F e d e r a l R e t i r e m e n t T h r i f t I n v e s t m e n t B o a r d

2020 Participant 

Satisfaction Survey
2

CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 3

Satisfaction With the TSP.................................................................................................................................. 5

Contributions ................................................................................................................................................... 13

Actions After Retirement or Separation............................................................................................................ 15

Communications Channels.............................................................................................................................. 17

ThriftLine ......................................................................................................................................................... 19

Annual Statement............................................................................................................................................ 20

Usefulness/Preference of Communications Channels ..................................................................................... 23

TSP Transactions............................................................................................................................................ 26

Desired TSP Options....................................................................................................................................... 28

Key Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 31

APPENDIX A: Methodology............................................................................................................................. 33

APPENDIX B: 2020 Active Participants Survey ............................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX C: 2020 Separated Participants Survey ........................................................................................ 46
3

Introduction

The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB), created by the Federal Employees' 

Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), a defined 

contribution plan similar to private sector 401(k) plans. The TSP provides Federal civilian employees 

and members of the Uniformed Services the opportunity to save for retirement security. As of May

2020, the TSP had over 6 million participants with approximately $632 billion in assets; the TSP is the 

largest defined contribution plan in the world.

The FRTIB's mission is to administer the TSP in the best interest of participants and beneficiaries. To 

meet its mission, it is important that the FRTIB has a clear understanding of participant satisfaction, 

expectations, perceptions of service, behaviors and preferences. The FRTIB selected Gallup to 

administer the 2020 and 2017 Participant Satisfaction surveys to build upon the participant surveys

from 2006-2013 and the 2019 Participant Behavior and Demographics Report.

Participants within the TSP fall under one of the four distinct Federal retirement systems. The TSP 

has approximately 3.9 million Active participants. Of those, approximately 2.69 million are covered 

under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), 43,000 are covered under the Civil Service 

Retirement System (CSRS), and 769,000 are Uniformed Services Legacy (US-Legacy) participants 

who do not receive matching contributions. In 2018, DOD implemented a new retirement system for 

Uniformed Service members known as the "Blended Retirement System" (BRS), where new service 

members are auto-enrolled into the plan and existing members with 12 or fewer years of service had 

the option of joining the plan. Both auto-enrolled and those opting into the BRS system receive 

matching contributions. Approximately 717,000 Active TSP participants are covered under the BRS.

Throughout the report, results are shown by retirement system subgroups, FERS, Uniformed 

Services [US-Legacy], and Blended Retirement System [BRS]. This marks a key difference from 

previous years' reports where results from the CSRS system participants were included. CSRS 

participants were not surveyed in 2020 because they are a small and rapidly declining population 

within the TSP. Throughout this report, references of a subgroup (e.g., system) being higher or lower 

than another group are noted only if the difference is statistically significant. See the full methodology 

report included in Appendix A for more detail.

FRTIB will use the 2020 results as a tool to assist in understanding the behaviors and perceptions of 

TSP participants to aid in strategic planning, focusing educational and communication materials, and 

initiating new plan features. The topics on the 2020 survey focused on satisfaction with the features of 

the plan. FRTIB plans to field a separate survey in Fall 2020 to capture the overall retirement and 

financial wellness of participants.

Methodology summary

On March 20, 2020, Gallup mailed a survey packet in a flat envelope that contained a cover letter and 

an eight-page color survey booklet asking participants to complete and return the survey to Gallup. All 

mail communications included the URL and access code for completing the survey online if desired.

On March 20, 2020, participants in the survey sample with an email address on record with the TSP

(63% of surveyed participants) also received an email invitation (in addition to the mail survey packet) 

to complete the survey.
4

The total of 5,016 returned surveys (paper and online) resulted in a raw response rate of 13.8%. 

When responses with unusable results were excluded, the final sample size was 4,963, for a 

response rate of 13.7%. The total sample was allocated optimally across different strata to ensure an 

adequate sample size for different groups and subgroups of interest to FRTIB. 

Retirement system Total sample size Number of 

completed surveys Response rate (%)

Total 36,253 4,963 13.7

FERS 16,230 3,549 21.9

US-Legacy 11,045 1,125 10.2

BRS 8,978 289 3.2

Data were weighted to correct for bias in the estimates caused by both intentional disproportionate 

sample and unintentional disproportional response rates, as well as to reflect the known population of 

TSP participants by retirement system, employment status, enrollment type and email availability.
5

Satisfaction With the TSP

87% of TSP participants are satisfied (51%) or extremely satisfied (36%) with the TSP Overall

Overall satisfaction with the TSP has dropped by two percentage points since the last survey in 2017.

However, the current 87% of participants who are at least satisfied with the TSP is consistent with 

earlier survey results (e.g., 2011 and 2013). Furthermore, 88% of Separated participants are satisfied 

with the TSP, while 86% of Active participants are satisfied. Between the different systems, FERS 

participants are the most satisfied with the TSP (90%), followed by the US-Legacy participants (81%) 

and, finally, the BRS participants (77%). 

The current decline from 2017 is largely attributable to the lower scores for the BRS and US-Legacy 

groups, with the biggest impact coming from the 77% satisfaction of the BRS group. While the BRS 

group had the lowest percentage of those who were extremely satisfied, they also had the largest 

percentage of those who were neutral regarding satisfaction with TSP (22%). The high neutral 

satisfaction sentiment provides an opportunity for educational outreach to the BRS group to 

emphasize the benefits of the plan offerings. Notably, within the FERS group, the percentage of those 

satisfied did not change from the last survey (90%); however, the number of participants who were 

extremely satisfied increased by 5 percentage points. 

FIGURE 1.

The dip in satisfaction may also be explained in part by the global pandemic's effect on the U.S. 

economy, as the survey was conducted during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic. On the 

one hand, third-party metrics such as the Dow Jones are highly correlated with satisfaction with the 

TSP (see Figure 2); that is, TSP satisfaction increases statistically along with increases in these 

external economic metrics.1 On the other hand, the TSP has remained relatively stable compared 

with those other market and consumer sentiment indexes. The Gallup Consumer Economic 

1 Pearson R correlations are above .6, which for non-inter-survey metrics is strong (https://www.statisticssolutions.com/pearsons-correlationcoefficient/#:~:text=Perfect%3A%20If%20the%20value%20is,to%20be%20a%20strong%20correlation). TSP satisfaction has the highest correlation with the Gallup 

Consumer Economic Confidence Score2 with a .81 correlation.

86% 87% 82% 87% 88% 84% 89% 87% 90% 90% 88%

77% 81%

Total FERS BRS US-Legacy

% Extremely Satisfied/Satisfied

How satisfied are you with the TSP overall?

2011

2013

2017

2020

38 45 26 33

Net

Promoter

Score:

Note: BRS is a new system as of 2018

35% 35% 31%

36% 40%

22%

30%

Extremely SatisfiedExtremely SatisfiedExtremely SatisfiedExtremely SatisfiedExtremely SatisfiedExtremely SatisfiedExtremely Satisfied
6

Confidence Score2 and Wells Fargo/Gallup Investor and Retirement Optimism Index3, the latter of 

which historically trends higher than the TSP satisfaction score, both dropped below TSP in 2020.

In addition, the TSP overall satisfaction scores compare favorably to recent industry benchmarks; a 

recent EBRI Retirement Confidence Survey4found that 83% of employees reported being satisfied 

with their retirement plan. EBRI survey respondents reported lower satisfaction than TSP 

respondents, despite the fact that the EBRI survey was conducted prior to the start of the pandemic in 

January 2020. 

5

FIGURE 2.

Correlation of Overall Satisfaction to 3rd Party Metrics

Pearson R Correlation Investor & Retirement Optimism 

Index

Consumer Economic Confidence 

Index Dow Jones Industrial Average

Overall Satisfaction With TSP .61 .81 .65

Note: higher coefficients indicate a stronger relationship between metrics

2

https://news.gallup.com/poll/308828/economic-confidence-shows-record-drop.aspx

3

https://news.gallup.com/poll/313328/covid-prompts-record-drop-investor-optimism.aspx

4

https://www.ebri.org/retirement/retirement-confidence-survey

5 A re-administration following the pandemic revealed that the overall satisfaction dropped by 7%

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Satisfaction With TSP Tracks National Economic and 

Investment Confidence 

Satisfied or extremely

satisfied with the TSP

overall

Wells Fargo/Gallup

Investor and

Retirement Optimism

Index (May of each

year)

Gallup Consumer

Economic Confidence

(April of each year)

Dow Jones (March of

each year)
7

Auto-enrolled participants are less satisfied overall with the TSP than are those who are not 

part of the auto-enroll program

During the period when the survey was administered, Federal employees were automatically enrolled 

in the TSP with a 3% contribution rate and Agency matching.6 Automatic enrollment was established 

for FERS participants in August 2010. With the establishment of the Blended Retirement System in 

January 2018, all new service members are automatically enrolled in the TSP. All auto-enrolled 

participants have an opt-out opportunity with a refund of their contributions. As of October 2020, both 

FERS and BRS participants are automatically enrolled with a 5% contribution rate.

Non-auto-enrolled participants have higher satisfaction than auto-enrolled participants across FRTIB 

overall and FERS. The small sample size among auto-enrolled BRS participants (only 45 

respondents) makes comparisons within BRS directional rather than statistical. Non-auto-enrolled 

FERS participants are more satisfied with the TSP (92%) than their BRS or US-Legacy counterparts 

(81% each).

FIGURE 3.

Participants' tenure, TSP balance and salary play a role in driving overall satisfaction with the 

TSP

Satisfaction with TSP generally increases with tenure, possibly driven by a participant’s nearness to 

retirement and an increase in the need for retirement planning, or because plan participation prior to 

2010 had to be actively chosen. Extreme satisfaction with TSP ranges from 29% among those with 

less than three years tenure to 48% of those employed 25+ years with the Federal government.

6 Starting in October 2020 new participants are auto enrolled at 5%

87%

71%

92%

81% 81%

FERS BRS US-Legacy

% Extremely Satisfied/Satisfied

How satisfied are you with the TSP overall?

Auto-Enroll

Not

Auto-Enroll

+Note: US-Legacy participants are not auto-enrolled.

* Small sample size, interpret with caution

704 2,845 43* 246 NA 1,125

NA+

n=
8

TSP balance quintiles and participant salaries7 also have strong relationships with overall satisfaction, 

though balances have a stronger correlation. Participants with higher TSP balances report higher 

satisfaction (ranging from 73% satisfaction in the lowest quintile to 95% in the highest). A similar, but 

slightly lesser, relationship is displayed with salary quintiles and overall satisfaction; those with higher 

salaries report higher satisfaction (ranging from 84% to 94% satisfaction). The stronger relationship 

based on TSP balances may be an indication that the increase in the auto-enroll contribution amount 

to 5% planned for participants enrolled after October 1, 2020, may help drive higher satisfaction, in 

addition to higher balances among participants in the long run (though auto-enroll participants are 

currently less satisfied with TSP).

Seven of eight participants would be at least somewhat likely to recommend TSP

In addition to asking how satisfied participants were, Gallup also asked them how likely they were to

recommend the TSP to a friend or eligible colleague. Overall, 52% of participants say they are 

extremely likely to recommend TSP to an eligible person, while an additional 33% would be likely to 

recommend TSP. FERS participants are most likely to recommend (57%), while slightly less than half 

of US-Legacy (44%) and BRS (45%) participants are extremely likely to recommend TSP. Autoenrolled participants (45%) are less likely to say they would recommend TSP than non-auto-enroll 

participants (62%), which may be a function of participant age and TSP balance, as likelihood to 

recommend increases with Federal employment tenure as well as participant age. 

This question allowed the calculation of a “Net Promoter Score” (NPS). NPS ranges between -100 to 

+100 and is calculated as the percent of promoters (i.e., those extremely likely to recommend) minus 

the percent of all detractors (i.e., those neutral or unlikely to recommend). When it comes to 

classifying NPS, the following guidelines are used: 0-30 indicates good performance, 30-70 indicates

great performance, and above 70 is considered world-class.

Overall, TSP received an NPS score of 38, which is 4 points higher than the average NPS score for 

the financial services industry. Across systems, FERS has the highest NPS score (45) while USLegacy and BRS are lower at 26 and 23, respectively. 

7 TSP balances and estimated salaries are based on information provided by FRTIB
9

FIGURE 4.

Factors affecting overall satisfaction with the TSP include flexibility of withdrawal options, 

investment options and participant account access

To help FRTIB understand the key drivers of participant satisfaction, Gallup undertook statistical 

analysis to identify which attributes of TSP interactions most influenced overall satisfaction. Gallup 

segmented FRTIB participants into two groups:

• Participants extremely satisfied with TSP overall

• Participants not extremely satisfied with TSP overall

Figure 5 shows the mean scores for these two participants groups on each of the potential 

transactional drivers with TSP. The larger the difference between the two groups, the greater the 

impact that the driver has on overall satisfaction. The analysis identified that overall satisfaction with 

the TSP is primarily driven by three key drivers:

• Flexibility of withdrawal options 

• Investment options

• Account access

The differential of mean scores for overall satisfaction is the largest between participants who are 

extremely satisfied (e.g., give a “5” rating) with these options and those who are not extremely 

satisfied (e.g., give ratings of 1-4). For example, the mean score8for overall satisfaction is 1.00 basis 

points higher for those who are extremely satisfied with the flexibility of the TSP withdrawal options 

website than those who are not extremely satisfied (4.45 vs. 3.45, respectively). Thus, perceptions of 

withdrawal flexibility have a large influence on overall satisfaction. Satisfaction is also highly driven by 

access to My Account and the variety of investment options (0.92 basis-point difference each). In 

8 Mean scores are used to derive drivers of satisfaction as they are less volatile than percentages.

12%

10%

13%

19%

33%

31%

37%

32%

52%

57%

44%

45%

Total

(n=4,974)

FERS

(n=3,351)

US Legacy

(n=1,129)

BRS

(n=294)

How likely are you to recommend TSP to a friend or associate who is eligible?

Extremely unlikely Unlikely Neither likely nor unlikely Likely Extremely likely

Note: Percentages shown when greater than 4%; may not total 100% due to rounding and "don't know" 

responses

*Net Promoter Score calculated as %5 (extremely likely) minus %1-%3 (not likely)

Net Promoter Score*

38

45

26

23
10

contrast, perceptions of the security of tsp.gov have less impact on overall TSP satisfaction as both 

those with strong perceptions and weak perceptions of security have high satisfaction with the TSP.

FIGURE 5.

Participants have relatively lower satisfaction in several of the service areas that most impact 

their decision to remain in the TSP and their overall satisfaction

While participants report improvement in the highly impactful flexibility of withdrawal options over 

2017 (primarily among FERS participants), it remains one of the lowest-rated service areas, with 67% 

of participants at least satisfied with the offering. Ability to take a loan from TSP and the variety of 

TSP investment options, the other two key drivers, also have relatively low satisfaction scores from 

participants, with only 72% and 76% respectively at least satisfied with the offering. 

These findings indicate that improvements in perceptions of the flexibility of withdrawal options, 

access to My Account and the variety of investment options will lead to the greatest improvements in 

perceptions of overall TSP satisfaction.

Participants are most satisfied with the security of their account on tsp.gov (89%) and their annual 

account statement (89%). 

Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction

Mean 

difference in 

satisfaction

(Ext. Sat.- Not 

Ext. Satisfied)

1.00 .92 .92 .88 .87 .85 .81 .80 .76

3.45

3.71 3.63 3.78 3.68

3.41 3.49

3.95 4.00

4.45 4.62 4.55 4.66 4.55

4.25 4.30

4.75 4.76

Flexibility of

withdrawal

options

Access to My

Account

Variety of

investment

options

TSP website

(tsp.gov)

Ability to take

loan (Active

participants)

Ability to

transfer out

of TSP

Ability to

transfer into

TSP

Annual

statement

Security of

tsp.gov

Not extremely satisfied w/TSP overall Extremely satisfied w/TSP overall

Primary Drivers (most influence) Secondary Drivers Tertiary Drivers
11

FIGURE 6.

Considering all aspects of your experience, how satisfied are you with each of the following: Net Satisfied

(Sat./Ext. Sat.)

**Indicate top drivers of satisfaction 2020

(n=4,974)

2017

(n=6,663)

Overall The Thrift Savings Plan overall 87%↓ 90% Investments/Withdrawals

Security of your account on tsp.gov 89% 87%

Variety of offered investments** 76%** 77%

Ability to take a loan from TSP account 

(among Active participants) ** 72%↓** 75%

Flexibility of withdrawal options** 67%↑** 62%

Ability to transfer money from IRA/other 

eligible retirement plan into TSP 63% 64%

Ability to transfer money out of the TSP 

into IRA/other eligible retirement plans 58% NA

Communication

Annual account statement 89% 89%

Plan Information on TSP website 

(tsp.gov)** 80%** 83%

Access to My Account** 84%** 81%

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017; Percentages shown when greater than 4%

FERS participants are generally more satisfied with the TSP offerings

When comparing the different TSP service areas at a system level, participants in the BRS and USLegacy groups generally had lower satisfaction scores than those in FERS. FERS participants’

ratings of the flexibility of withdrawal options, ability to take a loan, and, to a lesser extent, access to 

My Account, were higher than both BRS and US-Legacy participants.

FERS participants saw improvements over 2017 in the security of their accounts and flexibility of 

withdrawal options driving the overall TSP increases. US-Legacy participants report lower satisfaction 

with the variety of offered investments and the ability to transfer eligible retirement funds into the TSP 

but note improvements in access to My Account and security of tsp.gov.

51%

48%

48%

41%

40%

41%

37%

51%

54%

47%

36%

41%

28%

32%

26%

22%

21%

38%

30%

33%

Satisfied Extremely Satisfied
12

FIGURE 7.

Considering all aspects of your experience, how satisfied are you with each of the following:

2020

Total

(n=4,963)

2017

Total

(6,582)

FERS

(n=3,549)

BRS

(n=289)

USLegacy

(n=1,125)

% Satisfied/Extremely Satisfied

The Thrift Savings Plan Overall 87%↓

90% 90% 77% 81%

Security of your account on tsp.gov 89%↑ 87% 90%↑ 82% 91%

Variety of offered investments 76% 77% 78% 76% 73%↓

Ability to take a loan from TSP account 

(Among Active participants) 72%↓ 75% 76% 59% 68%

Flexibility of withdrawal options 67%↑ 62% 78%↑ 56% 55%

Ability to transfer money from IRA/other 

eligible retirement plan into the TSP 63% 64% 64% 67% 59%↓

Ability to transfer money out of the TSP 

into IRA/other eligible retirement plan 58% NA 55% 69% 58%

Annual account statement 89% 89% 91% 81% 89%

Access to My Account 80% 81% 85% 63% 75%↑

TSP website (tsp.gov) 84% 83% 87% 76% 81%↑

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017

Active and Separated participant satisfaction is similar

While there is not a significant difference between Active (86%) and Separated (88%) participants in 

overall satisfaction, there are several minor differences at the service area level. Separated 

participants are slightly less satisfied with both the ability to transfer money from an IRA/other eligible 

retirement plan into the TSP and the ability to transfer money of out the TSP into an IRA/other eligible 

retirement plan. However, the Separated participants are more satisfied with the flexibility of 

withdrawal options provided by the TSP. Finally, there were no meaningful differences between 

satisfaction based upon auto-enroll status.
13

Contributions

More than three-fourths of participants contribute at least 5% of their basic pay to the TSP

Similar to the results from the 2017 survey administration, three of four Active participants report 

contributing at least 5% of their basic pay to the TSP. However, since 2017, there has been a 

4percentage point increase in those not contributing at all to the TSP — now at 11%. This decline in 

participation can be attributed to a 30% increase in US-Legacy participants who are not contributing 

to the TSP. Conversely, the FERS participation rate has increased since the 2017 survey — growing 

from 89.8% to 93.3%. Overall, the TSP contribution participation rate does well in comparison with

the industry. As reported by the 2019 Sponsor Council of America survey, the country's average 

participation rate in 401(k) retirement programs is only 84.9%. Notably, participants who contribute 

more than 5% are most satisfied with TSP. Specifically, 39% of participants who contribute more than 

5% are extremely satisfied with the TSP compared with 28% of those contributing lower amounts.

Participants who are part of the auto-enroll program are most likely to contribute just 5% of their basic 

pay (37%), while non-auto-enroll participants are most likely to contribute more than 5% of their basic 

pay (60%).

FIGURE 8.

Contribution Amount to TSP

Self-reported among Active participants

2020

Total

(n=3,058)

2017

Total

(n=3,664)

FERS

(n=2,279)

BRS

(n=258)

US-Legacy

(n=521)

Not contributing 11%↑ 7% 4%↓ 6% 38%↑

< 5% basic pay 8% 12% 9% 8% 6%

5% of basic pay 27% 25% 29% 30% 16%

> 5% of basic pay 50%↓ 53% 55%↑ 46% 38%↓

Unsure of amount 5% 2% 4% 9% 3%

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017

Affordability and inertia are the top reasons for contributing less than 5% of basic pay 

While the composition of the participant population for this survey administration has changed (i.e., 

the removal of CSRS participants — who are longer-tenured, closer to retirement, and thus will likely 

need TSP in the nearer term — and the addition of BRS who are younger, earlier in their careers and 

mostly auto-enrolled), the majority of those contributing less than 5% of basic pay still say they can't 

afford to save that much. This reason has dropped since 2017 (53% to 47%), particularly among 

FERS participants (52% from 60%). The second-most prevalent reason cited by participants (26%) is 

inertia — in other words, they did not change their contribution percent since initial enrollment.
14

FIGURE 9.

Inertia, not affordability, drives a low contribution rate (<5% of basic pay) for lower earners

The high inertia among low earners/contributes suggests that participants may not opt-out of the TSP

when FRTIB increases the default contributions in October to 5% of basic pay. Further indicative of 

this are the results from the 2019 PLANSPONSOR Defined Contribution Benchmark survey9, in 

which 28% of plan participants said they accepted the default deferral rate.

There were no significant differences in reasons for low contribution by age or auto-enrollment status

FIGURE 10.

Why are you currently contributing less than 5%?

Active participants who do not contribute at least 5%

Reason for contributing less than 5% By Household Income

Total

(n=216)

<$60,000

(n=41*)

$60,000-

<$100,000

(n=80)

>$100,000

(n=88)

Currently cannot afford to save that much 47%↓ 30% 55% 54%

Never changed from original enrollment amount 26% 41% 24% 20%

Use other investments outside the TSP 13% 17% 5% 18%

Didn't know agency matched 5% 10%↓ 7% 12% 3%

Other 9% 10% 10% 6%

Don't need to contribute that much to meet retirement goals 4%↓ 0% 5% 6%

The process to change your contributions is too difficult 4% 1% 5% 6%

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017; * small sample size, interpret with caution

9 https://www.plansponsor.com/research/2019-dc-survey-plan-benchmarking/#Introduction

11%

14%

17%

11%

53%

4%↓

4%

9%

10%↓

13%

26%

47%↓

Don't need to contribute that much

to meet retirement goals

The process to change your

contributions is too difficult

Other

Didn't know your agency contributed

a matching 5% if you contributed 5%

Use other investments outside the

TSP

 Never changed from the amount or

percentage when originally enrolled

Currently cannot afford to save that

much

Please explain why you are currently contributing less than 5% of your basic pay?

Active participants who do not contribute at least 5% 

(2020 n=216; 2017 n=389)

2020

2017

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017

FERS

(n=143)

52%↓

6%

8%

9%

28%

3%

2%

NA
15

Actions After Retirement or Separation

About 1/3 of Separated, not yet retired, participants will withdraw immediately

Upon retirement, 28% of Separated participants plan to start withdrawals. Among participants, the 

FERS population is most likely to withdraw upon retirement (30%). Of all participants who plan to 

withdraw, the majority plan to use the funds to pay for living expenses (35%). Participants plan to use 

the TSP withdrawals in a variety of ways, including living expenses, housing needs and debt 

management. About a quarter (24%) of participants plan to invest the withdrawn funds elsewhere,

and 16% plan to transfer to another account or IRA. 

FIGURE 11.

Nearly one-third of Active participants have plans to transfer their money out of the TSP

Among Active participants, 31% plan to transfer their money out of the TSP after leaving Federal 

service, with the BRS group more likely to make a transfer after retirement (43%) (See Figure 12).

Better/More investment choices (75%) and consolidation of retirement accounts (77%) are the top 

reasons for transferring money from the TSP after leaving Federal service. In 2017, more “flexible 

withdrawal options” was the top-cited reason by participants who planned to transfer. This provides 

some evidence that the enhanced withdrawal options that were implemented in September 2019 will 

help better meeting participant withdrawal needs.

Further, a relatively high percentage (40%) of those planning to transfer from the TSP note they 

would do so due to lower fees. This is surprising because TSP fees remain among the very lowest in 

the Defined Contribution plan industry.

6%

7%

16%

16%

19%

22%

22%

24%

35%

Roll other assets into TSP

Pay college tuition, student loans

Take a vacation

Transfer to another account/IRA

Pay down other debt

Buy a home/pay off a mortgage

Nothing/allow it to accrue

Invest the money elsewhere

Pay living expenses

What are you going to do with withdraw money after retirement? 

Among 169 Separated Participants

(Multiple responses allowed)

28% 30%

26% 24%

Total

(n=651)

FERS

(n=208)

US-Legacy

(n=413)

BRS

(n=30*)

% Yes

Plan to Withdraw From TSP Immediately 

After Retirement

(Separated/Not Retired)

*Very small sample size, interpret with caution
16

FIGURE 12.

38%

40%

58%

59%

62%

64%

75%

77%

45%

40%

46%

50%

70%

67%

92%

57%

 Better customer service

 Lower fees

 Planning services elsewhere

 Financial tools elsewhere

 More flexible withdrawal options

 Higher returns elsewhere

 Better/more investment choices

Consolidate retirement accounts

If you think you will transfer money from your TSP account 

to another retirement account after retirement,which of the following 

would be your reason for doing so? (%Yes)

Separated Participants (Not Retired) Active Participants

31%

26%

39%

43%

Total FERS US-Legacy BRS

Active Participants' Transfer Plans

% Who plan to transfer funds out of TSP 

after leaving Federal service
17

Communications Channels

Four of five participants have used tsp.gov in the past year, and two-thirds find account 

access extremely useful

Participants who have accessed their accounts or information on tsp.gov rate the overall usefulness 

of these channels very highly. Nearly all participants find account access and information on tsp.gov 

at least somewhat useful (96% each).

FIGURE 13.

A majority of participants have used and are satisfied with their tsp.gov account

Of the 79% of participants who have accessed their tsp.gov account, 84% are satisfied with tsp.gov 

overall, similar to 2017. Furthermore, 80% are satisfied with their My Account access, and 89% are 

satisfied with the security of their account on tsp.gov. Both the FERS and US-Legacy groups have 

displayed increased satisfaction with all three aspects of tsp.gov since 2017. 

BRS participants are less satisfied with all aspects of tsp.gov, which could be a function of their 

newness/unfamiliarity with the contents of tsp.gov and their initial experiences with accessing their 

accounts.

29%

46%

67%

50%

Considering each of the following ways you have heard from or interacted with 

the TSP in the past 12 months, rate the overall usefulness of each:

Among past-year users of each service

Not at All Useful Not Very Useful Somewhat Useful Extremely Useful

Note: Percentages shown when greater than 4%; may not total 100% due to rounding 

% Extremely 

Useful

2017

66%

48%

Account access 

on tsp.gov

Information on 

tsp.gov

2020

(n=4,796)

2017

(n=6,663)

79% 86%

74% 81%

% Used
18

FIGURE 14.

Considering all aspects of your experience, how satisfied are you with each of the following:

% Satisfied/Extremely Satisfied

Total FERS BRS US-Legacy

2020 2017 2020 2017 2020 2017 2020 2017

(n=4,796) (n=6,663) (n=3,424) (n=2,934) (n=278) (NA) (n=1,094) (n=2,143)

TSP website (tsp.gov) 84% 83% 87%↑ 85% 76% NA 81%↑ 77%

Access to My Account 80%↓ 82% 85% 84% 63% NA 75%↑ 71%

Security of your account on tsp.gov 89%↑ 87% 90%↑ 86% 82% NA 91% 89%

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017; BRS is a new system for 2020

One in four participants had difficulties logging into their "My Account"

While the majority of participants did not face issues when trying to access their accounts, one in four 

(24%) did. In particular, more than one in three (36%) BRS participants had difficulty when trying to 

access their account, while just 23% of FERS and 21% of US-Legacy participants had problems. 

Participants from all three retirement systems reported having a hard time remembering their user 

ID/account name/email used for login and forgotten password recovery as the biggest barriers to 

logging into their My Account. Not remembering which email account they used was also mentioned 

as an issue, but it was three times more prevalent among BRS participants (14% vs. 5% for others).

FIGURE 15.

FERS BRS US-Legacy

77% 64% 79%

12% 18% 14%

12% 18% 13%

5% 14% 5%

3% 4% 5%

4% 4% 2%

3% 7% 3%

2% 4% 1% 2%

3%

3%

4%

6%

13%

13%

76%

Did not know how to access the code in my email

Didn't receive a code/access code timed out

Could not access from home

Didn't have phone/email access for authentication

Didn't remember which email account

Forgotten password difficult to retrieve

Hard to remember my user ID/account name

Didn't have any difficulties/Did not log in

What, if any, difficulties have you had logging in to your 

My Account in the past 3 months?
19

ThriftLine

More than one in four participants have used the ThriftLine in the past year and generally find 

it useful

In the last 12 months, approximately one in four participants have used the ThriftLine to access the 

automated system (27%) or to speak to a live representative (28%), similar to 2017. The vast majority 

(91%) of these participants found using the ThriftLine to speak to a live representative extremely

(59%) or somewhat (32%) useful, while 86% found accessing the automated system at least 

somewhat useful. The percentage finding the automated system extremely useful increased over

2017 to 2020 (41% to 48%, respectively).

The vast majority of ThriftLine users are extremely satisfied with the live representative's 

ability to answer their questions

While most users are satisfied with all aspects of the ThriftLine, they are least satisfied with the ease 

of answering the personal security questions to access their account and the hours/days a week that 

a representative is available. However, the satisfaction with wait time to speak to a representative has 

significantly increased since 2017 — now 84% compared with 80%.

Compared with participants from other systems, US-Legacy participants are the most satisfied with all 

aspects of the ThriftLine experience. Specifically, these differences are largest for wait time to speak 

to a representative (88%), days of the week that a representative is available (87%) and the ease of 

answering the personal security questions (92%). Overall, the high satisfaction among US-Legacy 

participants can be attributed to the significant increases, since 2017, in both satisfaction with wait 

time and representatives’ ability to answer questions or address needs.

FIGURE 16.

If you called the ThriftLine in the past 12 months and spoke to a Participant Service Representative, 

indicate your satisfaction with the following:

% Satisfied/Extremely Satisfied

Total ThriftLine 

Users FERS BRS US-Legacy

2020 2017 2020 2017 2020 2017 2020 2017

(n=872) (n=1,002) (n=692) (n=513) (n=27*) (NA) (n=153) (n=335)

Hours a representative is available 83% 81% 81% 82% NA NA 86% 77%

Amount of time you had to wait to speak to a 

representative 84%↑ 80% 81% 82% NA NA 88%↑ 74%

Days of week a representative is available 83% 84% 81% 84% NA NA 87% 79%

Representative’s ability to answer questions or 

address needs 90%↑ 86% 88% 86% NA NA 92%↑ 82%

The ease of answering the required personal 

security questions to access your account via 

ThriftLine

83% NA 80% NA NA NA 92% NA

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017

*BRS sample size very small – data not shown
20

Annual Statement

Three of four participants read their annual statement, and about half are extremely satisfied 

with the information provided

A majority of participants (76%) have reported reading their annual statement in the past 12 months. 

The overwhelming majority of these participants are at least somewhat satisfied with all aspects of 

the statement. About half or more of these participants are extremely satisfied with various aspects of 

their annual statement, including the usefulness of the information in it (55%), the ability to track how 

their TSP investments have performed over time (50%), the ability to see how other investment 

options within the plan are performing (46%) and the usefulness of their estimated monthly retirement 

income on the statement (48%). However, satisfaction with the ability to track how their TSP 

investments have performed over time has dropped from 2017 when 56% of participants were 

extremely satisfied.

FIGURE 17.

11%

10%

6%

5%

39%

39%

39%

39%

48%

46%

50% ↓

55%

Usefulness of your estimated monthly

retirement income on statement

Ability to see how other investment

options within the plan are performing

Ability to track how TSP investments have

performed over time

Usefulness of information in annual

statement

How satisfied are you with each of the following on your annual statement:

Among 76% of respondents who have read their annual statement (n=3,103)

Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Extremely Satisfied

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017; Percentages shown when greater than 4%

Somewhat/Extremely

Satisfied

94%↑ 91%

89% 90%

85% 86%

87% 87%

2020 2017

(98% used)

(96% used)

(86% used)

(85% used)
21

One in four participants who read their statement took action

Of the 76% of participants who read their statement, 27% were drawn to action, which consisted 

primarily of changing fund options and increasing contribution amounts. Specifically, four in 10 Active 

participants increased contributions, while 36% changed investment funds — a significant decrease 

from 2017 (59%). Compared with 2017, after reading their statement, fewer Separated participants 

decided to remain in the TSP when they had previously planned to withdraw their balance (8% vs. 

18%).

Actions taken following a review of the annual statement are similar across retirement systems.

However, BRS participants are more likely to increase contributions and seek more information, while 

US-Legacy participants are more likely to withdraw from the TSP; FERS participants are more likely 

to delay their retirement date. 

FIGURE 18.

Did reading the annual statement cause you to take any of the following actions regarding your TSP 

account? (% Yes)

Total FERS BRS US-Legacy

Net Took Action:

2020 2017 2020 2017 2020 2017 2020 2017

27%

(n=1,300)

29%

(n=1,567)

27%

(n=959)

27%

(n=742)

27%

(n=63*)

27%

(NA)

27%

(n=278)

27%

(n=554)

% of Participants Who Took Specific Action After Reading Statement

Increase amount of your contribution 

(Active) 42% 43% 42% 41% 58% NA 32% 50%

Change which funds you invest in 36%↓ 59% 38% 58% 34% NA 30%↓ 59%

Seek more information about the TSP 27% 26% 27% 24% 37% NA 20%↓ 32%

Delay your planned retirement date 

(Active) 8% 4% 11%↑ 5% 0% NA 2% 1%

Remain in the TSP when you had 

previously planned to withdraw your 

TSP balance (Separated)

8%↓ 18% 5% 16% 0% NA 20% 27%

Rollover or transfer other retirement 

savings into the TSP 6% 5% 6% 6% 5% NA 4% 4%

Other 5% 8% 4% 7% 5% NA 9% 7%

Decrease amount of your contribution 

(Active) 3% 4% 2% 1% 1% NA 7% 4%

Withdraw your TSP account balance 

(Separated) 1% 9% 2% 8% 0% NA 1% 11%

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017

*BRS sample size very small – data not shown

While the participant's retirement system was not a key determinant of action taken after reading their 

annual statements, participant's age and personal income influenced actions taken. Specifically, 

younger participants, those under 30 years old (67%), are more likely to increase their contribution 

amount after reading the annual statement compared with those 30-49 years old (48%) and 50+ 

years old (32%). Furthermore, higher-income participants, or those making over $100,000, are most 
22

likely to increase the amount of their contribution (70%) and change which funds they invest in (75%). 

Conversely, the lowest-income participants, those who make less than $40,000, are most likely to 

decrease the amount of their contribution (10%).

FIGURE 19.

Did reading the annual statement cause you to take any of the following actions regarding your TSP 

account?

Total Participant Age

2020 < 30 30-49 50+

Net Took Action: 27% 26% 28% 26%

(n=1,300) (n=62) (n=425) (n=774)

% of Participants Who Took Specific Action After Reading Statement

Increase amount of your contribution (Active) 42% 67% 48% 32%

Change which funds you invest in 36%↓ 27% 38% 37%

Seek more information about the TSP 27% 25% 30% 25%

Delay your planned retirement date (Active) 8% 0% 3% 12%

Remain in the TSP when you had previously planned to 

withdraw your TSP balance (Separated) 8%↓ 0% 3% 13%

Rollover or transfer other retirement savings into the TSP 6% 6% 2% 8%

Other 5% 5% 3% 6%

Decrease amount of your contribution (Active) 3% 0% 7% 2%

Withdraw your TSP account balance (Separated) 1% 0% 1% 2%

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017; Shading denotes higher-rated items than other groups
23

Usefulness/Preference of Communications Channels 

Participants find annual statements, My Account access and plan info on tsp.gov mostly

useful

Nearly all participants find their My Account access (97%), annual statement (96%) and general plan 

information on tsp.gov (96%) at least somewhat useful. While used by much smaller proportions of 

participants (less than 30% respectively), secure emails/e-messaging, live ThriftLine interactions and 

training sessions are also useful for nine out of 10 respondents.

There is little difference in perceived usefulness of most communications channels by participant age, 

with the exception of webinars offered by TSP and information from the TSP on social media, both of 

which are seen as less useful as participant age increases, likely due to lower usage of these 

platforms for older groups overall.

FIGURE 20.

Considering each of the following ways you have heard from or interacted with the TSP in the past 

12 months, rate the overall usefulness of each:

Communication Channel % % Used % Using Who Rated Somewhat/Extremely Usefulness 

(Based on %Used column)

Participant Age

% Used

Total

(4,573)

<30

(n=255)

30-49

(n=1,416)

50+

(n=2,830)

Annual statement 88% 97% 99% 97% 98%

General plan information on tsp.gov 78% 96% 96% 96% 96%

My Account access on tsp.gov 74%↓ 96% 93% 96% 97%

Secure emails/e-messaging 21% 92% 93% 91% 94%

ThriftLine to speak live to a representative 28% 91% 94% 90% 91%

Informational emails from the TSP 56%↑ 91% 94% 89% 92%

Training session or presentation from TSP 

representative 20%↑ 90%↑ 95% 89% 88%

TSP booklets/brochures 57%↓ 88% 87% 81% 92%

ThriftLine to access automated telephone 

system

26% 86%↑ 89% 82% 89%

Webinars offered by TSP 16% 85% 96% 87% 80%

Information from the TSP on social media 19% 78%↑ 91% 81% 69%

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017

Participants continue to prefer tsp.gov as their primary communications channel

Just as in 2017, the majority of participants across all systems prefer tsp.gov for communication from 

the TSP (69%)10. Furthermore, as in 2017, about half of participants like to receive their 

communications via email (54%) and paper statements (50%). Compared with the other groups, BRS 

participants are more likely to prefer email communications (67%) and FERS more likely to prefer 

paper statements (54%).

10 These results were collected before the website redesign which occurred in July 2020. 
24

Younger participants tend to prefer email and mobile applications, while participants aged 50 and 

older are twice as likely to prefer speaking to a participant service representative on the telephone 

(22% vs. 11%). Lastly, those participants between the ages of 30 and 49 largely prefer 

communication via the tsp.gov website and constitute the most unified preference for a single 

communication channel among age groups (77%).

FIGURE 21.

Participant Age

<30 30-49 50+

(n=308) (n=1,523) (n=3,037)

55% 77% 67%

63% 57% 50%

50% 39% 58%

23% 33% 27%

11% 11% 22%

25% 14% 6%

12% 6% 16%

6% 8% 9%

12% 6% 7%

8% 8% 5%

2% 4% 8%

7% 5% 5%

2% 2% 1%

4% 2% 1%

3%

8%

4%

6%

11%

13%

20%

31%

49%

53%

69%

2%

2%

5%

6%

6%

7%

8%

12%

12%

16%

28%

50%

54%

69%

Social media (e.g.,

Facebook®/YouTube®/Twitter®)

Podcasts

Agency/Service Human Resource or Personnel

Office

ThriftLine automated telephone service

Online chat/assistance

In-person training

Webinars/online training

TSP booklets/other printed material

Mobile applications

Participant Service Representative (Telephone)

Electronic statements accessed on tsp.gov

Paper statements received in the mail

Email

TSP website (tsp.gov)

Please select up to THREE of these options as ways you prefer the TSP 

to communicate with you:

(n=4,943)

2020

2017

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017; Shading denotes higher-rated items than other groups
25

Participants generally prefer to provide an electronic upload when documents are needed for 

transaction

When participants are required to provide a document to complete a transaction, most participants 

(44%) prefer to electronically upload those documents. Active participants (48%) are more likely than 

Separated participants (34%) to prefer electronic upload. Separated participants are equally likely to 

prefer electronic upload or hard copy via mail (34% each). At the retirement system level, US-Legacy 

participants are slightly more likely to prefer the electronic upload option (48%) compared with the 

BRS (43%) and FERS (43%) participants.

FIGURE 22.

3%

7%

23%

23%

44%

Hard copy via fax

No preference

Attached file to email

Hard copy via mail

Electronic upload

When documents are required by TSP to complete a transaction, 

how would you MOST prefer to deliver those documents? 

(n=4,604)
26

TSP Transactions

While half or fewer participants undertook transactions, the majority of these participants are 

satisfied with the time it took to complete all but account rollovers

Compared with 2017, significantly more participants changed their current investments/reallocated 

fund balances or contributions (46% vs. 34%) (see Figure 23). Slightly more than one in three 

participants (36%) reported making general account updates (e.g., name change, beneficiaries, 

password, etc.), similar to 2017. Survey participants report a significant drop in rolling

over/transferring other eligible retirement plan balances into the TSP (28% to 8%) and a slight drop in 

taking out loans (20% vs. 25%). It should be noted that while participants report a decline in 

transferring into the TSP, FRTIB does not see a corresponding drop in actual transfers.

In terms of satisfaction with the time it took to complete these transactions, participants are least 

satisfied with the time for rollovers into and out of the TSP. It should be noted that these transactions 

are more manual than other transactions, and satisfaction is similar to 2017. While the majority of 

participants who took loans, changed current investments and took withdrawals remains extremely 

satisfied with the timeliness of these transactions, all of these transactions saw declines in timeliness 

satisfaction from 2017.

FIGURE 23.

7%

5%

23%

29%

10%

17%

6%

8%

29%

28%

30%

26%

33%

24%

38%

37%

53%

53% ↓

56% ↓

63% ↓

Rolled over/transferred money out of the TSP

into other eligible retirement plan accounts

Rolled over/transferred other eligible

retirement plan account balances into the TSP

Made account updates (e.g., name change,

beneficiaries,password, etc.)

Took withdrawal using online form wizard*

Changed current investments (reallocated fund

balances or contributions; Active participants)

Took out loan (Active participants)

If done within the last 12 months, please rate your overall satisfaction with the 

time it took to complete the following transactions:

Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Extremely Satisfied

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017; Percentages shown when greater than 4%

*Wording change from 2017

20%↓ 25%

46%↑ 34%

11% 13%

36% 36%

8%↓ 28%

7% (NA)

Completed

2020 2017

(n=4,693 6,793)

% 

Extremely

Satisfied

2017

69%

66%

62%*

51%

43%

NA
27

Most participants are not familiar with the new withdrawal options, but half of those aware are 

satisfied

Just 39% of participants are aware of the new withdrawal options that went into effect in late 2019, 

which included the ability for multiple partial withdrawals, monthly, quarterly or annual payments, and 

the ability to withdraw separately from ROTH or traditional balances. FERS participants are the most 

aware of these new withdrawal options at 48%, while 24% of US-Legacy and 25% of BRS 

participants report awareness of the withdrawal option changes. 

Among the 39% of participants aware of the newly introduced withdrawal options, 88% are extremely 

satisfied (50%) or satisfied (38%) with them. FERS participants are much more satisfied with the new 

options than US-Legacy participants — 93% versus 70% are at least satisfied. Too few BRS 

participants were aware to provide a rating.

FIGURE 24.

Are you familiar with the 

new withdrawal options?

Yes No

Overall 39% 61%

FERS

(n=1,239) 48% 52%

US-Legacy

(n=607) 24% 76%

BRS

(n=30*)

25% 75%

6%

10%

6%

23%

38%

38%

38%

50%

55%

32%

Overall (n=823)

FERS (n=687)

US-Legacy (n=132)

How satisfied are you with the new withdrawal options?**

Among past-year users

Extremely Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Satisfied Extremely Satisfied

Note: Percentages shown when greater than 4%; * extremely small sample size, interpret with caution

**(i.e., multiple partial withdrawals; monthly, quarterly or annual payments; ability to withdraw separately from 
28

Desired TSP Options

Participants most desire the TSP to offer a consolidated report of Federal benefits; a mobile 

app is also desired

When asked what additional offering participants would like to see from the TSP, 45% indicated that 

they would most prefer a consolidated report of their Federal benefits — an estimate of their Social 

Security, FERS/BRS/Military pension and TSP benefits. However, this request is down from 2017 

when a majority requested it. A TSP mobile app (36%), individually tailored retirement modeling or 

calculator tools (34%), and a tool to help draw down one's TSP account (29%) were also popular 

requests among participants. 

The request for a consolidated report is highest among FERS (50%) and lowest among BRS 

participants (28%). US-Legacy participants are equally likely to want a consolidated report and a TSP 

mobile app (42% each). BRS participants are most interested in a TSP mobile app offering (64% vs. 

42% of US-Legacy and 29% of FERS), likely driven by their younger age.

Preference for some tools and services differs greatly by age and likely nearness to retirement. The 

desire for a consolidated Federal benefits statement and a tool to help with draw-down decisions

increases with participant age, while the desire for a TSP mobile app decreases greatly with age 

(from 68% request among those under age 30 to just 21% of those aged 50+).

FIGURE 25.

Which of the following options would you MOST want the TSP to offer?

Asked of all participants; three responses allowed

Total FERS BRS US-Legacy

2020

(n=4,659)

2017

(n=6,793)

2020

(n=3,331)

2017

(n= 2,999)

2020 

(n=282)

2017

(NA)

2020

(n=1,090)

2017

(n=2,177)

See an estimate of your Social Security, 

FERS/BRS/ Military Pension and TSP benefits in 

one statement or online

45%↓ 53% 50%↓ 58% 28% NA 42% 43%

TSP mobile app 36% NA 29% NA 64% NA 42% NA

Individually tailored modeling or calculator tools 

to show how much you need for retirement 34% 39% 34%↓ 41% 38% NA 33% 39%

Tool to help you determine how to draw down 

your TSP account to make your funds last 

throughout retirement

29% NA 35% NA 13% NA 22% NA

Option to convert your TSP tax-deferred balance 

to a Roth TSP 24% 24% 21% 22% 20% NA 32% 27%

Broader range of investment options 20% 22% 20% 22% 16% NA 21% 26%

Online financial advice (additional fee service) 17%↓ 24% 18%↓ 25% 24% NA 11%↓ 24%

Ability to adjust your account balance allocation 

automatically (auto rebalance) 15% NA 17% NA 18% NA 11% NA

Ability to download account information to use 

with other financial applications/software 10% 12% 9% 11% 8% NA 14%↑ 5%

Personalized investment tools powered by AI 

(artificial intelligence) 10% NA 9% NA 9% NA 12% NA

Note: ↑↓ indicate significant increase/decrease from 2017; Shading denotes higher-rated items than other groups
29

Separated participants want more information on withdrawal considerations to assist in their 

draw-down decisions

When asked what the TSP could provide that would help make decisions on when and how to draw 

down TSP balances easier, three-quarters (73%) of Separated participants indicated they would like 

more information on withdrawal considerations. Four in 10 (40%) would also like an investment option 

that would protect them from outliving their retirement savings. 

FERS Separated participants were slightly more likely than Separated US-Legacy participants to 

want both options. There are too few BRS Separated participants (n=25) to compare or report. 

FIGURE 26.

Participants suggest the TSP provide better instruction, information and advice for retirement 

planning

When asked to offer an open-ended comment about one thing TSP could do to better meet their 

retirement planning needs, more than half (56%) of participants did not offer a suggestion or noted

that no changes are needed, while 4% provided a positive comment about the TSP. The top request 

for those with suggestion was for better instructions/information/tutorials (18%) — which was the top 

request in 2017 as well. Some participants also asked for investment advice/retirement planning 

(10%), easier online access (9%), more investment options (8%) and a mobile app (7%). 

The request for easier access and login has nearly doubled since 2017 (to 9% from 5%) to be the 

third-most-cited reason overall. This is likely attributed to some participant reaction with the fairly 

recent implementation of two-factor authentication. However, participants also rated TSP security 

higher overall in 2020 than in 2017. Thus, it appears that they have a certain realization of the tradeoffs involved with enhanced account security.

Across retirement systems participants, BRS participants are much more likely to request technology 

enhancements such as a TSP mobile app (17% vs. 5% and 7% for FERS and US-Legacy, 

respectively) and an improved website (10% vs. 2% for both FERS and US-Legacy) – likely tied to 

FERS

(n=1,000)

US-Legacy

(n=524)

75% 69%

43% 36%

10% 14%

2% 5%

3% 0%

2% 1% 4%

2%

3%

12%

40%

73%

Improved processes/policies/procedures

More flexible withdrawal options available

More information/updates/assistance/explanation

Financial advisory services (for a fee)

An investment option which protects you from

outliving your retirement savings

More information on withdrawal considerations

What, if anything, can the TSP provide that will help make decisions on when and

how to draw down TSP balances easier?

Separated Participants (n=1,549)
30

their younger age and comfort with technology. FERS participants are more likely to ask TSP to

provide more investment advice and retirement planning (14% vs. 6% of BRS and 4% of US-Legacy). 

Lastly, the US-Legacy participants are more likely than their peers to think they should be able to 

participate after retirement (9% vs. 1% of others).

There were no meaningful differences between TSP requests among participants by auto-enrollment 

status.

FIGURE 27.

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

4%

4%

7%

7%

8%

9%

10%

18%

More frequent performance/account updates/growth rates

Better/clearer statements/receive more often

Better return

Improve website/interface/make it more user-friendly

Be able to participate after retirement

Have more tools/calculators/prediction capabilities

More flexibility with contributions/amounts/better matching

Other

Offer a mobile app

More transaction availability/transfers/deposits/withdrawals

More investment options

Easier access/log-in/CAC capability/easier password reset

Provide investment advice/retirement plan

Better instructions/information/tutorials

What ONE thing could the TSP do to better meet your retirement planning 

needs?

Among 38% of participants with comment (n=2,042)*

*Only responses 3% or greater are shown; Shading denotes higher-rated items than other groups

FERS

(n=1,380)

18%

14%

7%

9%

8%

5%

4%

2%

4%

1%

2%

4%

3%

2%

BRS

(n=143)

23%

6%

9%

4%

2%

17%

3%

3%

3%

0%

10%

1%

2%

6%

USLegacy

(n=519)

18%

4%

12%

7%

8%

7%

4%

8%

2%

9%

2%

2%

1%

2%
31

Key Findings and Recommendations 

Survey results from the 2020 Participant Satisfaction survey yield insights into areas that FRTIB 

should consider to better meet the needs of plan participants. FRTIB values participant input and is 

continually striving to enhance plan features and the participant experience. FRTIB is currently 

implementing an initiative designed to provide many of the services and benefit flexibilities 

participants have indicated they desire. This initiative is projected to be completed in 2022 and will 

continue to deliver enhanced services in the future.

Participant engagement

BRS and US-Legacy groups have generally lower overall satisfaction rates with all features 

of the TSP.

• While overall satisfaction with the TSP was 87%, BRS and US-Legacy are less satisfied than 

FERS participants. The Agency should consider diving deeper to get a more nuanced 

understanding of the specific needs of BRS and US-Legacy participants through targeted,

qualitative follow-up.

• For newly enrolled BRS participants, focus on establishing partnerships with service 

representatives to provide targeted educational resources, such as podcasts, webinars and 

other printed materials. 

Although participants identified tsp.gov as a key source of information and rated it as 

highly useful, participants predominantly identified “better/more information” when asked 

for one thing TSP can do better. 

• The newly revised tsp.gov website may address participant concerns. However, consider 

continuing post-implementation focus groups and applying enhancements to ensure tsp.gov is 

meeting participant information needs.

Auto-enrolled BRS participants had significantly lower response rates, which is largely 

attributable to stale postal addresses and to a lack of email addresses, as well as to their 

younger age. Consider adding an email address as one of the data elements that 

agencies/services submit when a new account is established.

• Alternatively, consider more proactive outreach to services after account establishment to 

collect participant emails to engage with those who do not log into their accounts. 

Contributions

Nearly one-third of participants say they do not save at least 5% of their base pay because 

they have not changed from the default deferral rate and, therefore, are not receiving the 

full 5% matching contributions. 

• While the increase in the default deferral rate in October 2020 will help address this issue, 

consider continued outreach and targeted messaging, emphasizing the advantages of saving 

at least 5% of income during implementation.
32

Communications channels

Over half (57%) of participants younger than 40 years old want to interact with the TSP

using mobile applications, compared with just 25% of those who are over 40 years old. 

• Consider providing a mobile app for participants to use to conduct transactions without the 

need to use a laptop or desktop. 

• Continue to focus on enhancing mobile transaction capabilities such as account resets, and

increase promotion of the currently existing mobile options.

Transactions

Flexibility of withdrawals remains a key driver in overall satisfaction and intent to stay with 

TSP. Separated participants specifically identified the ability to withdrawal from a specific 

fund as a withdrawal option that would help make withdrawal decisions easier.

• While increased awareness and use of the new post-separation withdrawal options will further 

improve satisfaction in this area, consider providing the ability to make withdrawals from 

specific funds as opposed to pro-rata.

• Consider providing additional education on why in-service withdrawals are limited. 

Just below half of participants (45%) have a desire to see a consolidated estimate of their 

Federal retirements in one place.

• Consider collaborations with the Social Security Administration, OPM and DFAs in order to 

examine ways to provide consolidated Federal retirement benefits information.

About one-third of participants want individually tailored tools and calculators. 

• Consider providing new tools to determine the amount to save for a desired retirement 

outcome as well as how to best draw down savings in retirement — the two most desired tools.

• Consider enhancing current calculators to utilize participant information to provide a more 

personalized response.
33

APPENDIX A: Methodology

Sample design

Gallup employed a stratified sample design to meet the objectives of the FRTIB Participant 

Satisfaction Survey to reach a representative sample of participants from the Federal Employees 

Retirement System (FERS), Uniformed Services Legacy (US-Legacy) and Blended Retirement 

System (BRS) populations as of early 2020. The primary goal of the sample design was to increase 

the agency's understanding of participants' retirement planning behavior and satisfaction with TSP 

(Thrift Savings Plan) services. The TSP participant pool11 was used as the sampling frame. The total 

of 5,016 returned surveys (paper and online) resulted in an overall response rate of around 13.8%. 

When incomplete survey responses were excluded, the final sample size was 4,963, with a response 

rate of 13.7%. The total sample was allocated optimally across different strata to ensure adequate 

sample size for different groups and subgroups of interest to FRTIB. The main steps of the sampling 

process follow. 

Sample stratification

FRTIB set the overall sample size of 35,000 based on the expected response rate as achieved in the 

2017 survey. The sample design included disproportional stratified sampling across the three 

systems based on expected response rates of respondents by the level of available contact 

information (if email was available), work status and enrollment of system. 

The three major TSP populations of FERS, US-Legacy and BRS are of special interest to FRTIB and 

were chosen as the primary stratification variables. Within each of these populations (primary strata), 

additional stratification was used to ensure sufficient sample sizes for different subgroups of interest, 

primarily employment status (Active/Separated) and enrollment status (auto-enroll, opt-in, pre-autoenroll). Results from the 2017 survey effort indicated that response rates were three to four times 

higher among participants with email addresses (as these participants were more likely to have 

registered on the TSP website, and they received multiple communications points for the survey).

Thus, the substrata were further stratified by the availability of email contact information in the FRTIB 

database. The sample plan included a total of 24 strata:

Table 1: Strata Definitions

Strata Retirement 

system Employment status Enrollment type Email

1 BRS Active Auto-enroll Email

2 BRS Active Auto-enroll No Email

3 BRS Separated Auto-enroll Email

4 BRS Separated Auto-enroll No Email

5

BRS Active Opt-in without prior

participation12

Email

6

BRS Active Opt-in without prior

participation

No Email

7

BRS Separated Opt-in without prior

participation

Email

11 While FRTIB still has participants in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), that participant base represents a small (about 3%) and rapidly diminishing proportion of 

participants, and as such was not included in this survey.

12 Some participants had been enrolled in TSP before opting into the Blended Retirement System.
34

Strata Retirement 

system Employment status Enrollment type Email

8

BRS Separated Opt-in without prior

participation

No Email

9 BRS Active Opt-in with prior participation Email

10 BRS Active Opt-in with prior participation No Email

11 BRS Separated Opt-in with prior participation Email

12 BRS Separated Opt-in with prior participation No Email

13 FERS Active Auto-enroll Email

14 FERS Active Auto-enroll No Email

15 FERS Separated Auto-enroll Email

16 FERS Separated Auto-enroll No Email

17 FERS Active Non-auto-enroll Email

18 FERS Active Non-auto-enroll No Email

19 FERS Separated Non-auto-enroll Email

20 FERS Separated Non-auto-enroll No Email

21 US-Legacy Active Email

22 US-Legacy Active No Email

23 US-Legacy Separated Email

24 US-Legacy Separated No Email

Sample allocation

Gallup carried out sample allocation across different strata and sub-strata while keeping in mind the 

sample size requirements at different levels. Instead of allocating the sample proportionally across 

strata (i.e., assigning sample size based on the size of strata), Gallup determined it was necessary to 

use disproportional sample allocation across strata and sub-strata to ensure a minimum sample size 

for each stratum and sub-stratum and to achieve the highest response rate possible given known 

participant information. The expected response rates derived from past TSP surveys were taken into 

account to determine the sample size to be assigned at different levels, with a higher sample 

selection of participants with email addresses.

Table 2 provides the sample size and the corresponding number of completed surveys for the three 

primary sampling strata (or populations). Respondents who returned a survey with all missing data 

have been excluded from the table. 

Table 2: Sample Size and Number of Completed Surveys by Retirement System

Retirement system Total sample size Number of 

completed surveys Response rate (%)

Total 36,253 4,963 13.7

FERS 16,230 3,549 21.9

US-Legacy 11,045 1,125 10.2

BRS 8,978 289 3.2

Sample selection

Sampling was carried out independently within each sampling stratum and sub-stratum. Once Gallup 

finalized the sample size to be allocated to a particular sub-stratum, FRTIB staff selected a simple 
35

random sample of the specified size that was drawn from each sub-stratum and sent to Gallup for 

processing. The probability of selection was, therefore, the same for all cases within a sub-stratum. 

Data collection

Completed surveys were collected March 17-May 11, 2020.

Data collection involved a multimode invitation (email and mail) and survey mode (web and paper)

protocol during the early months of COVID-19. Gallup mailed pre-notification postcards to all sampled 

participants on March 17, 2020, via the United States Postal Service (USPS). The postcard explained 

the purpose of the upcoming survey and contained the URL and access code to complete the survey 

online. On March 20, 2020, Gallup mailed a survey packet in a flat envelope that contained a cover 

letter and an eight-page color survey booklet asking participants to complete and return the survey 

back to Gallup. In addition to the mail survey packet, all participants with an email address (63% of 

sample) were also sent an email invitation with a personalized link to take the survey online.

Gallup sent a reminder/thank-you postcard to all sampled participants on March 27 and April 22. A 

final reminder postcard was sent on May 22 to all participants who had not yet completed the survey. 

All mail communications included the URL and access code for completing the survey online if 

desired.

Non-responders in the 12 strata with email addresses were sent email reminders on March 27, March 

30, April 12, April 24, April 28 and May 9.

Gallup received 3,193 mail packets back from the USPS as "return to sender" (RTS) or undeliverable. 

While it varied somewhat by system, the 8.8% rate was much higher than noted in prior years (<2%). 

Upon investigation, FRTIB determined that it had not excluded known bad addresses during the 

sample extraction process. The RTS was especially prevalent in the two uniformed services systems 

(16.4% US-Legacy and 11.2% BRS). Gallup estimated that if the 3,193 RTS participants had been 

reached and responded at the same rate as other participants, the overall response rate would have 

been about 1.4% higher.

Gallup scanned received paper surveys throughout the field period, combined the information with 

completes from the web and provided weekly response rate reports to FRTIB. At the end of the 

survey field period, Gallup scanned all final paper surveys and processed the combined data. In 

cases where a respondent completed both a mail and web survey, the data from the web survey was 

retained, and the mail survey data was not included in the data set. A total of 5,016 participants 

returned a survey (web or mail) and were included in the initial data set. Fifty-three participants either 

progressed to the end of the survey and submitted it but did not provide a response to any of the 

questions or returned a blank paper survey. If these respondents are excluded, 4,963 participants 

provided non-missing data. 

Sixty-eight percent of respondents completed the survey via web and 32% via mail. The following 

table provides the number of returns by mode and by retirement system.
36

Table 3: Number of Completed Web Surveys by Retirement System

Total 

members

Mail ONLY invite and 

reminders

Mail and web invite 

and reminders

Web ONLY invite 

and reminders

Total 

SM13

Total 

CM14

Resp.

rate15

% of 

SM w/

emails

% of 

CM

via 

web

Total 

SM

Total 

CM

Resp. 

rate

% of 

returns 

via 

web

Total 

SM

Total 

CM

Resp. 

rate

% of 

returns 

via web

Total 

SM

Total 

CM

Resp. 

rate

% of 

returns 

via 

web

Total 36,253 5,016 14% 63% 68% 13,501 464 3% 40% 20,579 4,353 21% 70% 2,173 199 9% 100%

BRS 8,978 296 3% 28% 76% 6,429 78 1% 62% 2,407 214 9% 80% 142 4 3% 100%

FERS 16,230 3,582 22% 78% 65% 3,287 303 9% 30% 11,379 3,106 27% 66% 1,564 173 11% 100%

USLegacy 11,045 1,138 10% 66% 76% 3,785 83 2% 57% 6,793 1,033 15% 78% 467 22 5% 100%

Significantly more web surveys were received from respondents who received mail and email invites 

and reminders. Among participants who received only mail communications, 40% completed the 

survey via web compared with 70% web returns from respondents who received mail and email 

communications. This was consistent with the participation pattern in 2017.

Overall, response rates were higher from respondents who received both mail and email 

communications. This is, in part, undoubtedly because respondents with email were contacted using 

more than one method and received more reminders than those who received only mail 

communications. However, TSP members who provided the TSP with an email address may also be 

more engaged members and, therefore, more likely to complete the survey, which may have also 

contributed to the higher response rates from this group. 

Table 4: FRTIB Participant Response Rates by Age and Retirement System

13 SM=sampled N

14 CM=completed surveys N

15 Response rate= %CM/SM

BRS FERS US Legacy Total Total N

AGEBAND < 20 0.80% 0.00% 11.10% 0.90% 1279

20 - 29 2.90% 7.50% 2.60% 3.30% 9847

30 - 39 6.90% 11.80% 6.60% 8.50% 8782

40 - 49 10.80% 14.30% 13.00% 13.70% 6055

50 - 59 35.70% 24.20% 26.40% 24.70% 6157

60 - 69 0.00% 35.50% 39.40% 35.80% 3245

70+ 47.70% 33.30% 47.50% 888

Total % 3.30% 22.10% 10.30% 13.80%

Total N 8978 16230 11045 36253

Shading indicates when initial sample size was <20
37

The response rates varied across age groups as well. The lower response rates among younger 

participants, especially BRS, provides an opportunity for further outreach and engagement with these 

participants. 

Weighting of sample data

Sample data were weighted to minimize bias in sample-based estimates. The final weight assigned to 

each respondent in any sub-stratum was equal to the ratio of (i) the total number of participants in 

that sub-stratum and (ii) the number of completed surveys obtained from that sub-stratum. The 

weighting process corrected for (i) unequal probability of selection across sub-strata, and (ii) unit-level 

non-response or the failure to obtain participation from the sampled respondents. Using the final 

weights, the results obtained from participants within a sub-stratum can be projected to all 

participants of that sub-stratum. Data were weighted by the following strata:

• Retirement system

• Employment Status

• Enrollment Type

• Email availability

Precision of estimates

Ignoring design effect, the margin of error associated with the estimate of a population proportion (P) 

for the three retirement systems combined (n=4,963) is roughly ±1.4% at 95% level of confidence. 

The margin of error after taking into account design effects due to disproportional sample allocation 

will be around ±2.1%.

The precision of estimates for any subgroup will depend on the number of completed surveys 

obtained for that subgroup. As shown in Table 1, the numbers of completed surveys for the three 

populations (FERS, US-Legacy and BRS) are 3,549, 1,125 and 289, respectively. Ignoring design 

effect, the margin of error associated with estimates of a population proportion (P) for the three 

retirement systems, for example, will be roughly ±1.6%, ±2.9% and ±5.8%, respectively, at the 95% 

level of confidence. The corresponding values of margins of error after taking into account design 

effects due to disproportional sample allocation will be around ±2.4%, ±4.3% and ±8.6%, respectively,

for the three retirement systems (FERS, US-Legacy and BRS).

Profile of plan participants

Similar to the participant satisfaction survey in 2017, FRTIB employed a disproportional, stratified 

sample design to ensure a sufficient sample size of key target groups. As noted, the data were 

weighted post-stratification by demographics and plan characteristics to reflect the known population 

profiles of the TSP's participant groups. Thus, the weighted profile of respondents is an accurate 

depiction of TSP plan participants.
38

Table 5: TSP Participants by Retirement System

Retirement system Number of completed surveys Percentage of all TSP participants

Total 4,963 100%

FERS 3,549 64%

US-Legacy 1,125 24%

BRS 289 12%

Table 6: TSP Participants by Employment

Federal employment 

status

Number of completed 

surveys

Percentage of all 

TSP participants FERS US-Legacy BRS

Separated 1,897 30% 1,249 606 33

Active 3,096 70% 2,300 519 266

Total 4,963 100% 3,549 1,125 289
39

APPENDIX B: 2020 Active Participants Survey
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

APPENDIX C: 2020 Separated Participants Survey
47
48
49
50
51
52
53