Demonstration Project

GAO/HEHS-96-70

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-260584 

February 23, 1996

The Honorable William Roth

Chairman

The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

The Honorable Bill Archer

Chairman

The Honorable Sam M. Gibbons

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Ways and Means

U.S. House of Representatives

The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers the Retirement and

Survivors and the Disability Insurance Programs and the Supplemental

Security Income Program. Together, these programs affect the lives of

almost every person in this country. SSA has an extensive field office

structure to administer these programs, consisting of more than 1,300 local

offices. It also has a nationwide toll-free telephone number and is testing

enhanced local office telephone service at selected offices.

SSA has a long history of trying to provide caring and courteous service to

its customers. Recently, it has established a goal of providing world-class

public service in administering Social Security programs. Accessible

telephone service that will address callers’ questions and concerns is a

critical part of SSA’s service delivery goal. SSA recently initiated a

demonstration project to test whether new telephone equipment and

technology would improve phone access to its local offices.

Beginning in late February 1995, SSA began installing new telephone

equipment, called automated attendant and voice mail, at 30 of its more

than 800 nationwide field offices that list their phone numbers in local

telephone directories.1

 The equipment was installed in different

configurations. All staff in each office had voice mail installed on their

phones. Some of the offices also received automated attendant with

1

Automated attendant refers to equipment that answers telephone calls; voice mail refers to equipment

that plays prerecorded messages and can record information left by callers.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

automated service options on their general inquiry phone lines.2 As part of

the demonstration, SSA planned two internal evaluations of the project to

assess the equipment’s effect on local office efficiency and employees’

views of the equipment and to identify callers’ views about this new

service.

The Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994

directed us to determine whether this new equipment would improve the

public’s telephone access to local SSA offices and report our results by

January 31, 1996. Also on the basis of congressional interest, we obtained

information about SSA’s efforts to evaluate its demonstration project.

To gauge how access changed with the new equipment’s installation, we

met with officials responsible for the project and conducted two tests of

telephone service at the participating offices. One test established baseline

performance data for phone service before installation of the equipment.

The second test measured service after installation of the equipment.3

 We

measured how access changed for those wanting to speak directly to an

SSA representative about a general matter. We did not, however, measure

the use of the automated services. Appendix I details the design and

execution of our tests.

As part of our work, we also visited 12 of the 30 local offices participating

in the demonstration project. At these offices we met with managers,

supervisors, and staff using the new equipment to discuss its effect on

daily operations and any public reaction. We also met with SSA personnel

responsible for conducting internal evaluations of the project. We

reviewed documents about study objectives and SSA strategies to achieve

those objectives. We began this assignment in January 1995 and completed

our analysis in December 1995. This assignment was performed in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief Telephone access (calls reaching an SSA employee either with the caller

spending no time on hold or less than 2 minutes on hold) under one of the

configurations being tested by SSA showed an improvement of

2

“Automated service options” refers to question-and-answer voice mail features. Callers who choose

this option hear prerecorded questions that solicit basic information such as their name, address, and

Social Security number. Responses to these questions are recorded so that SSA can later take

appropriate action to fulfill service requests.

3

For test purposes, we selected the eight busiest telephone-call days within a 1-month period.

Therefore, our results are not comparable with those from our prior report on local office busy-signal

rates, which reported an average busy-signal rate over a 1-month period.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

23 percentage points. In addition, busy-signal rates dropped by more than

55 percentage points; however, because staffing did not increase, many

callers reaching SSA spent some time on hold before speaking with an SSA

representative. SSA field office staff also perceived the installation of voice

mail equipment at their desks as having a very positive effect on office

efficiency and public service.

SSA has initiated two internal evaluations of the demonstration project.

Neither SSA’s study of the new equipment’s effect on local operations nor

its study of public reaction to the new equipment, however, was

completed as of early February 1996.

Our work suggests that the technology tested in the demonstration project

has the potential to further SSA’s public service goals. However, public

reaction and the effect on operations will need to be factored in as SSA

assesses the costs and contributions of this technology to meeting these

goals.

Background For many years, the Congress has expressed concerns about the public’s

telephone access to SSA. Efforts to improve this access have resulted in a

dual system of telephone service (a nationwide 800 number and local

office service at more than 800 of SSA’s field offices) and also led to the

current demonstration project.

Telephone Service at SSA In 1989, SSA established a nationwide toll-free 800 number to replace its

local office telephone service. With the implementation of this service, SSA

directed its local offices to remove their general inquiry telephone

numbers from local phone directories. In their place, the offices listed the

new toll-free 800 number.

In establishing this toll-free network, SSA intended to provide all of its

customers with equal and toll-free access to program services. SSA

envisioned that the public would call the 800 number with basic questions

about the program, when reporting changes in benefit status, with

problems or concerns specific to Social Security records, or to make

appointments with local field office staff. The public could continue to

contact local office staff when necessary by requesting the unpublished

telephone number for any office from SSA’s 800 number staff.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

The establishment of a national toll-free telephone network was planned

to facilitate an agencywide 20-percent staff reduction that occurred

between 1985 and 1990. By transferring a large workload from its field

offices to the 800 number, SSA hoped the downsized offices would be

better able to conduct nontelephone business.

SSA had start-up problems when the 800 number went on-line nationwide.

It had underestimated the volume of calls that would be made to the 800

number and was not able to staff the service adequately, especially when

call volumes were heaviest. High busy-signal rates made it difficult for the

public to reach SSA, generating complaints to SSA and to the Congress.

In response, SSA took several steps to expand its capacity to handle the

volume of 800 number calls. These included actions to increase staff

devoted to handling calls during the heaviest calling periods, converting

additional facilities to 800 number phone centers, and increasing the

number of telephone lines devoted to 800 number calls. Even with these

actions, busy-signal rates remained high because the number of calls

placed to the 800 number continued to grow rapidly. For example, in 1990,

callers placed 85 million calls to SSA, and the overall busy-signal rate was

34 percent. In 1994, callers placed almost 117 million calls to the 800

number, and the overall busy-signal rate grew to about 45 percent.

During the start-up of the 800 number, these problems concerned the

Congress so much that, in 1990, it required SSA to restore telephone access

to local offices. As a result, SSA reinstated direct local telephone service to

about 830 of its more than 1,300 local offices by publishing their telephone

numbers in local directories in addition to the 800 number. However, the

Congress did not provide any additional resources for SSA to either

purchase telephone equipment or increase staff to handle the reinstated

workload.

Because it had fewer field office staff due to its downsizing in the late

1980s, SSA chose to implement the local office telephone service with a

minimum number of telephone lines and staff. In June 1992, the House

Committee on Ways and Means asked us to evaluate the public’s ability to

access local offices that offered local phone service. In March 1993, we

reported that the busy-signal rate at local offices averaged 47.3 percent

during the month tested.4

 In October 1993, SSA advised the Congress about

4

Social Security: Telephone Busy Signal Rates at Local SSA Field Offices (GAO/HRD 93-49, Mar. 4,

1993).

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

its plans to conduct a demonstration project to enhance local office

operations and perhaps improve telephone access to its local offices.

Telephone Demonstration

Project: Design and

Installation

To improve the public’s telephone access to its local offices, SSA is

conducting a demonstration project to test telephone equipment known as

automated attendant and voice mail. SSA’s demonstration project involves

30 of its field offices and three different configurations of the automated

attendant and voice mail equipment (referred to as methods A, B, and C in

this report). SSA wanted local offices from each of its 10 regions involved

in the project, and it allowed the regions to select these offices on the

basis of the type of telephone equipment they were already using and their

willingness to participate in the project.5

Each method being tested in the demonstration project represents a

different configuration of equipment. In method A offices, SSA added

automated attendant and question-and-answer mail boxes to its general

inquiry lines. In addition, it added voice mail to staff member extensions.

A caller to method A offices hears a recorded greeting that identifies the

agency, office hours, and address. This basic information answers caller

questions in many cases. Callers seeking other types of assistance have

other options:

• Callers may press the extension number of a particular employee with

whom they may be working on a claim or other matter.

• If not already working with an SSA representative, callers may also select

an automated service menu for routine matters such as reporting changes

in address, making an appointment to file for benefits, or requesting an

original or duplicate Social Security card. These services are provided

without direct staff intervention through the use of question-and-answer

voice mail messages.

• Finally, if callers wish to speak to an SSA representative, they can choose

to hold the line until one becomes available.

Method B offices operate the same way as method A offices except that

one additional feature is available. Method B offices have an additional

general inquiry telephone line to play a message that advises callers that

all available lines are busy. This message also states that the caller should

either call at a later time or may call SSA’s toll-free 800 number. Callers are

5

The selection of offices to participate in the demonstration project was not done randomly.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

only connected to this line when all the other general inquiry lines are

already in use.

For the demonstration, method C offices do not have any additional

telephone lines, automated attendant, or the related question-and-answer

mailboxes on their general inquiry lines. They have only voice mail

capability at the desks of staff members.

The underlying objective of the demonstration project is to improve the

public’s access by making more telephone lines available to handle phone

calls at local offices. The demonstration project equipment configurations

have also extended service hours for method A and B offices because,

with automated attendant, after-hours calls can be answered and callers

can leave voice mail messages.

Most method A and B offices received additional general inquiry telephone

lines when SSA installed the new equipment in their offices. Local

managers in some participating offices, however, did not want additional

lines because they believed that they could not handle additional

telephone calls without increased staffing. Table 1 shows each method A

and B office and the number of general inquiry lines each had before and

after equipment was installed for the demonstration project. As shown,

five method A and eight method B offices received at least one additional

general inquiry line.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

Table 1: List of Method A and B Office

General Inquiry Line

Increases—Before and After

Equipment Installation for

Demonstration Project Office name

General

inquiry

lines

before

General

inquiry

lines after

Method A

American River, Cal. 2 2

Manchester, N.H. 2 2

Flatbush, N.Y. 3 3

Newport News, Va. 2 3

Knoxville, Tenn. 3 13

Las Vegas, Nev. 10 15

Harlingen, Tex. 1 4

Sioux City, Ia. 2 4

Cheyenne, Wyo. 3 3

Oakland, Cal. 4 4

Method B

Pocatello, Ida. 1 3

Attleboro, Mass. 1 5

Albany, N.Y. 2 3

Petersburg, Va. 2 4

Asheville, N.C. 4 5

West Indianapolis, Ind. 2 5

El Dorado, Ark. 2 6

Norfolk, Neb. 3 3

Stockton, Cal. 4 5

Telephone Access Has

Improved, but More

Calls Are Being

Placed on Hold

We found statistically significant improvement in access under method B,

while method A showed no statistically significant change in access.

Under method B, busy-signal rates dropped greatly, but more calls were

being placed on hold. Because method C did not involve any change to the

general inquiry lines, we did not consider its effect on access to the local

lines.

When examining how telephone access changed by the individual offices

in the demonstration, we found mixed results among both methods A and

B. We also found that SSA staff in the demonstration offices strongly

believe that the voice mail equipment on their desk phones enhanced

efficiency and public service.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

To measure changes in access for evaluation purposes, we grouped the

call outcomes into two categories: access and no access. We considered

access to consist of two call outcomes: calls in which we spoke to an SSA

employee without spending any time on hold and calls in which we were

on hold for less than 2 minutes before speaking to an SSA employee.6

 We

considered no access to consist of five different call outcomes: busy

signals, no answer after the phone rang 10 times, recorded messages

directing us to call at a later time, calls that were disconnected before we

had a chance to speak with an SSA representative, and all calls in which we

were placed on hold for more than 2 minutes.

We selected 2 minutes as the time we would wait on hold before hanging

up because we thought it was a reasonable expectation. In addition, our

definition is consistent with information SSA obtained from a survey of its

clients. In July 1994, SSA reported that 90 percent of the respondents who

used the 800 number said that being on hold for no more than 2.3 minutes

would be good service.

More Calls Have Reached

SSA at Method B Offices

Table 2 compares how telephone access changed with the installation of

new equipment at method A and B offices. It shows that method B offices

had an improvement of 23 percentage points in the calls reaching SSA and

that this change was large enough to be statistically significant. The

method A configuration did not produce a statistically significant change

in access under our test.

6

This definition of access actually encompasses other possible call outcomes that occur under the

demonstration: callers who connect but hang up after hearing the greeting, callers who dial the

extension of an SSA staff member they know, and callers who connect and select the option to use the

automated services. Because the system being tested requires callers to make a choice in service

options, it was not possible to measure the occurrence of these individual events.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

Table 2: Changes in Telephone Access

Under Methods A and B Before and

After Equipment Installation for

Demonstration Project

In percent

Call outcome Before After

Change

(after

minus

before)

Method A

Access 22.1 27.2 5.1

No access 77.9 72.8 (5.1)

Method B

Access 23.5 46.5 23.0a

No access 76.5 53.5 (23.0)a

aIndicates that the change is statistically significant. This means that we are 95 percent confident

that an actual change occurred and that it was in the direction indicated.

Examining the results of our analysis by call outcomes provides a better

understanding of the changes occurring under the demonstration project.

As shown in table 3, the installation of the new equipment and additional

telephone lines has resulted in a large drop in busy signals. After

installation, busy signals dropped at method B offices by 55.2 percentage

points. The large increase in the number of callers receiving the “call later

message” after installation of the new equipment probably accounts, in

part, for the drop in busy-signal rates.

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

Table 3: Call Outcomes Under Each

Tested Method by GAO’s Definition of

Access Before and After Equipment

Installation for Demonstration Project

Method A Method B

In percent

Call

outcome Before After

Change

(after

minus

before) Before After

Change

(after

minus

before)

Access

No time

spent on

hold 20.1 1.4 (18.7)a 21.5 9.4 (12.1)a

On hold

less

than 2

minutes 2.0 25.8 23.8a 1.9 37.1 35.2a

Subtotal 22.1 27.2 5.1 23.5b 46.5 23.0a,b

No access

Busy

signals 60.3 54.1 (6.2) 67.8 12.6 (55.2)a

No

answer

10 rings 12.2 (12.2)a 0.3 0.6 0.3

Call later

message 2.3 (2.3) 6.4 23.9 17.5a

Disconnected 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0

On hold

more

than 2

minutes 3.1 17.3 14.2a 1.9 15.5 13.6a

Subtotal 77.9 72.8 (5.1) 76.5 53.5 (23.0)a,b

aIndicates that the change is statistically significant. This means that we are 95 percent confident

an actual change occurred and that it was in the direction indicated.

bDoes not add because of rounding.

The other substantial change shown in table 3 relates to calls placed on

hold. The table shows two categories for calls placed on hold: on hold less

than 2 minutes and on hold more than 2 minutes. The percent of calls in

both of these categories increased greatly under the demonstration. With

newer equipment, more telephone lines, and a constant level of staff

assigned to answer these calls, the additional calls reaching SSA are being

placed on hold until staff can answer them.

Examining how access changed at each office within methods A and B

showed mixed results. For example, tables 4 and 5 show that 3 of the 10

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

method A offices and 4 of the 9 method B offices showed statistically

significant improvement in access. However, five of the method A offices

and the five remaining method B offices showed no significant change in

access. Furthermore, two method A offices also showed statistically

significant declines in telephone access rates. Local factors such as call

volumes, the number of telephone lines available, and staffing issues may

account for the wide variation in access rates at the office level.

Table 4: Analysis of Changes in

Access Rate at Method A Offices

Before and After Equipment

Installation for Demonstration Project

In percent

Method A office

Access

rate before

Access

rate after

Change

(after

minus

before)

American River, Cal. 0.0 0.0 0.0

Manchester, N.H. 71.9 21.9 (50.0)a

Flatbush, N.Y. 6.1 3.0 (3.1)

Newport News, Va. 2.9 2.9 0.0

Knoxville, Tenn. 6.7 43.3 36.6a

Las Vegas, Nev. 0.0 2.6 2.6

Harlingen, Tex. 21.1 52.6 31.5a

Sioux City, Ia. 47.5 65.0 17.5

Cheyenne, Wyo. 33.3 61.5 28.2a

Oakland, Cal. 33.3 10.0 (23.3)a

Aggregate total 22.1 27.2 5.1

aIndicates that the change is statistically significant. This means that we are 95 percent confident

that an actual change occurred and that it was in the direction indicated.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

Table 5: Analysis of Changes in

Access Rate at Method B Offices

Before and After Equipment

Installation for Demonstration Project

In percent

Method B office

Access

rate before

Access

rate after

Change

(after

minus

before)

Pocatello, Ida. 21.1 78.9 57.8a

Attleboro, Mass. 9.4 6.3 (3.1)

Albany, N.Y. 12.1 57.6 45.5a

Petersburg, Va. 0.0 48.6 48.6a

Asheville, N.C. 0.0 20.0 20.0a

West Indianapolis, Ind. 60.0 73.5 13.5

El Dorado, Ark. 31.6 36.8 5.2

Norfolk, Neb. 60.0 70.0 10.0

Stockton, Cal. 3.3 10.0 6.7

Aggregate total 23.5 46.5 23.0a

aIndicates that the change is statistically significant. This means that we are 95 percent confident

that an actual change occurred and that it was in the direction indicated.

We recognize that a caller placed on hold (rather than receiving a busy

signal) can be considered successful access to SSA. In fact, SSA considers

access to its 800 number successful when a caller is connected to SSA

regardless of whether the caller has spoken with a representative, heard a

recorded message, spent a long period of time on hold, or hung up while

on hold. Analyzing our data using this broader interpretation of access, we

found that statistically significant improvement occurred under both

methods A and B. These results are shown in table 6.

Table 6: Changes in Telephone Access

Under Methods A and B When All Calls

Placed on Hold Are Considered

Successful Access to an SSA

Representative

In percent

Call outcome Before After

Change

(after

minus

before)

Method A

Access 25.2 44.5 19.3a

No access 74.8 55.5 (19.3)a

Method B

Access 25.4 61.9 36.5a

No access 74.6 38.1 (36.5)a

aIndicates that the change is statistically significant. This means that we are 95 percent confident

that an actual change occurred and that it was in the direction indicated.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

Using this definition of access, on an office level, we noted additional

improvements. Among method A offices, significant improvement in

access occurred in 1 more office—4 of the 10 offices instead of 3 of the 10

offices improved. Among method B offices, significant improvement in

access occurred in three additional offices—seven of the nine method B

offices improved instead of four of the nine offices.

Voice Mail Equipment Has

Improved Office Efficiency

and Public Service

Staff at all demonstration offices had voice mail installed on their desk

telephones. We visited 12 of the 30 demonstration offices and met with

office managers and staff using the new equipment. Overall, we heard

almost universal praise about how the voice mail feature improved office

operations and enhanced customer service.

All 12 of the office managers we interviewed were enthusiastic about the

new equipment’s voice mail feature. Seven of the 12 managers told us that

the voice mail equipment increased their claims representatives’

efficiency. Other managers told us that the voice mail equipment added

flexibility to their offices and improved customer service. Finally, all of

these managers told us that feedback they have received from the public

about the new voice mail equipment has been positive.

We also interviewed 71 staff members who use the voice mail equipment.

Most of these staff members told us that the new equipment has improved

service to the public by making it easier to reach SSA. They said that when

a caller tries to reach a specific SSA representative who is not at his or her

desk, the caller can leave a message on the staff person’s voice mail.

Furthermore, many of the staff members we interviewed told us that voice

mail has enabled them to manage their workload better and has increased

their productivity. Some of these staff also told us that they no longer

worry about losing messages or receiving inaccurately recorded messages.

Others said that with voice mail, callers can leave messages and

information needed for processing a claim. This eliminates the need for

repeated calls between SSA and the public, speeding up the claims process.

SSA’s Internal

Evaluations of the

Demonstration

Project

Two separate SSA organizational entities are evaluating the telephone

demonstration project. SSA’s Office of Workforce Analysis (OWA) is

evaluating the equipment’s effect on office productivity and employee

reactions. The Office of Program Integrity Reviews (OPIR) is evaluating

public reaction to the equipment. Neither SSA study had been finished as of

early February 1996.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

OWA Study: Objectives and

Methodology

OWA’s study has two basic objectives, determining the equipment’s effect

on productivity levels and identifying employee experiences and reactions

to using the equipment. To measure the new equipment’s effect on

productivity, OWA planned to gather and compare certain data. For

example, OWA planned to examine how busy-signal rates and call volumes

have changed using data obtained from the telephone companies servicing

the demonstration offices. OWA also planned to measure the amount of

work generated by callers using the automated services option (reporting

address changes or missing checks). It has directed local offices to

prepare weekly reports on the number of callers using these services.

To examine employee reactions, OWA has planned to have field office

managers and staff who answer the telephones fill out a short

questionnaire. The questionnaire is soliciting information about how well

the system has performed and respondents’ views on ease of use and

training adequacy.

OPIR Study: Objectives

and Methodology

To obtain information about the public’s reaction to the new equipment,

OPIR planned to install caller ID equipment at 19 of the 30 demonstration

offices. Offices with caller ID are to record the phone numbers on certain

dates. OPIR prepared several different questionnaires for its staff to use

when contacting callers. OPIR planned to contact 1,500 callers, 500 for each

equipment configuration but has encountered complications. Its report is

to be finished in February 1996.

Conclusions Overall, the addition of new equipment and telephone lines has

demonstrated that access to SSA offices can be improved. Even if SSA does

not devote additional staff to answering telephones in local offices, this

technology may help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the

agency’s service to the public. To fully evaluate whether to install the

demonstration phone equipment in other locations, however, an important

consideration for SSA will be the public’s and SSA employees’ views along

with the equipment’s relative costs and contributions to meeting SSA’s

public service goals.

Agency Comments SSA commented on a draft of this report in a letter dated January 29, 1996

(see app. II). SSA agreed with our findings that enhanced technology has

increased the public’s telephone access to field offices. It also agreed with

our view that a full evaluation of productivity issues and employee

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
B-260584 

acceptance of and public reaction to the new equipment is needed before

installation of this equipment across the board. SSA noted that its internal

studies on these issues will be completed by the end of February 1996.

Copies of this report are being sent today to SSA and parties interested in

Social Security matters. Copies will be made available to others upon

request. If you have any further questions, please contact me on

(202) 512-7215. GAO contacts and staff who prepared this report are listed

in appendix III.

Jane L. Ross

Director, Income Security Issues

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

18

Sampling Procedure 19

Adjustments to Our Sampling Plans 20

Questionnaire 22

Appendix II 

Comments From the

Social Security

Administration

23

Appendix III 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

25

Tables Table 1: List of Method A and B Office General Inquiry Line

Increases—Before and After Equipment Installation for

Demonstration Project

7

 Table 2: Changes in Telephone Access Under Methods A and B

Before and After Equipment Installation for Demonstration

Project

9

Table 3: Call Outcomes Under Each Tested Method by GAO’s

Definition of Access Before and After Equipment Installation for

Demonstration Project

10

Table 4: Analysis of Changes in Access Rate at Method A Offices

Before and After Equipment Installation for Demonstration

Project

11

Table 5: Analysis of Changes in Access Rate at Method B Offices

Before and After Equipment Installation for Demonstration

Project

12

Table 6: Changes in Telephone Access Under Methods A and B

When All Calls Placed on Hold Are Considered Successful Access

to an SSA Representative

12

Table I.1: SSA Offices Participating in the Demonstration Project

by Method

18

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
Contents

Table I.2: Adjustments to SSA Offices Participating in the

Demonstration Project by Method

21

Abbreviations

OPIR Office of Program Integrity Reviews

OWA Office of Workforce Analysis

SSA Social Security Administration

SSI Supplemental Security Income

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objective of our review was to determine if the installation of the new

telephone equipment has improved the public’s access to the participating

offices in SSA’s demonstration project. To do this, we placed phone calls to

offices before and after installation of the new equipment being tested and

recorded outcomes of these calls (busy signal, placed on hold, and the

like). From these outcomes, we then calculated access rates.

As noted earlier in this report, SSA installed two types of new equipment at

30 field offices: automated attendant and voice mail. The equipment was

installed in three different configurations. We labeled these configurations

methods A, B, and C. SSA designated 10 offices to test each method. Table

I.1 shows these office locations.

Table I.1: SSA Offices Participating in the Demonstration Project by Method

Method A Method B Method C

Manchester, N.H. Attleboro, Mass. Bangor, Me.

Flatbush, N.Y. Albany, N.Y. Geneva, N.Y.

Newport News, Va. Petersburg, Va. Reading, Penn.

Knoxville, Tenn. Asheville, N.C. Charleston, S.C.

St. Paul, Minn. West Indianapolis, Ind. Cedartown, Ga.

Harlingen, Tex. El Dorado, Ark. Champaign, Ill.

Sioux City, Ia. Norfolk, Neb. Oklahoma City, Okla.

Cheyenne, Wyo. Murray, Utah Roswell, N.M.

Oakland, Cal. (D/T) Stockton, Cal. Winfield, Kans.

American River, Cal. Pocatello, Ida. Las Vegas, Nev.

We conducted the preinstallation phase of the test from mid-January

through the end of February 1995, placing our calls on what we believed to

be the 8 busiest days during that period. We reasoned that the best way to

measure changes in phone access was to test performance on the busiest

calling days rather than on average calling days.

To identify the busiest calling days, we used information on telephone call

volume to the 800 number during the same period in 1994. SSA has

information that tracks the busy-signal rate for the 800 number. Using

these data, we identified the 8 busiest days from mid-January through the

end of February in 1994. We chose this period because SSA began

installation of the new equipment at the 30 offices during the last week of

February 1995.

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The busiest days tended to be Mondays, Fridays, the third of the month

(when Social Security checks are normally delivered), and the day after a

holiday. The exact days we chose for study were January 17 and 30 and

February 1, 3, 6, 7, 21, and 27.

SSA had planned to complete installation of the phone service by

June 1995. However, it encountered several installation problems. By late

July, only one office did not yet have the equipment installed. We decided

to give the field offices some time to become acquainted with the

equipment. By using the 1994 call log for SSA’s 800 number, we selected the

following 8 days on which to conduct the postinstallation phase calls:

August 22, 29, and 30 and September 5, 6, 8, 11, and 13.

Sampling Procedure We designed the test using statistical sampling principles so that calls

would be randomly distributed throughout the day and across the 30 SSA

offices during each of the two 8-day test periods. To provide an adequate

level of precision for our estimates of the busy-signal rates, we made 350

preinstallation calls and 350 postinstallation calls for each of the three

methods being tested.

To determine the time of the calls, we divided the workday into 28

15-minute segments (beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 4 p.m.). This

created 224 time periods over the 8-day test period (8 days times 28 time

periods per day). Since 10 locations could be called during each of the 224

time periods, we had a total of 2,240 possible time/location combinations,

with each representing a possible telephone call.

We numbered these combinations 1 through 2,240, with number 1 assigned

to the combination of the first location and the first time period (9:00 to

9:15 a.m.) of the first of the 8 days, and number 2,240 assigned to the

combination of the tenth location and the last time period (3:45 to 4:00

p.m.) on the eighth day. We then picked at random 350 of the numbers

from 1 to 2,240. For each number picked, we looked up the corresponding

time/location combination that had been assigned that number and placed

a telephone call at that time to that location.

For example, one of the random numbers we picked was 572. We had

assigned that number to location number 2 during the 9:15 to 9:30 a.m.

period on the third day. As shown in table I.1, location number 2 for

method A is the Flatbush office. Therefore, we placed a call to Flatbush

during the 9:15 to 9:30 a.m. period on the third day. We also placed calls

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

during the same period on the same day to the Albany and Geneva offices,

locations number 2 under methods B and C.

For the postinstallation period, we placed an identical set of calls, in time

and location, to those placed to estimate the busy-signal rates before

installation of the new equipment. For example, since we had picked the

number 572 we again placed calls to the Flatbush, Albany, and Geneva

offices during the 9:15 to 9:30 a.m. period on the third day of our

postinstallation test.

We used the same set of 350 random numbers for both our pre- and

postinstallation tests of the equipment to make our comparisons of

changes in the three methods’ access rates as fair as possible. By placing

the preinstallation test calls on the same days and at the same times to

each of the three groups of 10 locations, we hoped to minimize the effect

on our estimates of variation among locations in the volume of calls

received on particular days or during particular hours. Similarly, by

placing our postinstallation test calls to the same locations and at the same

times as those of our preinstallation test calls, we attempted to minimize

the effect of variation among locations in the general call volume between

the mid-January through February period and the period of our

postinstallation test in August and September.

Adjustments to Our

Sampling Plans

Several events arose during our analysis that necessitated adjusting the

data for study purposes. Table I.2 summarizes these adjustments.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Table I.2: Adjustments to SSA Offices Participating in the Demonstration Project by Method

Method A Method B Method C

Manchester, N.H. Attleboro, Mass. Bangor, Me.a

Flatbush, N.Y. Albany, N.Y. Geneva, N.Y.

Newport News, Va. Petersburg, Va. Reading, Penn.

Knoxville, Tenn. Asheville, N.C. Charleston, W.Va.

St. Paul, Minn.a West Indianapolis, Ind. Cedartown, Ga.

Harlingen, Tex. El Dorado, Ark. Champaign, Ill.

Sioux City, Ia. Norfolk, Neb. Oklahoma City, Okla.

Cheyenne, Wyo. Murray, Utaha Roswell, N.M.

Oakland, Cal. (D/T) Stockton, Cal. Winfield, Kans.

American River, Cal. Pocatello, Ida. Las Vegas, Nev.a

aAffected demonstration office.

Due to unforeseen events, we could not complete our comparison exactly

as planned. Some of the field offices had to be dropped from the study or

moved to another method.

SSA did not install new equipment in the St. Paul or Bangor field offices as

had been planned. Therefore, we excluded St. Paul and Bangor from our

study. We also discovered that the phone number we had used in the first

phase of the study for the Murray field office was incorrect so we

excluded this office from our analysis. Finally, the Las Vegas field office,

which was to receive equipment for method C, instead received the

equipment for method A. These adjustments resulted in 10 field offices

using method A, 9 field offices using method B, and 8 field offices using

method C in our analyses.

For each method, we estimated the proportion of times that the public

would have accessed SSA when calling the offices in the test during the 8

days on which we placed calls. Because our estimates—which apply only

to the 8 days on which we placed calls—are based on a limited number of

phone calls, each estimate has an associated sampling error. At the

95-percent confidence level, sampling errors for our estimates of access

rates under each method (both pre- and postinstallation) are about

5 percentage points. Sampling errors for our estimates of changes in

access rates under each method are about 7 percentage points. In many

instances, sampling errors for estimates of access rates at individual

offices are substantially higher.

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Questionnaire We designed a simple computer-assisted telephone interview to collect the

data on the outcome of each telephone call attempt. The information

collected included whether (1) we got a busy signal, (2) the phone rang

without being answered (we hung up after 10 rings), (3) a person

answered, (4) we were placed on hold (we waited 2 minutes before

hanging up), and (5) we were disconnected.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
Appendix II 

Comments From the Social Security

Administration

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
Appendix II 

Comments From the Social Security

Administration

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
Appendix III 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Roland H. Miller III, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7246

William J. Staab, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-6814

Staff

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made

important contributions to this report: Jim Wright and Jay Smale

developed our sample design and the computer-assisted interview

instrument used to record telephone call outcomes; Inez Azcona, and

Jeffrey Bernstein collected the data, visited local SSA offices and helped

prepare this report; Wayne Turowski and Steve Machlin did the computer

programming and analysis of data.

(105144) Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-70 Improving Phone Access at Field Offices
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100