Managing For Results: Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies' Customer Service Efforts
Published: 2010-10-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The federal government has set a goal of providing service to the public that matches or exceeds that of the private sector. Executive Order 12862 (September 11, 1993) and a related 1995 memorandum require agencies to post customer service standards and report results to customers. As requested, this report (1) assesses the extent to which federal agencies are setting customer service standards and measuring related results, (2) assesses the extent to which agencies are reporting standards and results to customers and using the results to improve service, and (3) identifies some customer service management tools and practices used by various governments. The report also examines the steps the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is taking to facilitate agency use of tools and practices. GAO surveyed 13 federal services among those with the most contact with the public, reviewed literature and interviewed agency officials as well as knowledgeable individuals in the area of customer service.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: All 13 government services GAO surveyed had established customer service standards, which varied in their form from quantitative standards based on hourly, daily, monthly or annual averages to general commitments to qualitative standards. All 13 services reported having measures of customer service, such as measures of wait times or accuracy of service and 11 services had measures of customer satisfaction. For example, the National Park Service surveys visitors at over 320 points of service through a survey card program. All services had methods to receive customer complaints, and all had methods of gathering ideas from front line employees to improve customer service. Although standards exist, GAO found that the surveyed services' standards were often made available in a way that would not be easy for customers to find and access or, in the case of two services, were not made available to the public at all. For example, five services made standards available in long, detailed documents mostly focused on other topics, such as annual performance plans, performance and accountability reports, and budget justifications. About half of the services reported customer service results in similar types of documents. All services reported comparing customer service results to the standards and using the results to improve internal processes. For example, Customs and Border Protection officials told GAO that after they studied wait times at land borders and airports, they made facility enhancements and staff assignment changes. At one port of entry, these changes reduced wait times by more than half. However, some services have not compared performance to the private sector, as required by the Executive Order. Most services reported considering customer service measures in employee performance appraisals. For example, according to IRS officials, the performance appraisals for all employees who provide taxpayer assistance are based in part on critical job elements related to customer satisfaction. GAO identified several customer service tools and practices government agencies have used to improve customer service, such as engaging customers through social media, providing self service options and offering redress for unmet standards. Additionally, OMB has begun an initiative to identify and share private sector best practices among federal agencies and to develop a dashboard where agencies can make customer service standards available. Building on the progress made under this initiative, OMB could evaluate the benefits and costs of applying these tools and practices on a more widespread basis and share those that are found to be beneficial.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that OMB (1) direct agencies to consider options to make customer service standards and results more readily available and (2) collaborate with the President's Management Advisory Board and agencies to evaluate the benefits and costs of applying the tools and practices identified in this report, and include those found beneficial in its related initiative. OMB had no comments on the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The federal government has set a goal of providing service to the public  that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. It  is therefore critical for agencies to gauge how their customer services are  meeting the needs of their customers to sustain and focus agency efforts in  continuing improvements. Federal agencies interact with the public in a  vast number of individual transactions between federal employees and an  individual. The circumstances and expectations for service vary based on  the particular transaction as government services include diverse  functions such as providing information, benefits, regulation, and  enforcement.
Both Congress and the executive branch have taken actions to increase  the value of these transactions to those the government serves. In 1993  Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),  which was intended, in part, to improve federal program effectiveness by  promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer  satisfaction. The same year, in order to carry out the principles of the  National Performance Review, President Clinton issued Executive Order  12862, which required agencies to post customer service standards and  measure results against them. In 1995, President Clinton issued a  presidential memorandum to the heads of executive departments and  agencies on improving customer service which instructed agencies to treat  the requirements of the Executive Order as continuing requirements. This  memorandum is still in effect. More recently, legislation titled the “Federal  Customer Service Enhancement Act” has been introduced in Congress that  would, among other things, require the establishment of customer service  standards and performance measures for federal agencies.
In light of your interest in determining how federal agencies are currently  using customer service standards and measures, you asked us to (1) assess  the extent to which federal agencies are setting customer service  standards and measuring results against these standards, (2) assess the  extent to which federal agencies are reporting standards and results to  customers and using the results to improve service, and (3) identify some  customer service management tools and practices used by local, state,  federal, and other national governments. In addition, we examined the  steps the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is taking to facilitate  federal agency use of tools and practices to improve customer service.
To assess whether and how federal agencies are setting customer service  standards, measuring results, reporting those results and using them to  improve service, we conducted a survey, based on the requirements of the  Executive Order and the related memorandum, of 13 services provided by  federal agencies that are among those with the most widespread contact  with the public. Services were chosen for the survey based on a list of  agencies with the most contact with the public developed by the National  Performance Review in the late 1990s, input from subject matter experts,  and available public data. Services included in the survey were:    Recreational facilities and services provided by the Forest Service    Student loans under the Direct Loan Program provided by Federal    Visitor and interpretive services provided by the National Park Service    Health insurance under Medicare provided by the Centers for Medicare    Medical care provided by the Indian Health Service    Border security inspection of individuals provided by Customs and    Passenger and baggage screening provided by the Transportation    Passport services provided by the Bureau of Consular Affairs    Provision of tax information and advice to individuals provided by the    Disability compensation provided by the Veterans Benefits    Life insurance provided by the Veterans Benefits Administration    Medical care provided by the Veterans Health Administration    Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security  Income provided by the Social Security Administration  To gain a fuller understanding of the survey responses, we selected five of  the services with varying answers to key questions on the survey for  follow-up interviews to discuss their responses.
We did not evaluate the overall effectiveness of or level of customer  service provided by any of the services reviewed.
To obtain input from services with a lower volume of contact with the  public, services with different missions or goals than those that were  surveyed, and services that serve government customers and are not  subject to the requirements of the Executive Order, we selected an  additional five services for interview. These five services were:    Regulation of power plants and other uses of nuclear materials by the    Health and safety information provided by the Centers for Disease    Research and education grants provided by the National Science    Procurement of goods and services for the government provided by the    Federal agency property management services provided by Public  Building Services  To assess significant customer service management practices used by  local, state, federal and other national governments that may be  considered for application by federal agencies, we conducted a review of  relevant literature, such as industry, academic, and management journals  dealing with customer service practices and an annual evaluation of  customer service provided by national governments published each year  since 2000. In addition, we interviewed knowledgeable current and former  researchers and practitioners with experience managing or designing  government performance improvement initiatives, such as the National  Performance Review and the Government Performance and Results Act  (GPRA) at the federal level or similar initiatives at the state and local level,  experience implementing, in a government setting, one or more of the  customer service management tools and practices we identified in our  literature review, or had been identified in our literature review as  contributing to the field of public sector customer service. We also  gathered information from seven local, state, or non-U.S. national  governments and incorporated information received from federal agencies  through survey and interviews.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 to October 2010 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. For a more detailed description of our  scope and methodology, see appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: GPRA was intended to address several broad purposes, including  promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer  satisfaction. GPRA requires executive agencies to develop strategic plans,  prepare annual performance plans, measure performance toward the  achievement of goals in the annual plans and report annually on their  progress.
Building on GPRA and in carrying out the principles of the National  Performance Review (NPR), on September 11, 1993, President Clinton  issued Executive Order 12862, which remains in effect. The order created  several requirements for agencies related to customer service. Specifically,  the order stated that all executive departments and agencies that provide  significant services directly to the public shall provide customer service  equal to the best in business and shall take the following actions:  identify the customers who are, or should be, served by the agency    survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they  want and their level of satisfaction with existing services    post service standards and measure results against them    benchmark customer service performance against the best in business    survey frontline employees on barriers to, and ideas for, matching the    provide customers with choices in both the sources of service and the    make information, services, and complaint systems easily accessible    provide means to address customer complaints  On March 23, 1995, President Clinton issued a presidential memorandum  on improving customer service, which stated that the standards agencies  had begun issuing in response to Executive Order 12862 had told the  federal government’s customers for the first time what they had a right to  expect when they asked for services. The memorandum instructed  agencies to treat the requirements of Executive Order 12862 as continuing  requirements and stated that the actions the order prescribes, including  surveying customers and employees and benchmarking, shall be  continuing agency activities. The memorandum further provided that  standards should be published in a form readily available to customers,  and that services that are delivered in partnership with state and local  governments, services delivered by small agencies and regulatory  agencies, and customer services of enforcement agencies are covered by  the requirement to set and publish customer service standards. It further  stated that agencies shall, on an ongoing basis, measure results achieved  against the customer service standards and report those results to  customers at least annually in terms readily understood by individual  customers, and that measurement systems should include objective  measures wherever possible, but should also include customer satisfaction  as a measure. Finally, the memorandum stated that agencies should  publish replacement customer service standards if needed to reflect  customer views on what matters most to them.
According to the last NPR report on customer service in 1997, 570 federal  departments, agencies, organizations, and programs issued a total of 4,000  customer services standards. The NPR report was accompanied by a  database through which customers could search for standards of interest  or browse standards by customer group, such as beneficiaries, veterans,  and businesses. For example, the Immigration and Naturalization Service  issued a standard that it would complete action on naturalization  applications within 6 months, and the Department of Health and Human  Services issued a standard for Medicare and Medicaid that 80 percent of  callers would be on hold for less than 2 minutes. In addition, the report  stated that for 2,800 of the 4,000 standards, results of performance against  the standards had been identified and were the basis for changes and  improvements in the delivery of service.
section_title: All Selected Services Have Customer Service Standards and Measure Results of Service
subsections: section_title: All Surveyed Services Established and Reviewed Standards
paragraphs: All 13 services we surveyed had established customer service standards.  Officials from the Indian Health Service (IHS), which provides medical  care for American Indians and Alaska Natives, told us their customer  service standards are established by their area offices and facilities. The  other services had standards that applied service-wide.
The services’ standards varied in their form. Some standards were general  commitments to qualitative standards, often stating commitments to meet  certain identified customer rights. Other standards were structured  quantitatively and based on daily, monthly, or annual averages. The  Bureau of Consular Affairs, for example, had standards that include  general commitments to qualitative standards for Passport Services, such  as “We will provide service in a courteous, professional manner,” as well  as commitments to meet customer rights, such as “You have the right to  speak with management if you are not satisfied with the service you have  received.” Some of the standards from IHS area offices and facilities also  stated general commitments to qualified standards such as, “have pride in  our appearance, and provide a pleasant greeting,” while other IHS area  offices and facilities had individual level quantitative standards, which  included, “answering phone calls within three rings.” The Veterans  Benefits Administration (VBA) has established several quantitative  standards for customer service related to their Veterans’ Group Life  Insurance (VGLI) program, including averages such as the speed of answer  for their call center, which is set at 20 seconds, as well as call  abandonment rates, which they set at 2 percent. Veterans Health  Administration (VHA) has similar quantitative standards for their Medical  Care program, such as a standard for the number of new patient  appointments completed within 30 days of the appointment create date.
All services reported that they had reviewed their standards within the last  year. For example, VGLI told us that they review standards annually, and  2 years ago changed the standard for e-mail response time from 48 to 24  hours based on this review. Similarly, Internal Revenue Service (IRS)  officials told us that standards for taxpayer assistance are reviewed to see  if they need updating three times per year by executives, directors, and  managers, and the Forest Service told us that they review standards for  recreational facilities and services as part of their annual performance  reporting required by GPRA.
section_title: Nearly All Surveyed Services Have Measures of Customer Service and Customer Satisfaction
paragraphs: All 13 of the surveyed services reported having measures of customer  service, and 11 of the services reported having measures of satisfaction.  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has methods of gathering input  from customers, such as through their comment card program and the  online question and comment section of their CBP Info Center Web page,  and is planning to measure customer satisfaction through a customer  satisfaction survey in 2011. CBP submitted the planned survey for review  and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on  September 1, 2010. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA)  has methods of gathering input from customers by phone or e-mail  through their Customer Contact Center, through the “TSA Blog” and “Talk  to TSA” feedback Web site, or through speaking with a TSA manager at the  airport; however, they do not have measures of satisfaction.
All the services reported they measure customer service at least annually,  and all 11 services that measured customer satisfaction reported doing so  at least annually as well. In addition, many services measured more  frequently. Eleven of the surveyed services measure customer satisfaction  daily, for example, and 8 reported that they measure customer service  daily.
The surveyed services reported measuring various aspects of their  customer service. Customer service measures can include measures  related to customer access to services, wait times, accuracy and other  factors. Eleven surveyed services had measures related to quality or  accuracy of service. For example, IRS measures the accuracy of responses  provided by service representatives to questions on both tax law and  taxpayers’ accounts by listening to and reviewing phone calls. Ten services  had measures related to customer wait times, eight had measures of  processing time, and eight had measures related to access times. For  example, Passport Services measures wait times for customers applying in  a passport agency office, application processing times, and the number of  passport book re-writes due to errors made by Passport Services.  Similarly, for VGLI, VBA measures the percentage of calls that receive  busy signals and the average speed of answer, as well as processing time  for disbursements, applications, and correspondence.
All surveyed services but TSA and CBP reported gathering input from  customers regarding their level of satisfaction through surveys. The  National Park Service (NPS), for instance, reported using a visitor survey  card program to survey visitors at over 320 of its points of service. These  surveys are conducted annually at NPS units to measure performance  related to visitor satisfaction and visitor understanding of park  significance.
Four surveyed services stated that they use the American Customer  Satisfaction Index (ACSI) to gather and report results. ACSI is a  standardized customer satisfaction survey that measures customer  satisfaction for a particular service based on drivers of satisfaction,  including customer expectations and perceived quality. Overall results of  the ACSI survey are made available on the ACSI public Web site,  http://www.theacsi.org, where results can be compared among federal  agencies that use the survey. Participating agencies receive more detailed  results that contain information, trends, and recommendations for areas to  work on to improve results. Federal Student Aid (FSA), which provides  student loans under the direct loan program, for instance, uses an  independent third-party contractor to conduct the ACSI survey on FSA’s  behalf. Officials stated that from the results of ACSI, they determined that  some of the responses that they were providing customers on telephone  calls were not achieving satisfactory marks, which led FSA to start a task  force to address the issue.
In addition to customer surveys, most services also employed other  methods through which they gathered customer input. The most common  of these were comments cards or suggestion boxes (seven services),  telephone numbers (seven services), and e-mail or written correspondence  (five services). For instance, Social Security Administration (SSA) officials  stated that customers have the opportunity to either complete comment  cards at field offices, or send letters to field offices regarding their  satisfaction with the service received. Passport Services officials stated  that they gather input from customers by having them complete comment  cards while being served at a passport agency. Additional methods  services reported using for gathering input include focus groups, e-mail  lists, conferences, and outreach campaigns. IHS, for instance, uses patient  satisfaction surveys, telephone surveys, a director’s blog, personal  interviews, an incident reporting process, tribal negotiation meetings,  suggestion boxes, and a patient needs task force to gather input from  customers.
All surveyed services reporting having methods to receive customer  complaints. In addition to general methods of gathering input described  above, many agencies reported using additional methods to receive  complaints. These included complaint forms on the agency Web site,  identifying service mailing addresses to receive complaints, providing  customers with additional telephone numbers to provide feedback, and  general feedback forms and survey cards about the service they received.  For example, VBA reported that they use a public message management  system called the Inquiry Routing and Information System (IRIS) for  receiving inquiries, including complaints, for beneficiary medical care and  disability service. All electronic messages received from the public  through VA Web sites are directed through the IRIS system, and a set of  policies and procedures is in place that guides the agency in sorting  through and responding to submissions.
subsections: section_title: Paperwork Reduction Act Affects Gathering of Customer Views
paragraphs: Before requiring or requesting information from the public, such as  through customer satisfaction surveys, federal agencies are required by  the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to seek public comment as well as  approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the  proposed collection of information. The PRA requires federal agencies to  minimize the burden on the public resulting from their information  collections, and to maximize the practical utility of the information  collected. To comply with the PRA process, agencies must develop and  review proposed collections to ensure that they meet the goals of the act.  Once approved internally, agencies generally must publish a 60-day notice  in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on the agency’s  proposed collection, consider the public comments, submit the proposed  collection to OMB and publish a second Federal Register notice inviting  public comment to the agency and OMB. OMB may act on the agency’s  request only after the 30-day comment period has closed. Under the PRA,  OMB determines whether a proposed collection is necessary for the  proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the  information will have practical utility. The PRA gives OMB 60 days to  approve or disapprove a proposed collection, however, OMB can also  instruct the agency to make a substantive or material change to the  proposed collection.
There are two primary ways that the normal clearance process can be  altered. First, agencies may request and OMB may authorize emergency  processing under certain circumstances. Second, agencies may submit  generic information collection requests, which are requests for OMB  approval of a plan for conducting more than one information collection  using very similar methods, such as a plan to gather views from the public  through a series of customer satisfaction surveys. The plan itself is subject  to the standard 60- and 30-day public comment periods, but, if approved,  each specific collection under the plan requires only OMB review and  approval without additional public comment, subject to the terms of the  original generic clearance.
According to some agency officials, the Paperwork Reduction Act  clearance process may, in certain instances, make obtaining customer  input difficult. A March 2009 report from the Government Contact Center  Council, an interagency group of contact center directors and managers  sponsored by the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Office of  Citizen Services, notes that although the PRA is important and affords  many safeguards and benefits, the council commonly hears from agencies  that the approval process takes 9 months or longer, in fact, so long that  sometimes a survey is no longer relevant. The report recommended that  OMB lead a task force to help to fully understand the implications of the  Paperwork Reduction Act for agencies and to identify ways to minimize  the length of time it takes for an agency to get approval for surveys  intended for citizens.
Two services we surveyed told us that the PRA clearance process made  obtaining customer input difficult. NPS officials referred us to the letter of  input they provided in response to OMB’s Federal Register notice seeking  comment on, among other things, reducing paperwork burdens and  avoiding adverse consequences of the PRA clearance process. In the  letter, NPS stated that lengthy delays in obtaining approval of information  collections such as visitor surveys under the PRA sometimes causes  research to be postponed or even abandoned. In addition, Forest Service  officials told us that the time needed to obtain clearance for surveys is a  major barrier in gathering input from customers on their level of  satisfaction. Forest Service officials told us that because approval for new  collections of information often takes in excess of a year, which is in  addition to the time for collection, data entry, and reporting, it is not  possible to include customer input in many time-sensitive decisions.
OMB representatives noted that the reported lengths of time to clear  submissions include the time for internal agency development and  processing and that some delays can be the result of inappropriate  submissions. OMB representatives told us that once an Information  Collection Request (ICR) is submitted to OMB, the average time for review  at OMB is typically less than the required sixty days.
According to OMB representatives, the time to obtain clearance could be  reduced by using generic clearances, if the collections meet the criteria for  generic clearances. Some other agencies we contacted also told us that the  generic clearance process made PRA requirements manageable for  surveying. For example, SSA officials told us that obtaining OMB  clearance for its surveys had not presented a challenge, and that this was  facilitated by a generic clearance for satisfaction surveys that SSA has had  since the mid-1990s. Likewise, FSA officials told us that the expedited  review process associated with a generic clearance allows it to get surveys  approved within 10 to 15 days and that most problems with surveys that  arise during the process are quickly resolved.
As required by a presidential memorandum issued on January 21, 2009,  OMB issued an Open Government Directive, which among other things,  instructs the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory  Affairs (OIRA) to review existing OMB policies, such as PRA guidance, to  identify impediments to open government and the use of new  technologies, and where necessary, issue clarifying guidance and/or  propose policy revisions. OMB recently released three memorandums  containing clarifying guidance to improve the implementation of the PRA.  The memorandums provide information for federal agencies to facilitate  their understanding of PRA clearances and when and how they can be  used. The most recent memorandum, issued on May 28, 2010, outlines the  availability and uses of generic information collection requests. The other  two memorandums, issued on April 7, 2010, relate to the central  requirements of the PRA and the treatment of social media and Web-based  interactive technologies under the PRA.
section_title: All Surveyed Services Use Various Methods to Gather Frontline Employees’ Ideas for Improving Customer Service
paragraphs: All surveyed services reported that within the last 12 months they gathered  ideas for improving customer service from frontline employees who are in  contact with customers. The Executive Order is not prescriptive in the  method agencies should use to survey employees, and the services  reported employing a variety of methods to survey their employees for  ideas for improving customer service. These included staff meetings,  blogs, employee suggestion programs, and employee surveys. Passport  Services officials, for example, stated that each regional Passport Agency  location is staffed with at least one customer service manager charged  with reviewing the ideas and suggestions from staff within the agency or  center. The manager then communicates the information to colleagues at  other locations and the customer service division at headquarters to  initiate further discussion and action on suggestions. To encourage  customer service managers to gather and share ideas, there is a bi-weekly  teleconference, an e-mail list, a monthly customer service report, and an  annual conference. SSA officials stated that some of its offices have  established councils, which include frontline employees, to look for new  ideas to improve customer service. At the Forest Service, input from  employees is gathered primarily at the individual forest level with no  formal mechanism in place to communicate employee input at a national  level.
section_title: Selected Services with Less Widespread Contact with the Public Also Set Customer Service Standards and Measure Results
paragraphs: The five additional services we interviewed that had less widespread  contact with the public and different customer groups or missions than  those we surveyed perform many of the same customer service  management activities as those we surveyed. All five had customer  service standards. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention (CDC) has a target that 75 percent of customers will report  being very satisfied, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a  standard that 90 percent of power plant licensing actions will be  completed within 1 year of receipt.
All five services reported measuring service results. Four of these had  measures related to customer satisfaction, and most used the ACSI as a  measure. In addition, four had measures of customer access, wait times or  other measures. For instance, CDC measures the percentage of phone  calls answered in less than 30 seconds. All of the additional services  reported having methods to receive and act on customer complaints, such  as through distributing feedback forms in person or through the agency  Web site, as well as through designated e-mail and phone numbers or call  centers, which were also used by the surveyed services. All five services  gather ideas from employees on improving customer service. For example,  GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service is using the social network tool  “Yammer,” as a mechanism to gather internal employee input.
section_title: Most Selected Services Could Increase the Public Availability of Customer Service Information, but All Use Results to Improve Service Quality
subsections: section_title: Most Surveyed Services Share Standards and Results, but Could Increase Their Availability to Customers
paragraphs: About half of surveyed services’ standards were not in a form readily  available to the public, as the March 1995 presidential memorandum on  improving customer service requires. We found that the standards were  often either not made available to the public at all or were made available  in a way that would not be easy for customers to find and access. Ten  services reported making standards available to customers through both  government Web sites and government publications; one service, TSA’s  Passenger and Baggage Screening, reported making standards available  through only a government Web site; and two services did not make  standards available at all. Five of the 11 services that reported they make  standards available do so in documents or Web sites that are not likely to  be viewed by customers. These services made their standards available in  long, detailed documents mostly focused on other topics, such as Annual  Performance Plans, Performance and Accountability Reports, and budget  justifications.
The two services that did not make standards available to customers were  Federal Student Aid (FSA) and Forest Service for recreational facilities  and services. FSA officials reported that they do not make their standards  for the Direct Loan Program, which are standards for contractor  performance, available to customers because they were not intended to  inform the public. Similarly, the Forest Service officials told us that they  have standards that are part of a contract with an external service  provider, but because they are not in an understandable format and  presentation for customers they are not made available. Forest Service  officials also reported that Forest Service has standards employees must  meet in the operation of recreation program areas that are not consistently  shared with the public, such as the frequency with which rest rooms must  be cleaned. Forest Service officials feel the standards would not be helpful  to the visitors who evaluate such things as “cleanliness” of rest rooms  against their own standards rather than the frequency of cleaning.
Some services made their standards more readily available to customers.  For example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has a Web page  called “Know Before You Go,” http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/  vacation/kbyg/, which communicates regulations for international travel  by U.S. residents. This Web page, which is also available as a document,  specifically identifies customer service standards, such as a pledge to  explain the CBP process to customers, and provides information and  instructions to customers on how they can express their service concerns  to CBP representatives. The standards are also available through a link on  CBP’s travel customer service page, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/  customerservice/. Five services, including the Indian Health Service, the  Passport Service, the Veterans Health Administration, CBP, and SSA, make  standards available by posting them in government offices open to the  public.
In addition to standards, all services we surveyed stated that they report  customer service results to customers through a government Web site, and  11 of these services told us that they also make results available through  written publications. Further, the Indian Health Service and the Veterans  Health Administration also post service results in government offices open  to the public. However, most services did not post service results in  government offices. Two services, IRS and Forest Service, told us their  results are too lengthy to post in their public offices.
Similar to the reporting of customer service standards, about half of  services posted customer service results in documents that may not be  easily accessible to customers. Six services we surveyed only report  customer service results in their Performance and Accountability Reports,  Congressional Budget Justifications, or other documents that are targeted  to larger or different audiences than customers, or through Web sites such  as the ACSI Web site that customer may not know to visit to find customer  service results. However, some agencies made their customer service  results more readily available to customers. For example, CBP has a web  page with airport and border wait times that can be accessed directly from  CBP’s main travel page, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/. In another  example, the Veterans Benefits Administration has a customer service  page for Veterans Group Life Insurance with service results that can be  accessed from the insurance home page, http://www.insurance.va.gov/.
As required by the presidential memorandum, all services report results to  customers at least annually. In addition, more than half of services post  some customer service results as frequently as monthly, and in one case,  results are posted as frequently as hourly. Customs and Border Protection  collects hourly wait time estimates for land border ports of entry, from 70  of the largest land border crossings on the Northern and Southwestern  borders. This information is posted directly from the ports of entry to  CBP’s wait times Web site on an hourly basis so that the public can use the  information in trip planning. For airline travel, CBP collects detailed daily  flight information at the arrival terminals of 48 of the busiest air ports of  t air ports of  entry. This information is assembled into an historical database that  entry. This information is assembled into an historical database that  provides hourly flight processing time estimates for any tim provides hourly flight processing time estimates for any time of day, and is  available to the public on the airport wait times Web site. e of day, and is  available to the public on the airport wait times Web site.
section_title: All Surveyed Services Compare Customer Service Results to Standards and Use Them to Improve Internal Processes, and Some Have Recently Compared Performance to the Private Sector
paragraphs: All services we surveyed reported that they compare their performance to  their service standards, as Executive Order 12862 requires for agencies  that provide significant services directly to the public. All services but two  reported doing so at least monthly, and five services reported making daily  comparisons. For example, SSA officials said their performance on  customer service measures, such as the average speed of answer and busy  rate for calls to their national phone number are tracked and compared to  monthly standards, and the results are reported on an internal tracking  report that is distributed to SSA’s Commissioner and executive staff. CBP  produces daily wait times exception summary reports for internal  Headquarters and regional management of the ports of entry. Officials said  wait times in excess of 1 hour at either air or land border ports require  explanation and are tracked to monitor ongoing problems and develop  mitigation strategies.
Further, all services reported that they use the results of their customer  service measures to improve customer service. Several services reported  using performance data to improve training, allocate staff, and improve  phone systems and Web sites. For example, the Passport Services reported  that they use measures of passport center workloads to ensure timely  processing of applications by transferring application processing work  between centers at various times, such as during inclement weather. In  addition the Internal Revenue Service said that it analyzed wait times for  taxpayer assistance to improve service by making staffing adjustments and  routing certain types of activities to specific employees.
CBP officials said land border, and airport wait time patterns have been  studied, which led to facility enhancements and staff assignment changes.  The officials told us that changes at one port of entry, the Detroit  Ambassador Bridge reduced wait times and recurring traffic delays by  more than half. Medicare officials said the 1-800-Medicare call center used  customer service measure results to improve and clarify the script used by  its customer service representatives to answer beneficiary questions.  Medicare officials also stated that their review of the volume, nature, and  turnaround time for complaints about private companies marketing  Medicare products led them to apply a more rigorous turnaround time  requirement for staff handling these complaints.
Seven services reported that they had compared customer service  performance against performance in the private sector in the prior 12  months, and these seven also reported that they had used this comparison  to improve their customer service. For example, officials from the Direct  Student Loan Program (DLP) said they obtained information from the  private sector that borrowers using electronic services (such as electronic  debit and services on Web sites) were among the most satisfied.  Subsequently, DLP implemented initiatives to increase borrowers’  awareness of online services and provided information on how to enroll in  these services. Similarly, officials from Veterans Benefits Administration’s  Veterans Group Life Insurance (VGLI) said comparisons against  performance in the private sector offered ongoing confirmation that their  measures and practices remain competitive against industry standards.  For example, officials said awareness of changing technology in the  private sector has led to enhanced self-service Web-based features that  include the ability to pay VGLI premiums, add or change beneficiaries,  update customer demographic information, and print certificates of  coverage online. Officials from SSA told us that their national call centers  operate efficiently by using sophisticated call forecasts and changing agent  shift assignments to better match projected call patterns based on  methodology used in the private sector. Finally, Medicare officials said  after comparing the program’s turnaround time for urgent complaints with  that of private sector health plans, they made a decision to revise their  internal standard to align with the private sector plans.
However, four of the services reported they had not compared their  customer service performance against performance in the private sector  as Executive Order 12862 requires, and one other service had not done so  recently. Officials of three of the four services that had not compared  customer service performance against the private sector, CBP, TSA, and  the Bureau of Consular Affairs, told us that they do not have a comparable  private entity to compare with. CBP officials, however, also told us they  have worked with a number of private companies to identify  improvements that could be made to the federal inspection service areas  that would reduce confusion, shorten delays, and improve customer  service, such as better managing passenger lines and improving CBP signs  at airports. In addition, CBP is working closely with several private sector  regional organizations, such as the U.S.-Canada Border Trade Alliance, to  develop technology solutions for improving vehicle processing and traffic  management at the ports of entry. Forest Service officials told us that they  had worked with a private company that runs campgrounds to develop  standards in the late 1980s, but have not had funding for benchmarking  against the private sector since then.
section_title: Most Surveyed Services Consider Customer Service Measures in Employee Performance Appraisals
paragraphs: Most surveyed services told us that they base performance appraisals for  their employees, in part, on customer service measures; these include  members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) or equivalent, managers,  supervisors of frontline employees, and frontline employees themselves.  Office of Personnel Management regulations require agencies to establish  performance management systems that evaluate SES performance using  measures that balance organizational results with customer, employee,  and other perspectives. Eleven of the 13 services we surveyed reported  that they based performance appraisals for all SES in part on customer  service performance measures, and two services reported that they based  some SES performance appraisals on customer service performance  measures. In addition, all services reported that performance appraisals  for managers and supervisors of employees in contact with customers  were based in part on customer service performance measures. Finally, 11  surveyed services reported that performance appraisals for all employees  in contact with customers were based in part on customer service  performance measures.
Among those services that based performance appraisals on customer  service performance measures, the extent to which they did so varied by  service and job type. For example, performance appraisals for all  employees in Federal Student Aid’s Direct Loan Program have two  sections: organizational priorities and customer service. Officials from  FSA told us that some staff are assessed for service to internal or external  customers depending on the assigned job and some lower level employees  have quantitative measures in their appraisals, such as accuracy and the  average time it takes to resolve issues. For other services, performance  appraisals are based on qualitative measures of customer service. For  example, officials from IRS told us that, for taxpayer assistance, customer  satisfaction knowledge and application have been critical job elements in  performance appraisals for all employees, including those in their  bargaining unit, for at least 10 years. Figure 5 shows descriptions of IRS’s  customer satisfaction knowledge and application critical job elements. In  addition, all employees are rated on whether they have met the standard  for the fair and equitable treatment of taxpayers developed in accordance  with the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.  The standard states, “Administer the tax laws fairly and equitably, protect  all taxpayers’ rights, and treat each taxpayer ethically with honesty,  integrity, and respect.” The inclusion of customer satisfaction in employee  performance appraisals is part of the agency’s collective bargaining  aining  agreement with the union.  agreement with the union.
This individual performance critical job element describes how the employee  promotes the satisfaction of taxpayers and customers through professionally and  courteously identifying customers’ needs and/or concerns and providing quality  products and services. Communication to the customer is appropriate for the  issue and encourages voluntary compliance.
This individual performance critical job element describes how the employee  promotes the satisfaction of taxpayers and customers by providing the technical  expertise to serve the customers with professional and helpful service. Accurate  identification and resolution of issues and the correct interpretation of laws,  rules, regulations and other information sources are key components of this  critical job element.
Officials from the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and the  American Federation of Government Employees, the two unions that  represent the largest number of federal employees, both expressed  concerns about the use of customer service performance measures in  performance appraisals. Officials from both unions told us that many  employees do not have control over the customer service results achieved,  and one said that customer service performance is best addressed at the  agency level. This official also cautioned that using customer service  measures, such as the time to handle a case, in performance appraisals  could lead to employees overlooking details of the case as they attempt to  save time. Nevertheless, agency officials did not report recent issues  related to including customer service as part of performance appraisals.  Similarly, IRS and NTEU officials told us there had not been any recent  concerns or issues related to the way customer service measures are used  in performance appraisals.
section_title: Selected Services with Less Widespread Contact with the Public Also Make Customer Service Information Available and Use Results
paragraphs: Most of the services we interviewed that had less widespread contact with  the public and often different customer groups or missions than those we  surveyed reported making customer service standards and results  available to customers and using customer service results for various  purposes. Four of the five services reported making their customer service  standards available to customers, but only three of the four services post  the standards where they are likely to be viewed by customers. Similarly,  three of the five services reported making customer service results  available to customers, but two posted the results in documents that may  not be readily available to customers. Three services reported comparing  the results to customer service standards, and two reported comparing  results to the private sector. All five services reported using results of its  customer service measures to improve customer service. Finally, three  services reported basing performance appraisals in part on customer  service measures. For example, performance appraisals for employees  staffing CDC’s information contact center contain elements based on  ensuring customer satisfaction for internal and external customers.
section_title: Several Additional Tools and Practices for Customer Service Management Are Used by State, Local, and Non-U.S. National Governments
paragraphs: A number of approaches have been used by state, local, and other national  governments to improve customer service. Several approaches, which are  also employed by some federal agencies, were identified as good practices  in our literature review of customer service and customer service  management and by knowledgeable current and former researchers and  practitioners in these fields. These practices include methods to better  understand customers’ needs, facilitate improved customer decision  making, and provide citizens with the information necessary to hold  government accountable for customer service performance. OMB is  planning several initiatives designed to facilitate the use of many of these  approaches across federal agencies.
subsections: section_title: Improved Understanding of Customers Helps to Align Standards with Customer Needs
paragraphs: Organizations may be able to increase customer satisfaction by better  understanding customer needs and organizing services around those  needs. Governments of both the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand  reported that research into customer needs helped them establish drivers  of customer satisfaction. Once they identified the drivers, they used them  to set customer service standards to better meet customer needs. In the  United Kingdom, the Cabinet Office commissioned a nationally  representative survey that yielded a set of five drivers of customer  satisfaction in the United Kingdom. These drivers, listed in order of  impact on customer satisfaction, include:    Staff deliver the outcome as promised and manage any problems    Staff address customer requests quickly and directly   Information given to customers is accurate and comprehensive    Staff are competent and treat customers fairly    Staff are friendly, polite and sympathetic to customers’ needs  In 2008, the UK government created a standard called Customer Service  Excellence (CSE) that includes five criteria for evaluating customer  service quality based on the five drivers of customer satisfaction.  Organizations can apply for formal CSE certification in which their  performance is measured against 57 sub-elements of the five CSE criteria  by licensed certification bodies, accredited by the United Kingdom  Accreditation Service. For example, one sub-element asks organizations  to demonstrate that they evaluate customer satisfaction by asking  customers specific questions related to the drivers of satisfaction, such as  timeliness, delivery and information.
The New Zealand Government’s State Services Commission (SSC), New  Zealand’s central public service management agency, works with  government service providers to monitor and improve performance. SSC  conducted its own citizen survey, Kiwis Count 2007, to determine citizens’  perspectives on drivers of customer satisfaction. Although similar to the  United Kingdom’s drivers in many respects, the SSC reported that New  Zealanders also considered the value of a service relative to taxpayer  investment when evaluating the overall customer service experience. The  six drivers are:    Service experience met citizen expectations    Staff were competent    Staff kept their promises—they did what they said they would do    Citizens were treated fairly    Citizens felt their individual circumstances were taken into account    Citizens felt the service was an example of good value for tax dollars  The SSC reported that respondents rated the “service met your  expectations” driver as the most important driver of customer satisfaction,  followed by “staff competency.” Although the New Zealand government  does not have national standards, SSC worked with agencies to help them  better understand what the drivers mean and how to appropriately set  agency level standards. Additionally, SSC, in collaboration with other  central agencies, developed a Performance Improvement Framework  (PIF) to assess performance and drive improvements. According to an SSC  official, the PIF includes a component that examines how well agencies  meet customer expectations. In the future, this component may be  expanded to examine the impact of basing standards on the drivers of  satisfaction.
In addition to establishing drivers of satisfaction, segmenting the  population into groups and providing differentiated service delivery can be  an effective strategy to better meet diverse customer needs. In 2005, the  government of Canada reorganized its diverse set of service providers  under one umbrella service organization, called Service Canada, that  offers citizens a single point of access to a wide range of government  services and seeks to make access to services easier, quicker, and more  convenient. As one part of its efforts to improve service delivery, Service  Canada crafted a segmentation strategy centered around seven  subpopulations: workers, seniors, people with disabilities, Aboriginal  people, newcomers to Canada, youth, and families. Service Canada then  tailored its service delivery processes to the needs of each subpopulation.  Specifically, Service Canada outlined priority service issues for each  population segment, as well as marketing approaches tailored to better  inform customers about available services. For instance, to improve its  outreach to Aboriginal populations, Service Canada created fact sheets in  11 Aboriginal languages, hired staff that spoke Aboriginal languages and  modified the distribution of office locations to better serve remote and  northern communities. Service Canada attributes improved results in the  areas of citizen satisfaction, access to services and efficiency of service  delivery to the implementation of its segmentation strategy.
Organizations can also use social media to better understand and engage  their customers. Social media can facilitate low effort communication  between customers and service providers. It allows service providers to  disseminate up to date and relevant information that may lead to improved  customer decision making, while also allowing customers to provide  feedback on their experiences. In order to encourage the use of social  media by federal agencies, the General Services Administration (GSA)  sponsors a Web site, http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/, that is managed by  the Federal Web Managers Council, an interagency group of Web  managers from every cabinet-level agency and numerous independent  agencies. The Web site contains information on the benefits of using social  media for customers of government agencies, as well as detailed advice on  social media best practices. For example, it states that agencies can use  microblogs to both provide timely information to citizens and improve  understanding of customer needs by searching microblogs for references  to their agency name or acronym. Additionally, GSA has negotiated terms  of service with several social media vendors to make it easier for agencies  to employ these tools on their Web sites.
TSA is an example of an agency that has been using social media to engage  and communicate with customers. TSA communicates policy changes and  other relevant information via articles on its blog, http://blog.tsa.gov/, and  allows customers to post comments and complaints. Using the feedback  obtained from their blog, TSA learned from customers when policies  weren’t being implemented appropriately in various airports or regions  and made changes when appropriate. For example, a blog comment  prompted the TSA Blog Team to investigate and ultimately stop a local  airport policy that required passengers to remove all small electronics for  individual screening.
Additionally, social media may reduce the effort required of customers to  complete service transactions. San Francisco enables city residents to sign  up as followers of the San Francisco’s 3-1-1 customer service center on  Twitter and send short messages containing service requests and  complaints, rather than trying to reach city customer service  representatives by phone. Providing this additional channel of  communication has the potential to reduce the customer effort required  and improve customer service. However, service transactions may require  customers to communicate more detailed information than microblogs  generally allow.
section_title: Self-Service Options and Customer Relationship Management Systems Can Improve Customers’ Experiences and Facilitate Better Decision Making
paragraphs: Providing customers autonomy and control by allowing them to serve  themselves can also be an effective strategy to improve customer service.  Self service options may reduce customer effort and provide customers  with information that allows them to make informed decisions. In  addition, customers often report a preference to self-serve over speaking  to a representative.
Several U.S. federal agencies allow customers to self-serve via the Web.  For example, customers can make reservations online for National Park  Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management campsites.  Similarly, FSA allows students to apply for financial aid online, manage  their accounts and make payments over the Internet. Officials from  Service Canada told us that they have started a campaign entitled “Why  Wait in Line When You Can Go Online” to encourage the use of online  services; they have also been working to ensure that self-service tasks are  easy to complete. Agencies such as the Social Security Administration and  the Department of Veterans Affairs now use their Web sites to help  customers identify benefits that may be available to them and to develop a  personalized estimate of those benefits. The Social Security  Administration provides a Benefit Eligibility Screening Tool that enables  customers to determine benefits they may be eligible for, as well as  calculators that estimate future retirement, disability, and survivor  benefits based on current law and the citizen’s earnings record, and the  next steps to apply. In 2002, 10 federal agencies partnered to develop a  Web site, http://www.GovBenefits.gov.
The Web site helps customers find government benefit programs for which  they may be eligible and then provides information on the next steps to  learn more about and apply for those eligible benefits. As of fiscal year  2010, the initiative included 1,000 programs provided by 17 federal  partners.
section_title: Offering Redress for Unmet Standards and Reporting Meaningful Performance Results Can Foster Accountability for Effective Customer Service
paragraphs: Providing redress to customers when standards are not met can enhance  the effectiveness of standards. For example, Service Ontario, a provincial  partner of Service Canada, refunds the birth certificate fee a customer  pays if the certificate is not issued within the established timeliness  standard. In the United Kingdom, London TravelWatch, a local consumer  watchdog organization established by Parliament, investigates complaints  made by travelers using transportation services in London, including the  London Underground and London’s buses, and makes recommendations  for recompense when appropriate. In its literature, TravelWatch cited  examples of Transportation providers dispensing compensation, such as  ticket refunds, when they agreed with TravelWatch’s findings. California  State University at Long Beach (CSULB) established a one year pledge  relating to the performance of its College of Education graduates. If first  year teachers experience problems at their school of employment, CSULB  will assist them in areas related to their credential preparation.
Including customer service measures in performance evaluations of  frontline employees may be an effective strategy for improving customer  service. As previously discussed, most of the services we surveyed already  consider customer service measures in employee performance appraisals,  though the extent and weight varied widely by job and service. However,  as noted earlier, there can be challenges to creating effective performance  standards for frontline employees. A primary concern is that some  performance standards, such as call duration, are easy to measure but  ignore the tradeoff between efficiency and quality customer service. Call  center employees being judged solely on call duration might sacrifice the  quality of the customer service they provide in order to end calls more  quickly. One solution is to create performance metrics that attempt to  balance operational efficiency and quality service. For example, telephone  agents at the nonemergency services call center in the city of Denver,  Colorado, are graded using a balanced scorecard which takes into account  both call duration and whether or not the agent resolved a customer’s  issue without having to transfer the caller to another employee. Because  this measure emphasizes service quality, it serves to counterbalance the  incentive to rush through service calls. A representative from the Georgia  Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA) raised the additional concern that  including customer service measures in performance appraisals may be  perceived as a mechanism for placing blame on frontline employees. In  order to gain employee support, the OCA representative recommended  that agencies engage employees in the conversation about customer  service management and seek employee input about how management can  help them provide better customer service. The representative from the  OCA reported that involving employees in the development of new  processes has led to increased employee trust in management and  openness to setting common goals and performance standards.
section_title: OMB Has Taken Several Steps to Facilitate Use of Some Tools and Practices across Federal Agencies to Improve Customer Service
paragraphs: Starting early in 2010, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began  planning several initiatives to promote federal agencies’ responsibility for  quality customer service to their customers. On September 14, 2010,  President Obama issued a presidential memorandum to the Senior  Executive Service (SES) on the Accountable Government Initiative. The  memorandum was accompanied by a memorandum from OMB’s Deputy  Director for Management to the SES outlining, among other things, the  steps OMB is taking on customer service. An OMB representative told us  they have begun working with GSA’s Office of Citizen Services and other  agencies to generate and share ideas and improve customer service. OMB  plans to accomplish this by holding agency discussion groups, one-on-one  meetings with private sector CEOs who participated in a forum on  modernizing government on January 14, 2010, and meetings with officials  who were part of the National Performance Review. An OMB  representative stated that they have already begun holding some meetings.  Planned topics for discussion include: offering agency services online,  coordinating services provided across multiple points of contact and  examining how agencies gather and use customer feedback. The OMB  representative told us this will involve looking at the Paperwork  Reduction Act clearance process, which entails OMB approval of agency  data collection prior to accumulating feedback from customers.
As a part of its broader initiative with GSA’s Office of Citizen Services,  OMB is also developing a pilot dashboard which contains agency  standards and some related measures, with links to agency Web sites  where customers can track their individual transaction status, where  available. OMB has asked agencies participating in the pilot to identify  metrics that are drivers of customer satisfaction, such as wait time,  processing time, and first call resolution, and is currently reviewing their  proposals. OMB expects the pilot dashboard to launch publicly in late fall  2010.
On April 19, 2010, Presidential Executive Order 13538 established the  President’s Management Advisory Board within the General Services  Administration, to be chaired by the administration’s Deputy Director for  Management. The board’s mission is to provide advice and  recommendations on effective strategies for the implementation of best  business practices related to federal government management and  operation. OMB is selecting members and it expects to hold the first  meeting of the board by the end of 2010. The board is expected to focus on  improving productivity, the application of technology, and customer  service.
In addition, in its fiscal year 2011 Budget planning memorandum on June  11, 2009, OMB outlined its guidance to agencies to identify a limited  number of high-priority performance goals for the next 12 to 24 months.  These goals are intended to foster accountability and the chances that the  federal government will deliver results on what matters most by making  agencies’ top leaders responsible for specific goals that they themselves  have named as most important. Although the guidance did not require  agencies to create goals specifically related to customer service, more  than half of the services we surveyed had at least one goal related to  customer service in their agencies’ high-priority performance goals. For  example, as part of its goal to improve customers’ service experience on  the telephone, in field offices, and online, the Social Security  Administration has a goal to increase the percentage of customers who  rate service as “excellent,” “very good, “ or “good” from 81 percent to 83.5  percent. Also, the Department of Veterans Affairs has a goal implement a  21st Century paperless claims processing system by 2012 to ultimately  reduce the average disability claims processing time to 125 days. See  appendix IV for more examples of high-priority performance goals that  relate to customer service.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The elements of a customer-centered approach to delivery of federal  service are common among those services with the most widespread  contact with the public that we surveyed, as well as those we interviewed  with less direct contact. All 13 government services we surveyed report  they had established customer service standards, measured service  results, and shared the results with customers. In a number of instances,  the services report improvements in the quality of service delivered and  customer satisfaction. Further, the fact that more than half of the services  we surveyed had a specific goal related to customer service among their  agencies’ High Priority Performance Goals indicates that these services  recognize the importance of customer service.
While a number of services have not encountered problems with survey  clearances, some services that obtain customer input through surveys and  other methods, which is critical to understanding the level of customer  satisfaction, reported challenges related to obtaining PRA clearance for  these activities. These challenges can lead to missed opportunities to  involve customers in decision making. OMB has recently issued clarifying  guidance on the PRA clearance process, including guidance on obtaining  generic clearances, though it remains to be seen whether the guidance will  reduce agency challenges or increase effective agency use of the generic  clearance process.
Communicating customer service standards and results in a way that is  useful and readily available to customers is important in enabling them to  hold government accountable and to inform customer decision making.  Most services we contacted do make customer service standards and  results available to customers, but many do so through documents that  serve larger purposes, such as Performance and Accountability Reports  and Budget Justifications which, while not excluding customers, are  targeted to a much broader audience. On the other hand, some services  make standards and results readily available to customers in documents,  websites or government offices specifically targeted to customers to better  deliver service and achieve higher levels of customer satisfaction. The  OMB pilot dashboard initiative has the potential to facilitate agency efforts  to make customer service standards and results readily available to  customers, but has not yet been launched.
Most services reported they base employee performance ratings from SES  to frontline employees, in part, on customer service measures, but the  manner and objective weight that attaches to this varied. There seems to  be widespread agreement among services, management, and labor officials  that customer service is an important factor in assessing employee  performance, although there is also some reservation relative to how  conclusively service measures can and should be applied at the individual  employee level. But while labor officials and others expressed concerns  about lack of employee control over variables that may affect the quality,  accuracy, processing time, and level of a customer’s satisfaction, agency  officials did not report recent issues. For example, IRS customer service is  included in IRS’s performance appraisal system and IRS and NTEU  officials stated that there had not been any recent issues with the system  relating to customer service. While the experience of several of the  surveyed services suggests that the use of service measures in  performance appraisals can be effective and appropriate, as current and  former researchers and practitioners pointed out, they need to be  developed with care, particularly balancing all dimensions of customer  service and involving employees in their selection and application.
Tools and practices identified in our review, such as using social media to  engage customers and segmenting customer groups to provide tailored  services based on particular needs, could lead to potential benefits for  customers of federal agencies. Some of these are already being used by  some federal agencies, but OMB’s initiative to gather and share customer  service ideas through the President’s Management Advisory Board,  established in April 2010, and meetings with GSA’s Office of Citizen  Services, agencies, and other groups offers an opportunity to evaluate the  benefits of applying these tools and practices on a more widespread basis  and to share those that are found to be beneficial.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Director of OMB take the following two actions,  building on the progress OMB has already made as part of its customer  service initiative:    Direct agencies to consider options to make their customer service  standards and results more readily available to customers using  documents or Web pages specifically intended for customers, or the  dashboard once it is more fully developed.
Collaborate with the President’s Management Advisory Board and  agencies to evaluate the benefits and costs of applying the tools and  practices related to understanding customers’ needs, facilitating  improved customer decision making, and providing citizens with the  information necessary to hold government accountable for customer  service, and include those that are found beneficial to the federal  government in the initiative on gathering and sharing customer service  ideas.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review to OMB and the departments  of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland  Security, the Interior, State, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and the  General Services Administration, the National Science Foundation, the  Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Social Security Administration.
OMB provided comments and additional information regarding the PRA  review process. We made changes as appropriate to describe the process  more fully. OMB had no comments on the recommendations.
The departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the  Treasury, and Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration  provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.  The departments of Agriculture, Education, the Interior, and State and the  General Services Administration, National Science Foundation and  Nuclear Regulatory Commission had no comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human  Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, State, and Veterans Affairs; the  Commissioners of the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security  Administration; the Administrator of the General Services Administration;  the Directors of the National Science Foundation and OMB; the Chairman  of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and other interested parties. The  report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact Bernice  Steinhardt at (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of our study were to (1) assess the extent to which federal  agencies are setting customer service standards and measuring results  against these standards, (2) assess the extent to which federal agencies are  reporting standards and results to customers and using the results to  improve service, and (3) identify some customer service management  tools and practices used by local, state, federal, and non-U.S. national  governments. In addition, we examined steps the Office of Management  and Budget (OMB) is taking to facilitate federal agency use of tools and  practices to improve customer service.
subsections: section_title: Survey of Federal Government Services
paragraphs: To assess whether and how federal agencies are setting customer service  standards, measuring results, reporting those results and using them to  improve services, we conducted a survey, based on the requirements of  Executive Order 12862 and the related presidential memorandum  “Improving Customer Service.” We surveyed 13 services provided by  federal agencies that are among those with the most widespread contact  with the public. We selected a nonrepresentative sample of government  services because there is no single list of government services that could  be used to pull a representative sample. We selected the sample based on a  set of criteria including: services provided by a federal agency; 1 million  customers served annually; customers are primarily U.S. individuals; and  primary customers are not employees of a government agency receiving  benefits related to employment. We compiled the list of potential services  by starting with a list of Vanguard agencies (agencies having the most  contact with the public) that was developed as part of the National  Performance Review in the late 1990s and identifying services within those  agencies. To this list we added agencies and respective services that were  suggested by at least two of the five knowledgeable individuals in the area  of customer service whom we consulted, or by one of the knowledgeable  individuals in the area of customer service and OMB. The final list of  services surveyed can be found in appendix II. The sample of services  surveyed was not a representative sample of services provided by the  federal government, meaning that results from our survey cannot be  generalized to apply to any other services provided by the federal  government.
To minimize errors that might occur from respondents interpreting our  questions differently than we intended, we pretested our questionnaire  with four officials who were in positions similar to the respondents who  would complete our actual survey. During these pretests, we asked the  officials to complete the questionnaire as we observed the process. We  then interviewed the respondents to check whether (1) the questions were  clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) the  questionnaire was unbiased, and (4) the questionnaire did not place an  undue burden on the officials completing it. We also submitted the  questionnaire for review by a GAO survey methodology expert and four  external reviewers who were experts on the topic of the survey (selected  based on their experience managing or designing government  performance improvement initiatives). We modified the questions based  on feedback from the pretests and reviews, as appropriate.
We sent the questionnaire by e-mail to the individual identified by the  service as the lead respondent. We asked services to complete the  questionnaire within the electronic form and return it as an e-mail  attachment. All 13 services completed the questionnaire. We reviewed all  questionnaire responses and followed up by phone and e-mail to clarify  the responses as appropriate.
We analyzed responses to closed-ended questions by counting and  summarizing the type and frequency of response for each of the 13  services. For responses to open-ended narrative questions, we coded the  responses from each service and created categories for the purpose of  organizing and summarizing the response of each service (e.g., methods  used to gather input from customers regarding their level of satisfaction  with the service).
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce  nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question  is interpreted, the sources of information available to respondents, or the  types of respondents who do not respond to a question can introduce  errors into the survey results. We included steps in both the data  collection and data analysis stages to minimize such nonsampling errors.  As indicated above, we collaborated with GAO survey specialists to design  and review draft questionnaires, versions of the questionnaire were  pretested with four officials from services not included in our survey but  who were in positions similar to the respondents who would complete our  survey, we asked several external experts to review and comment on a  draft of the questionnaire, and we revised the questionnaire as necessary  to reduce the likelihood of nonresponse and reporting errors on our  questions. We examined the survey results and performed computer  analyses to identify inconsistencies and other indications of error, and  addressed such issues as necessary. A second, independent analyst  checked the accuracy of all computer analyses to minimize the likelihood  of errors in data processing. In addition, GAO analysts answered  respondent questions and resolved difficulties respondents had answering  our questions. For questions that asked respondents to provide a narrative  answer, we created content categories and had one analyst code each  response into one of the categories, and another analyst verify the coding.  Any discrepancies in the coding were resolved through discussion by the  analysts.
We did not evaluate the overall effectiveness of or level of customer  service provided by any of the services reviewed.
subsections: section_title: Additional Interviews to Supplement the Survey
paragraphs: To gain a fuller understanding of the survey responses, we selected five of  the services with varying answers to key questions on the survey for  follow-up interviews to discuss their responses. The five services selected  were the Forest Service, National Park Service, Veterans Benefits  Administration, Customs and Border Protection, and Federal Student Aid.
In addition, because the scope of the survey was limited to services that  have widespread direct interaction with the public, we selected and  interviewed five additional services with a lower volume of contact with  the public and different missions or goals. These five services were  selected from a listing of independent agencies of the United States  government, and were chosen to ensure at least two services were from  each of the following categories:    Services whose direct customers are individuals, but have fewer  contacts with the public than those in our survey    Services that serve government customers and are not subject to the  requirements of Executive Order 12862    Services that benefit the public as a whole rather than individuals  directly, such as agencies that make policy or regulate businesses  The sample of additional services interviewed was not a representative  sample of services provided by the federal government, meaning that  results from the interviews cannot be generalized to apply to any other  services provided by the federal government. A list of the five additional  services we interviewed can be found in appendix II.
The key topics presented in the survey formed the basis of the interviews  with the five additional services. To prepare for analyses of the open- ended interview questions, we created content categories and had one  analyst code each response into one of the categories (e.g., measures  related to customer satisfaction), and another analyst verify the coding.  Any discrepancies in the coding were resolved through discussion by the  analysts.
section_title: Identification of Tools and Practices
paragraphs: In order to gain insight into the current application of leading customer  service tools and practices, challenges to implementing them and  strategies to overcome these challenges, we first reviewed relevant  literature, such as industry, academic, and management journals dealing  with customer service practices and an annual evaluation of customer  service provided by national governments begun in 2000. Based on the  literature review, we selected and interviewed six knowledgeable  individuals in the area of customer service. We selected these individuals  based on their having one or more of the following characteristics: (1)  experience managing or designing government performance improvement  initiatives, such as the National Performance Review and the Government  Performance and Results Act at the federal level or similar initiatives at  the state and local level; (2) experience implementing, in a government  setting, one or more of the customer service management tools and  practices we identified in our literature review; and (3) published in peer  reviewed journals, books, or frequently referenced publications in the field  of public sector performance improvement.
Based on suggestions from these individuals and the literature, we  identified several customer service tools and practices. We then identified  local, state and foreign organizations to interview that were either  implementing tools and practices we had identified, were suggested by the  individuals we contacted, or were highly ranked in the 2007 edition of the  annual evaluation of customer service provided by national governments,  which was the most recent edition that contained rankings.
We obtained input from the following governmental organizations:    Cabinet Office, United Kingdom    Centerlink, Australia    Central Provident Fund, Singapore    Customer Service Group, New York City    Office of Consumer Affairs, Georgia, USA    Service Canada, Canada    State Services Commission, New Zealand  We used the input from these organizations to refine and provide context  for the list of tools and practices we had identified.
We conducted this performance audit in Washington, D.C. between August  2009 to October 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards, which require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: List of Services Contacted
section_title: Appendix III: Examples of Standards from Surveyed Services
paragraphs: As part of our methodology we asked all services involved in the survey to  provide us with a copy of their customer service standards. Below are  examples of the standards we received from each service.
subsections: section_title: Passport Services Provided by the Bureau of Consular Affairs
section_title: Health Insurance under Medicare Provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
section_title: Border Security Inspection of Individuals Provided by Customs and Border Protection
paragraphs: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) pledges to:    Cordially greet and welcome you to the United States    Treat you with courtesy, dignity and respect    Explain the CBP process to you    Have a supervisor listen to your comments    Accept and respond to your comments in written, verbal or electronic  form.
section_title: Passenger and Baggage Screening Provided by the Transportation Security Administration
section_title: Student Loans under the Direct Loan Program Provided by Federal Student Aid
section_title: Recreational Facilities and Services Provided by the Forest Service
paragraphs: Provide all reservation transaction processing with 100 percent  accuracy including advance reservations, walk-ins, cancellations, and  transfers.
section_title: Medical Care Provided by the Indian Health Service
section_title: Provision of Tax Information and Advice to Individuals Provided by the Internal Revenue Service
section_title: Visitor and Interpretive Services Provided by the National Park Service
section_title: Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income Provided by the Social Security Administration
paragraphs: A fiscal year 2011 target of 83.5 percent has been established for  percent of individuals who do business with SSA rating the overall  services as “excellent,” “very good,” or “good”
section_title: Disability Compensation Provided by the Veterans Benefits Administration
paragraphs: A target of 5 percent has been established for the percentage of  abandoned calls to Veterans Benefits Administration Public Contact  Representatives in the National Call Center    A target of 70.0 percent has been established for the agent availability    A target of 75.0 percent has been established for overall quality,  includes measures of technical proficiency, client contact behaviors,  and effective call management.
section_title: Life Insurance Provided by the Veterans Benefits Administration
section_title: Medical Care Provided by the Veterans Health Administration
section_title: Appendix IV: High-Priority Performance Goals Related to Customer Service
paragraphs: The President’s budget for fiscal year 2011 included high -priority  performance goals that agencies had committed to achieve within 18 to 24  months. The identification of high-priority performance goals, coupled  with measures and targets, will be used by the President to evaluate  agency progress in meetings with cabinet officers. Several agencies have  crafted specific goals to improve customer service. These goals include  targets and measures to improve customer satisfaction, as well as  objective performance measures such as wait times, operational capacity,  citizen engagement, and call center efficiency. This appendix documents  examples of customer service oriented, high-priority performance goals  drafted by federal agencies.
subsections: section_title: Department of Education
paragraphs: Simplified Student Aid: All participating higher education institutions  and loan servicers operationally ready to originate and service Federal  Direct Student Loans through an efficient and effective student aid  delivery system with simplified applications and minimal disruption to  students.
section_title: Department of Homeland Security
paragraphs: Improve security screening of transportation passengers, baggage, and  employees while expediting the movement of the traveling public  (aviation security).    Wait times for aviation passengers (Target: Less than 20 minutes by  2012).
Improve security screening of transportation passengers, baggage, and  employees while expediting the movement of the traveling public  (surface transportation security).
Strengthen disaster preparedness and response by improving FEMA’s  operational capabilities and strengthening State, local and private  citizen preparedness.
Improve to 90 percent the percentage of shipments arriving with the  requested materials at the requested location by the  validated/agreed upon delivery date.  Improve to 95 percent the percentage of respondents reporting they  are better prepared to deal with disasters and emergencies as a  result of training.
section_title: Department of the Treasury
paragraphs: Increase individual income tax filers’ American Customer Satisfaction  Index score to 69.  Improve telephone level of service to at least 75 percent by the end of  2011.
section_title: Department of Veterans Affairs
paragraphs: By the end of 2011, reduce the average number of days to complete  original Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefit claims to 18 days.  Implement a 21st-century paperless claims processing system by 2012  to ultimately reduce the average disability claims processing time to  125 days.
Deploy a Veterans Relationship Management (VRM) Program to  improve access for all Veterans to the full range of Department of  Veterans Affairs services and benefits by June 2011.    By the end of 2010, implement call recording, national queue,  transfer of calls and directed voice and self help.
By the end of 2010, enhance transfers of calls among all Veterans  Benefits Administration lines of business with capability to  simultaneously transfer callers’ data.
By the end of 2010, pilot the Unified Desktop within Veterans  Benefits Administration lines of businesses to improve call center  efficiency.
section_title: Social Security Administration
paragraphs: Increase the Number of Online Applications: By 2012, achieve an online  filing rate of 50 percent for retirement applications. In 2011, the Social  Security Administration’s (SSA) goal is to:    Achieve 44 percent of total retirement claims filed online.    Achieve 27 percent of total initial disability claims filed online.  Issue More Decisions for People Who File for Disability: SSA will work  towards achieving the Agency’s long-term outcomes of lowering the  disability backlogs and accurately processing claims. SSA will also  ensure that clearly disabled individuals will receive an initial claims  decision within 20 days. Finally, the agency will reduce the time it takes  an individual to receive a hearing decision to an average of 270 days by  2013. In order to efficiently issue decisions in 2011, SSA’s goal is to:    Process 3.317 million out of a universe of 4.316 million initial  disability claims.
Achieve 6.5 percent of initial disability cases identified as a Quick  Disability Determination or a Compassionate Allowance.
Process 799,000 out of a universe of 1.456 million hearing requests.  Improve SSA’s Customers’ Service Experience on the telephone, in  field offices, and online: To alleviate field office workloads and to  provide the variety of services the public expects, SSA will improve  telephone service on the national 800-number and in the field offices.  By fiscal year 2011, SSA’s goal is to:    Achieve an average speed of answer rate of 264 seconds by the  national 800-number.
Lower the busy rate for national 800-number calls from 8 percent to  7 percent.
Raise our overall rating of “excellent,” “very good,” or “good” given  by individuals who do business with SSA from 81 percent reflected  in 2009 to 83.5 percent.
section_title: General Services Administration
paragraphs: Provide agile technologies and expertise for citizen-to-government  interaction that will achieve unprecedented transparency and build  innovative solutions for a more effective, citizen-driven government.    Create three readiness assessments and criteria based tool selection  guidance by April 15, 2010.
Provide assistance to other federal agencies in conducting six  dialogs by September 30, 2010.
Realize 136 million touch points (citizen engagements) through  Internet, phone, print, and social media channels by September 30,  2010.
Successfully complete three agency dialogs with the public to better  advance successful use of public engagements by September 30,  2010.
Train 100 government employees on citizen engagement in forums,  classes, and/or Webinars that are rated highly successful by  participants and linked to agency capability building and successful  engagement outcomes by September 30, 2010.
section_title: Office of Personnel Management
paragraphs: Hiring Reform: 80 percent of departments and major agencies meet  agreed upon targeted improvements to:   Improve hiring manager satisfaction with applicant quality.   Improve applicant satisfaction.    Reduce the time it takes to hire.
section_title: Small Business Administration
paragraphs: Disaster Assistance: Process 85 percent of home loan applications  within 14 days and 85 percent of business and Economic Injury  Disaster Loan applications within 18 days.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, key contributions to this report  were made by William Doherty, Assistant Director; Charlesetta Bailey;  Mason Calhoun; Martin De Alteriis; Justin Dunleavy; Karin Fangman;  Robert Gebhart; Colin Morse; Kelly Rubin; Michael Silver; Eugene  Stewman; and Ethan Wozniak.