Managing for Results: Selected Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts to Improve Customer Service
Published: 2014-10-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Providing customer service has been a long-standing challenge for federal agencies. GPRAMA requires that agencies establish a balanced set of performance indicators to be used in measuring progress toward performance goals, including customer service. This report is part of GAO's response to its mandate to evaluate the implementation of GPRAMA. It evaluates (1) the extent to which selected agencies and their services are using customer service standards and measuring performance results against these standards, and how selected agencies are communicating standards and using customer feedback to improve customer service; and (2) the extent to which OMB and the PIC are facilitating federal agencies' use of tools and practices to improve customer service. GAO selected five agencies and their services based on prior work in which it surveyed 12 federal agencies that are among those with the most widespread contact with the public. GAO reviewed and compared agency customer service documents to federal legislation and guidance, and interviewed agency officials about customer service.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO reviewed the customer service standards at Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Forest Service, Federal Student Aid (FSA), the National Park Service (NPS), and two services in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)—disability compensation and Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI). GAO found that none of the agencies' standards included all of the key elements of customer service standards (see table). GAO identified key elements of effective customer service standards by reviewing the requirements of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) and executive orders that focused on providing greater accountability, oversight, and transparency. Without all of the key elements present, agencies may not be able to easily communicate performance targets or goals to customers, measure their progress towards meeting those goals, and pinpoint improvement opportunities.
GAO found that all five agencies provide customers with opportunities to submit feedback, including comments and complaints. CBP and VBA's disability compensation had formal mechanisms for reviewing customer feedback, but the other agencies did not. For example, Forest Service and NPS do not have guidance for when to elevate customer comments from the local level up to the agency level. As a result, these agencies may not be effectively reviewing and addressing customer concerns across the agency.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has taken steps to facilitate the improvement of agencies' customer service initiatives. For example, OMB issued guidance to assist agencies in their implementation of Executive Order 13571, Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service which was issued to strengthen customer service and require agencies to develop and publish a customer service plan. OMB formed a task force to assist agencies with the development of customer service plans. Moving forward, OMB has identified customer service as a cross-agency priority (CAP) goal in 2014 in an effort to elevate the importance of customer service by the federal government and intends to have the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) play a role in the CAP goal implementation planning for customer service.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the five agencies update their customer service standards and that Forest Service, NPS, FSA, and VBA's VGLI implement formal feedback mechanisms to improve customer service. CBP, Forest Service, FSA, NPS, and VBA all agreed with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Federal agency personnel interact with the public in a vast number of  ways: providing medical and insurance benefits to veterans, managing  border and airport security, informing and educating visitors within  national parks and forests, and in many other roles. The circumstances  and expectations for service vary within this range of roles, based upon  the particular transaction such as providing information, evaluating benefit  eligibility, implementing regulations, and managing law enforcement.  These diverse functions help the federal government ensure public health  and safety. For this reason, it is critical for agencies to gauge how  services are meeting their customers’ needs, while also sustaining and  focusing agency efforts on continuing improvements in service delivery.
For the last 20 years – in recognition of the importance of service delivery  in effective governance – both Congress and the executive branch have  taken action to improve federal agencies’ customer service. Most  recently, Congress enacted the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010  (GPRAMA) to focus and sustain attention on agency performance and  improvement. GPRAMA requires that agencies establish a balanced set  of performance indicators to be used in measuring progress toward  performance goals, including goals for customer service.
This report is part of a series of reports under our mandate to periodically  examine implementation of GPRAMA. The objectives of this report are to evaluate (1) the extent to which selected agencies and their services are  using customer service standards and measuring performance results  against these standards, and how selected agencies are communicating  standards and using customer feedback to improve customer service;  and (2) the extent to which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  and the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) are facilitating federal  agencies’ use of tools and practices to improve customer service.
For our review we selected five agencies and their services (see table 1).  We made our selection based on prior work in which we surveyed 12  federal agencies that were previously found to be among those with the  most widespread contact with the public. For the prior report, five of  those agencies were selected for additional follow-up interviews—based  on their responses to key survey questions—in order to gain a fuller  understanding of their responses. For this report, we selected the same  five agencies and their services to determine the progress made by each  since the issuance in 2011 of Executive Order 13571, Streamlining  Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service.
To address how selected agencies are using customer service standards  and measuring performance against those standards and how the  agencies are communicating standards and using customer feedback to  improve service, we interviewed agency officials and reviewed our  relevant prior work on customer service and on the agencies in our  sample. We also reviewed agencies’ customer service standards,  available performance measures related to those standards, information  on customer service satisfaction surveys and feedback mechanisms, and  departmental and agency strategic and customer service plans. In  addition, we compared agency information to key elements for effective  customer service standards. The key elements we selected for assessing  customer service standards include requirements found in GPRA,  GPRAMA, executive orders, and OMB guidance and memorandums that  include how customer service standards are to be used and measured,  including how standards should be communicated to customers.conducted Internet searches to determine the extent to which customer  service information was made publicly available by the agencies. We did  not evaluate agency performance data or determine the reliability of such  data, nor did we evaluate the overall effectiveness of or level of customer  service provided by any of the agencies reviewed as these issues were  not within the scope of our engagement.
To evaluate the extent to which OMB and the Performance Improvement  Council (PIC) are facilitating federal agencies’ use of tools and practices  to improve customer service, we reviewed OMB guidance and  memorandums, customer service task force agendas, and other  documents related to customer service and survey administration. We  interviewed officials from OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory  Affairs (OIRA) and the Office of Performance and Personnel  Management. We also reviewed information on customer service  published on Performance.gov, a government-wide performance website  maintained by OMB. For a more detailed description of our scope and  methodology, see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit in Washington, D.C., between  November 2013 to October 2014 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Over the last 20 years, both Congress and the executive branch have  taken actions to improve federal customer service. On January 5, 1993,  the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) was enacted to,  among other things, improve the effectiveness and efficiency of federal  programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance  and to measure results. GPRA was also intended to address several  broad purposes, including promoting a new focus on results, service  quality, and customer satisfaction.
Building on GPRA, Executive Order 12862, Setting Customer Service  Standards, was issued on September 11, 1993. The order stated that all  executive departments and agencies that “provide significant services  directly to the public shall provide those services in a manner that seeks  to meet the customer service standard established” which is “equal to the  best in business.” It also stated that the departments and agencies shall  take a number of actions related to this requirement.
On March 22, 1995, a presidential memorandum on improving customer  service was issued, which stated “or the first time, the Federal  Government’s customers have been told what they have a right to expect  when they ask for service.” The memorandum further stated that the  government must be customer-driven and customer-focused and clarified  expectations regarding agency actions, standards, and measurements.  To mark the occasion of the fifth anniversary of President Clinton’s  reinventing government initiative, another presidential memorandum was  issued on March 3, 1998, which called for efforts to “engage customers in  conversations about further improving Government service.”
In 2010 we assessed how federal agencies were setting customer service  standards, measuring results, reporting those results and using them to  improve service. To do this work, we conducted a survey, based on the  requirements of Executive Order 12862 and the related memorandums,  of 13 services provided by 12 federal agencies. In addition, we  examined steps the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had taken  to facilitate federal agency use of tools and practices to improve customer  service. We found that although all of the services in our review had  customer service standards, not all were made available in a way that  would be easy for customers to find and access, or in some cases, the  standards were not made available at all. In addition, we found that  some agency officials thought the requirements of the Paperwork  Reduction Act and its clearance process made obtaining customer input  difficult.
Since 2010, an additional law has been enacted and an executive order  has been issued that affect federal agencies and how they provide  customer service. GPRAMA significantly enhanced the requirements of  GPRA requiring agencies to develop annual performance plans that  include performance goals for an agency’s program activities and   Under GPRAMA, these  accompanying performance measures. performance goals should be in a quantifiable and measurable form to  define the level of performance to be achieved for program activities each  year.
On April 27, 2011, Executive Order 13571, Streamlining Service Delivery  and Improving Customer Service, was issued to strengthen customer  service and require agencies to develop and publish a customer service  plan, in consultation with OMB. On June 13, 2011, OMB issued guidance to agencies to assist in implementing the activities outlined in  Executive Order 13571.
As required by GPRAMA, in March 2014 OMB announced the creation of  a new set of cross-agency priority (CAP) goals in the fiscal year 2015  budget, which included customer service as a CAP goal to further build  upon the progress being made by individual agencies. OMB officials, the agency is committed to improving customer service  government-wide and to getting agency leadership to focus on the issue.  To that end, OMB identified a number of actions that support improved  customer service (see text box).
Cross-Agency Priority Goal: Customer Service  To build upon the progress being made by individual agencies, the administration is  taking action to deliver improved customer service across the federal enterprise. To  accomplish this goal, the administration will  streamline transactions,  develop standards for high impact services, and  utilize technology to improve the customer experience.
According to OMB, CAP goals address the longstanding challenge of addressing  problems that are government-wide and require active collaboration between multiple  agencies. To establish these goals, OMB solicited nominations from federal agencies and  several congressional committees. In addition, OMB identified Smarter IT Delivery as a  CAP goal with the purpose of improving outcomes and customer satisfaction with federal  services through smarter IT delivery and stronger agency accountability for success. year 2016 budget submissions.include the 5 departments in our review. According to the guidance, each  department is to highlight a limited number of key activities, provide the  requested funding levels for the activities and describe how the requests  were informed by citizen feedback, and report on the activities’ projected  contribution to improving the department’s mission and outcomes.
These 15 departments and agencies  Table 2 summarizes selected legislation, executive orders, and  memorandums affecting federal customer service.
section_title: None of the Agencies Met All Key Elements to Improve Customer Service Standards; Additional Focus on Customer Feedback May Further Assist Agencies Moving Forward
paragraphs: Customer service standards (standards) should inform customers as to  what they have a right to expect when they request services. The  customer service executive orders, memorandums, and guidance do not  include strict guidelines on how standards should be structured, allowing  agencies to develop their standards based in part on their particular  needs and mission. As a result, each of the agencies in our review had  standards that varied in the amount and type of information included,  reflecting differences in needs and mission. Because flexibility exists in  how agencies create standards—rooted in the purposes of GPRA and  GPRAMA, the customer service executive orders, memorandums, and  guidance—we identified key elements of effective customer service  standards that would allow agencies to better serve the needs of their  customers by providing greater accountability, oversight, and  transparency. Such key elements are themselves based on the purposes  and some requirements of GPRA, GPRAMA, and executive orders: to set  performance targets or goals, measure performance against the set  targets or goals, and communicate such information to customers.  Specifically, we assessed each of the agency’s standards against the  following key elements: whether the standards (1) include targets or goals  for performance; (2) include performance measures; and (3) are made  easily publicly available. Although standards may vary from agency to  agency based on need and mission, each agency’s standards should  include the key elements in order to improve customer service moving  forward.
GAO, Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA  Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges, GAO-13-518  (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013). goals for customer service required by the GPRA.” The law defines a  performance goal as a “target level of performance expressed as a  tangible, measurable objective, against which actual achievement can be  compared, including a goal expressed as a quantitative standard, value,  or rate.” OMB provided further guidance that standards should, where  possible, include targets for speed, quality/accuracy, and satisfaction.
Although Executive Order 13571and OMB guidance state performance  goals should be established “where appropriate” and targets “where  possible,” without clearly defined goals for customer service, agencies are  unable to effectively communicate their service intentions to customers.  As a result, we identified performance goals as a key element for effective  customer service standards. Standards that include performance targets  or goals allow agencies to define, among other things, the level, quality,  and timeliness of the service they provide to their customers.
See GAO, Small Business Administration: Additional Guidance on Documenting Credit  Elsewhere Decisions Could Improve 7(a) Program Oversight, GAO-09-228 (Washington,  D.C.: Feb. 12, 2009) and Small Business Administration: Additional Measures Needed to  Assess 7(a) Loan Program’s Performance, GAO-07-769 (Washington, D.C.: July 13,  2007). customer satisfaction as a measure.” Among other things, GPRAMA  requires that each agency performance plan should “establish a balanced  set of performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing  progress toward each performance goal, including, as appropriate,  customer service, efficiency, output, and outcome indicators.” We have  found that if agencies do not use performance measures and  performance information to track progress toward goals, they may be at  risk of failing to achieve their goals.
We have also found that there has been little improvement in managers’  reported use of performance information or practices that could help  promote this use. For example, since 1997 we have surveyed federal  managers to determine the extent to which agencies are using  performance information to improve agency results. In 1997, when we  first administered the survey, approximately 32 percent of federal  managers government-wide reported to a great or very great extent that  they have performance measures that tell them whether or not they are  satisfying their customers. In 2013, 16 years after the first survey, this  measure increased by approximately 8 percentage points to 40 percent, a  statistically significant difference but still less than a majority of managers  reporting positively on having such measures.
Easily publicly available. According to Executive Order 12862, agencies  are to post their standards, while Executive Order 13571 requires  agencies to post customer service metrics and best practices online. Most  recently, OMB provided additional guidance that the standards be “easily  accessible at the point of service and on the Internet” easily available information, customers may not know what to expect,  when to expect it, or from whom.
Memorandum, M-11-24, Appendix § 2 at 2. We conducted an Internet search on each  agencies’ websites to determine whether or not customer service standards were easily  available.
None of the agencies in our review had standards that included all of the  key elements (see table 3). Without all of the key elements present in  their standards, agencies may not be able to inform customers, provide  accountability, measure progress, or improve customer service.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Is a Model for Providing Customer Information, but Other Elements are Missing
paragraphs: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the unified border agency  within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged with the  management, control, and protection of our nation’s borders at and  between the official ports of entry. CBP’s primary mission is to protect the  American public against terrorists and weapons of terror from entering the  country while fostering the nation’s economic security. CBP’s border  security inspection of individuals processes travelers that present  themselves for entry into the United States. According to CBP, over 362  million passengers, pedestrians, and crew were inspected in fiscal year  2013 in 328 distinct ports of entry.
CBP’s border security inspection standards are made easily available to  the public; however, its standards do not include performance targets or  goals and, according to CBP officials, CBP does not measure  performance against those standards (see table 4).
CBP’s standards, its “Pledge to Travelers” are qualitative in nature, for  example, “we pledge to treat you with courtesy, dignity, and respect,” and  “we pledge to provide reasonable assistance due to delay or disability”  (see text box).
Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) “Pledge to Travelers” for Border Security  Inspections of Individuals
We pledge to cordially greet and welcome you to the United States.
We pledge to treat you with courtesy, dignity, and respect.
We pledge to explain the CBP process to you.
We pledge to have a supervisor listen to your comments.
We pledge to accept and respond to your comments in written, verbal, or electronic  form.
We pledge to provide reasonable assistance due to delay or disability.
According to CBP officials, the standards outline CBP’s service in ideal  circumstances for law-abiding travelers; CBP officials stated that theirs is  a law enforcement agency and as a result, although the pledge applies to  all travelers, different actions are taken for those attempting to break the  law. The standards did not include descriptions or otherwise define what  “courtesy, dignity, and respect” or “reasonable assistance” meant to CBP.  In addition, CBP standards do not include a performance goal or target  and CBP officials told us that they do not have performance measures  that directly link to their standards nor did they provide a reason why they  do not link. As a result, CBP officials are unable to determine the extent to  which the agency is meeting customer service needs based on their  standards.
Instead, agency officials told us they are able to use customer comment  data to infer how well the agency performs regarding the pledge.  According to CBP officials, in fiscal year 2013 agency-wide CBP received  2,285 comments specifically related to the “Pledge to Travelers” and CBP  officer conduct. To date for fiscal year 2014, CBP received 1,339  customer comments. With this information, CBP officials said they are  able to identify areas where improvements or additional officer training is  needed such as providing clarification about nonimmigrant visas for  temporary stays. However, without clearly stated performance goals or  measures directly linked to those goals, CBP is unable to determine the  extent to which the standards are being met agency-wide, identify areas  to improve service, or strategies to close performance gaps.
CBP was the only agency in our review that makes its standards easily  available to the public. CBP posts its standards on the Internet on its  webpage, as well as at points of service in entry ports, field offices, and  headquarters, according to CBP officials (see figure 1).
section_title: Forest Service’s Standards Do Not Include Any Key Elements
paragraphs: Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and  productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of  present and future generations. Forest Service’s recreational facilities  provide customers with passes and permits to experience the forests  through such activities as hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, cross-country  skiing, and snowmobiling. Forest Service’s recreational facilities  standards do not include any key elements for improving customer  service (see table 5).
Forest Service’s standards are a part of the agency’s “National Quality  Standards,” an internal document that contains employee performance  requirements that employees need to meet as part of their performance  ratings—for example, “garbage does not exceed the capacity of garbage  containers” (see text box). The standards did not include additional  descriptions such as frequency—for example, that the garbage should be  emptied on a daily basis. Forest Service officials also told us that there  were no performance measures directly linked to their employee  operations and maintenance performance standards and that the results  are self-reported by local supervisors on an annual basis. As a result,  Forest Service is unable to determine the extent to which the standards  are being met agency-wide, to identify areas to improve service, or to  develop strategies to close performance gaps.
Forest Service Customer Service Standards for Recreational Facilities  Excerpt of Forest Service standards (see appendix II for the complete list of standards)
Visitors are not exposed to human waste.
Water, wastewater, and sewage treatment systems meet federal, state and local  water quality regulations.
Garbage does not exceed the capacity of garbage containers.
Individual units and common areas are free of litter including domestic animal waste.
Facilities are free of graffiti.
Restrooms and garbage locations are free of objectionable odor.
Constructed features are clean.
Forest Service officials stated that the agency is finalizing changes to the  standards (which were developed in 2005) based on employee  performance and other current practices within the agency and expects to  finalize those changes by the end of fiscal year 2014. However, according  to Forest Service officials, these changes will not include performance  goals or measures. In 2010, we found that Forest Service did not make its  standards available to customers as officials felt the standards would not  be helpful to the visitors who evaluate such things as cleanliness of rest  rooms against their own standards and not those set forth by Forest  Service. Forest Service officials stated that there has been no change  since 2010 and the standards continue to be embedded in internal  employee performance reviews and are not publicly available at all. With  clearly defined performance goals and measures, Forest Service could  more easily communicate its definition of cleanliness, as well as other  services, to its customers. In addition, according to executive orders and  guidance, standards were specifically intended to inform the public,  irrespective of Forest Service’s position that its standards are not publicly  available because they may not be helpful to visitors.
section_title: Office of Federal Student Aid’s Standards Include Performance Goals and Are Measured; However, Standards Are Not Made Publicly Available
paragraphs: Federal Student Aid’s (FSA) core mission is to ensure that all eligible  individuals benefit from federal financial assistance—grants, work-study,  and loans—for education beyond high school. FSA provides student  loans under the Direct Loan Program, where the Department of Education  is the lender. FSA’s customers include student and parent applicants,  borrowers, and colleges and universities that disburse Direct Loans and  other federal aid authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of  1965 directly to eligible student borrowers. FSA provided the  standards for the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system  through which FSA disburses Direct Loan funds to participating Title IV  school customers for our analysis. These standards included two key  elements—standards that include performance targets or goals and  performance measures that are directly linked to the goals. However, the  standards are not made publicly available (see table 6).
According to FSA officials, their standards for disbursing direct loans are  requirements embedded within performance-based contracts that the  service contractor must meet. FSA officials stated that each phase of  the loan life cycle was governed by separate performance-based  contracts and standards. FSA’s COD standards, which govern one of  these life-cycle phases, include performance goals to be achieved for the  service contractor. However, the language used in the contracts is  specifically designed to lay out the technical requirements for the service  provider and as a result, without technical knowledge it may be more  difficult for individuals outside of the service industry, such as parents and  students, to understand (see text box).
Federal Student Aid Customer Service Standards for Student Loans under the  Direct Loan Program  Excerpt of Direct Loan Origination and Disbursement through the Common Origination  and Disbursement System (COD) Standards (see appendix III for the complete list of  standards)
Received unprocessed batches from schools will be reviewed each business day.
The Contractor will review and resolve unprocessed batches within 3 business days  from identification.
Availability of the COD Web site including all of the individual application and  infrastructure components that result in availability of the application to the business  excluding scheduled downtime, required processing outages and FSA provided  technology service (e.g. telecommunications, networking).
FSA has performance measures directly linked to the standards, including  target time frames for achieving the standards that range from daily to  monthly. FSA officials told us that the COD contract service provider  collects and reviews the performance data on a daily basis and provides  performance reports to FSA management monthly in its Customer  Experience Dashboard. The dashboard provides the current performance  data against historical data for the same period. For example, it provides  the number of Free Application for Federal Student Aid applications  received in 2013-2014 compared to the same time in 2011-2012.  According to FSA officials, the performance data are used to determine  the service provider’s level of performance. If the standards are not being  achieved, remedies may be taken as outlined in the contract. According  to FSA officials, the standards are viewed as the minimum level of  performance expected. The officials said the performance metrics have  not been adjusted in approximately 4 years, but the agency is discussing  metric changes for contract renewal. The COD standards overall were  developed through consultation between the agency and education  subject matter experts and were last modified in 2006.
In 2010, we found that FSA did not make its standards available to  customers for the Direct Loan Program because they were not intended  to inform the public. According to FSA officials, there has been no  change since 2010 and its standards continue to be embedded within  various service contracts and are not available to FSA’s customers.  However, according to executive orders and guidance, standards were  specifically intended to inform the public, irrespective of FSA’s position  that its standards are for the service provider and are not intended to  inform the public. As a result, FSA’s customers may not be fully aware of  the services that are available.
section_title: National Park Service’s Standards Do Not Include Any Key Elements
paragraphs: The National Park Service’s (NPS) mission is to preserve “unimpaired the  natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for  the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.”  According to NPS, its interpretive and educational services advance this  mission by providing memorable educational and recreational  experiences that help the public understand the meaning and relevance  of park resources and foster development of a sense of stewardship by  forging a connection between park resources, visitors, the community,  and the national park system. NPS customers are the visitors using the  programs, services, and facilities that NPS offers. NPS provided two sets  of standards that we assessed—the “Visitors’ Bill of Rights” and visitor  satisfaction survey descriptions. Neither of the standards included any  key elements of effective customer service standards (see table 7).
The first set of customer service standards, the “Visitors’ Bill of Rights,” is  included in an internal training module which NPS officials stated is a  standard to which they train employees.set of qualitative standards and includes descriptions of what NPS park  visitors have a right to expect during their stay, such as “have their  privacy and independence respected,” (see text box). NPS officials stated  that this standard was developed in 1996 and has not been updated since  then. According to NPS officials, there are no performance measures  linked to the “Visitors’ Bill of Rights” as the standards were intended for  internal training purposes. In addition, these standards are not publicly  available.
National Park Service’s Customer Service Standards for Visitor and Interpretive  Services  First set of standards— Visitors’ Bill of Rights:  Visitors have the right to: have their privacy and independence respected;  retain and express their own values;  be treated with courtesy and consideration; and  receive accurate and balanced information.
Second set of standards—visitor satisfaction survey scorecard measure definitions:
Visitor understanding level is at least 83 percent.
Visitor satisfaction level overall is at least 90 percent.
Visitor satisfaction with visitor services is at least 88 percent.
Visitor satisfaction with park facilities is at least 83 percent.
Ratio of number of interpretive contacts per visitor is at least 0.8.
NPS also provided as standards its visitor satisfaction survey scorecard  descriptions. The survey measures each park unit’s performance related  to visitor satisfaction, visitor understanding, and appreciation. The survey  is a random sample of visitors in 330 units. According to the fiscal year  2013 results of the visitor survey, approximately 97 percent of park  visitors were satisfied overall with appropriate facilities, services, and  recreational opportunities. According to NPS officials, this set of  standards includes benchmark scores—standard and exceptional  ratings—that the individual parks are rated against. While it is important  for agencies to solicit a customer’s level of satisfaction for services  provided, as is done by NPS, such feedback should be conducted in  addition to having a set of predetermined customer service standards that   Further, the  include performance targets or goals that can be measured.visitor surveys are conducted after customers have received NPS  services; one of the purposes of standards is to inform customers of what  they can expect prior to receiving the services. Without clearly stated  performance goals or measures directly linked to those goals, NPS is  unable to determine the extent to which the standards are being met  agency-wide or strategies to close performance gaps.
Finally, these standards are not made easily publicly available. According  to executive orders and guidance, standards were specifically intended to  inform the public. As such, standards need to be identified as standards  and made easily publicly available. However, we found the results of the  visitor survey on the NPS website under the NPS Social Science Branch  publications and were not identified as standards. As a result, customers  may not easily be able to find the results of the surveys much less make  the connection that the survey and its results reflect NPS’s standards for  service.
section_title: Veterans Benefits Administration Standards Include Performance Goals and Are Measured for Performance but Are Not Made Easily Publicly Available
paragraphs: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) disability compensation  program provides monetary support to over 3.7 million veterans with  disabling conditions that were incurred or aggravated during military  service. The program also provides monthly payments to about 370,000  beneficiaries including surviving spouses, dependent children, and  dependent parents in recognition of the economic loss caused by a  veteran’s death during military service or, after discharge from military  service, as a result of a service connected disability. The Veterans’ Group  Life Insurance (VGLI) program, also within VBA, allows veterans to  continue their life insurance coverage after separation from the military.
VGLI serviced approximately 426,000 customers during 2013. VBA’s  disability compensation and VGLI’s customer service standards each  include two key elements, but neither are made publicly available (see  table 8).
VBA’s disability compensation standards include two key elements of  effective customer service standards—goals for performance and  performance measures; however the standards are not made easily  publicly available (see table 8). The standards are quantitative, such as  “increase compensation claims processing timeliness to 125 days and  quality to 98 percent accuracy for medical issues” (see text box).According to VBA officials, standards are re-evaluated on an annual basis  and adjusted as appropriate. For example, disability compensation  standards were updated in fiscal year 2014 with a new standard added to  increase the percentage of claims filed online for the disability  compensation program.
Veterans Benefits Administration Disability Compensation’s Customer Service  Standards
Increase compensation claims processing timeliness to 125 days and quality to 98  percent accuracy for medical issues.  Increase the percentage of claims filed online.  Increase the annual number of disability compensation claims received  virtually/electronically from a baseline of 2 percent in 2013, to 12 percent in 2014,  and 20 percent in 2015.  Increase the National Call Center Satisfaction Index Score.  Increase the number of registered eBenefits users to 3.8 million in 2014 and 5 million  in 2015.
VBA disability compensation has performance measures that are directly  linked to customer service standards and, according to VBA officials, the  results serve as performance indicators of its service contractor for  disability compensation since 2010. The service contractor gathers the  performance data and reports out to VBA management. For example,  according to VBA officials, data collected for VBA call centers is reported  by the service contractor to VBA management on a daily basis, with  supplemental analysis reports provided monthly. These reports include  overall satisfaction results, service attributes and diagnostic data. Other  performance data, such as data collected on the online reporting site, can  be accessed by VBA management on a daily basis for all satisfaction  scores according to VBA officials. To identify any areas of opportunity,  VBA officials said they hold monthly monitoring sessions to listen to  customer satisfaction surveys, which are implemented over the phone.  According to VBA officials, reported data are analyzed by both VBA and  the service contractor to identify opportunities to make process  improvements that may increase satisfaction results to meet the agency’s  goals. When the performance results do not meet the standards, a plan is  executed to drive up performance, according to VBA officials.  Performance data are also used to quantify the various aspects of the  delivery of benefits and services, to identify best practices that may exist  within VBA lines of business and regional offices, and to recognize  employees who provide outstanding customer service, according to VBA  officials.
Disability compensation standards are available on the Department of  Veterans Affairs’ (VA) web-page through publicly available reports such  as the Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) and are also  identified in VA’s Strategic Plan. These documents serve a larger  purpose, and while not excluding customers, are targeted to a much  broader audience. However, these documents may not be readily  understood, much less known, to most customers. As a result, although  VBA disability compensation information is online, it is not easily available  or accessible to its customers.
subsections: section_title: Veterans’ Group Life Insurance
paragraphs: Similarly, VGLI’s standards include performance goals allowing  performance to be measured (see table 8 above). VGLI’s standards are  quantitative in nature, such as “98 percent of e-mails responded to within  24 hours of receipt.” VGLI standards are reviewed on an annual basis,  and adjusted as appropriate. For example, the most recent update of the  standards was in 2013, when there was an adjustment of the standard for  first call resolution from 78 percent to 82 percent. According to VGLI  officials, this adjustment reflected process improvements and  technological enhancements (see text box).
Veterans Benefits Administration Veterans’ Group Life Insurance Customer  Service Standard
80% of calls answered within 20 seconds.  97% of correspondence handled within 5 business days of receipt.  98% of e-mails responded to within 24 hours of receipt.  90% overall satisfaction with Office of Service members’ Group Life Insurance.  82% first call resolution rate.
According to a VGLI official, VGLI’s service contractor reviews the  performance standards annually and makes adjustments as appropriate  based on industry standards, process improvements, and technological  enhancements. For example, the service contractor makes adjustments  to the numbers of employees working on specific tasks based on  fluctuations in workflow throughout the year. In addition, the service  contractor has trained its employees to be functional in several areas, and  as a result employees can be temporarily reassigned based on work  needs. For example, the service contractor stated that employees who  primarily serve an administrative function are also trained to work in the  call center if the center is experiencing higher than normal call volume. In  addition, performance measures are directly linked to the standards and  are also benchmarked against the insurance industry by the service  contractor. Specifically, the service contractor measures performance and  collects data, then reports out to VGLI officials on a monthly basis using a  data metrics dashboard as well as quarterly briefings. However, VGLI’s  standards are not made publicly available as the standards are used  internally for its service contract, according to VGLI officials. As we  previously stated, based on the executive orders and guidance, standards  were specifically intended to inform the public and should be made  publically available, regardless of VGLI’s use of the standards. Without  such information, VGLI’s customers may not be fully aware of the  services that are available.
section_title: Some Agencies’ Feedback Mechanisms Were Better Able to Identify Needed Service Improvements Agency-wide
paragraphs: All of the agencies in our review provide customers with opportunities to  submit feedback, including comments and complaints, through a variety  of ways such as satisfaction surveys, comment cards submitted in person  or online, e-mails, and call centers. However, not all of the agencies in  our review had a formal or systematic mechanism for reviewing customer  feedback (see table 9).
Specifically, we found that CBP and VBA’s disability compensation have  a formal mechanism in place to review customer feedback. Forest  Service and NPS do not have criteria or guidance for when to elevate  customer comments from the local level up to the agency level. FSA and  VBA’s VGLI rely on service providers to review and elevate the  customers’ comments at the service provider’s discretion. Executive  Order 13571 stated that agencies should establish “mechanisms to solicit  customer feedback on Government services” and that agencies use “such  feedback regularly to make service improvements.” OMB guidance to  agencies for implementing Executive Order 13571 further stated that  agencies “ollect ongoing, timely, actionable customer feedback to  identify early warning signals of customer service issues.” Although the  executive order and guidance did not provide specific details as to how  the agency feedback mechanisms should be developed, research on best  practices emphasizes the need for a single, centralized management  framework for receiving customer feedback so that all information about  the customers can be linked together to facilitate a more complete  knowledge of the customer. In addition, the Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government calls for agencies to develop control  activities, such as policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that  enforce management’s directives, which helps to reinforce the need for  agencies to develop guidance or policies for reviewing and elevating  customer feedback. Moving forward, a feedback mechanism that better  aligns with OMB guidance, best practices, and Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government could include guidance for reviewing  customer feedback and taking action to resolve potential problems at the  agency level from service providers and disparate locations across the  country. In addition, such a feedback mechanism would also enable  agencies to determine if customer concerns are localized, specific to a  given function, agency-wide, or systemic.
Customs and Border Protection. CBP has a formal mechanism in place  to review customer feedback and is the only agency in our review that  has a customer service web page that allows customers to file comments  and complaints online and that includes information such as how CBP  handles traveler complaints (see figure 2). According to CBP officials, the  agency received approximately 8,700 complaints and 723 compliments in  fiscal year 2013, a year in which CBP officers inspected over 362 million  passengers, pedestrians, and crew. According to the same officials, for  the past 3 years CBP’s INFO Center, where customers can call or email  with questions or complaints, has tracked the history, timing, and  resolution of a comment, and the specific port from where the comment  originated. The center receives between 800 and 1,200 calls a day as  well as 150 emails a day. According to CBP officials, 95 percent of the  complaints are closed within 95 days or sooner.
CBP officials said they routinely use customer comments to improve  customer service. For example, CBP officials reported using customer  feedback to identify a misconception among CBP officers at a specific  port concerning the time limitations of a type of nonimmigrant visa for  temporary stay. After identifying the problem through customer feedback,  CBP officials reported that additional officer training was provided and the  complaints on visa admittance at that specific port declined.
Forest Service. According to Forest Service officials, most customer  feedback was submitted, reviewed, and handled at the local unit level  (forests). For example, in comments visitors reported dangerous steps  along the Double Arch Trail in Kentucky’s Daniel Boone National Forest,  and in 2013 Forest Service repaired those steps. According to Forest  Service officials, local customer feedback is only elevated to the attention  of headquarters staff at the discretion of local management and stated  that local management can use the monthly meetings with regional  management to discuss any issues or problems. However, Forest Service  officials did not provide us criteria or documentation for situations when  local management would elevate such feedback to headquarters for  additional review or input. In addition, Forest Service officials stated that  there is no mechanism for collecting comments agency-wide. As a result  of this decentralized approach, Forest Service may be unable to  determine the extent to which potential problems may exist agency-wide  or identify needed improvements.
Office of Federal Student Aid. According to FSA officials, customers  primarily provide direct feedback online or on the phone through a  contracted service provider, who is responsible for resolving any issues  that may arise. Issues may be elevated to FSA at the contract service  provider’s discretion but, according to FSA officials, FSA is not commonly  involved.
In addition, FSA officials did not provide any criteria or process by which  the service provider would elevate customer feedback. FSA officials told  us there are different service providers for the different phases of a loan.  As a result, although each phase may be distinct, FSA may be unable to  identify similar problems or concerns that occurred over time. Providing  additional guidance, such as specific criteria of which customer  comments or feedback should be elevated to FSA’s attention by the  service provider, would better position FSA to not only provide better  oversight of its service provider but to also potentially improve customer  service.
FSA did share an example of how it launched the Financial Aid  Counseling Tool (FACT) in response to schools’ requests for an  enhanced financial literacy tool that would be available to students year- round. According to FSA officials, FACT assists borrowers in making  informed decisions about their loans and managing their debt by  providing access to their real time loan balances, budgeting worksheets,  and features to project income planning and to estimate monthly loan  payments for various repayment options. However FSA was not able to  provide further clarification or documentation as to why this specific case  was raised to its attention over others and why subsequent action was  taken.
National Park Service. According to NPS officials, most customer  feedback is submitted at the level of each park via visitor comment cards.  Visitors may also write to regional and national NPS offices with their  feedback, as well as submit formal complaints regarding accessibility and  discrimination. There is a general “contact us” feedback option online.  NPS officials told us that feedback submitted at local parks is reviewed at  that level and only elevated at the discretion of local management. NPS  headquarters officials were unable to provide examples of using customer  feedback to improve service and instead reached out to local parks for  information. For example, Golden Gate Park in California implemented a  park-wide restroom improvement program, improved signage, and  replaced a missing park map and brochures in certain areas based on  customer feedback. According to NPS officials, NPS does not have  agency-wide policies or processes to guide the review of feedback or to  inform management about the nature and extent of the feedback to help  improve operations and customer service. As a result, NPS may not be  able to identify systemic or consistent problems across all of its units  unless such information is elevated.
Veterans Benefits Administration Disability Compensation. VBA’s  mechanism for managing disability compensation customer feedback is  largely managed by its service provider, according to VBA officials. The  officials said most customer comments are submitted via call centers  where there is a standard procedure for phone call escalations. Concerns  are forwarded from the service provider to VBA based on agency  guidance, and appropriate follow-up action is taken by the VA regional  office. This process is managed and tracked through an internal system,  according to VBA officials. As a result, although VBA’s disability  compensation customer feedback is largely managed by service  providers, VBA officials have a formal mechanism in place to oversee not  only the feedback that has been escalated, but also the service provided  to customers.
In October 2010, VBA disability compensation launched a customer  satisfaction research program for its national call centers and  subsequently identified 97 service enhancements, 55 of which have been  implemented, according to VBA officials. For example, VBA disability  compensation implemented Virtual Hold Call Back technology, which  allows callers to leave their name and phone number to receive an  automatic return call. Since the implementation date of September 2011,  the system has returned over 10 million calls, according to VBA officials.
Veterans Benefits Administration–Veterans’ Group Life Insurance.  According to a VGLI official, VGLI’s service provider reviews and handles  customer feedback that may be submitted through VGLI’s portal–an on- line chat mechanism with customer service representatives. However, we  were unable to find an online contact or complaint option on VGLI’s  website. According to VGLI officials, customers also have the option to  submit written feedback to VBA. VGLI holds quarterly meetings with its  service provider to discuss service improvements that may be needed  based on the feedback; however, VGLI officials said there were no criteria  or process by which specific types of feedback were brought to their  attention. As a result, VGLI officials may not be aware of potential  system-wide issues affecting customers that may be reflected in their  feedback.
According to VGLI officials, feedback was used to identify the challenges  veterans faced concerning the limits of and their desire for more life  insurance coverage. As a result of the feedback, VGLI initiated “VGLI Buy  Up” which allows veterans to increase their life insurance coverage once  every 5 years by $25,000. In addition, proof of medical eligibility is not  required.
section_title: Identification of Customer Service as a Cross-Agency Priority Goal May Provide Additional Focus Needed to Further Improve the Customer Experience Governmment-wide
paragraphs: OMB has taken several steps to facilitate the improvement of agencies’  customer service initiatives. For example, in 2010 we recommended, and  OMB later took steps to implement, that the Director of OMB should (1)  direct agencies to consider options to make their customer service  standards and results more readily available to customers and (2)  collaborate with the President’s Management Advisory Board and  agencies to provide citizens with the information necessary to hold  government accountable for customer service, among other things. To  implement these recommendations, OMB issued its customer service  plan memorandum, as developed by OMB’s Deputy Director for  Management, in June 2011 following the issuance of Executive Order  13571, which was issued to improve customer service and require  agencies to develop and publish a customer service plan. The  memorandum stated that OMB would establish and coordinate a  Customer Service Task Force to “facilitate the exchange of best practices  and the development of agency customer service plans and signature  initiatives…that will meet regularly until agencies published their plans.”
Task force actions. According to the task force schedule and agendas  we obtained from OMB, the task force met with agency officials on a  monthly basis from June to September 2011 before agency plans were  posted on Performance.gov in October 2011. The task force was made up of senior agency officials responsible for the development of their  agencies’ plans. According to an OMB official, senior agency officials  identified best practices based on customer service experiences from  within their own agencies. We wanted to review the outcome of these  meetings including the self-identified best practices; however, according  to OMB, no meeting minutes were taken and the staff involved in the task  force are no longer with OMB.
Department actions. Each of the departments included in our review  published their plans as scheduled. However, of the five agencies in our  review, only CBP officials told us that they used the plan as a tool to  manage and oversee aspects of customer service. According to  Executive Order 13571, the plans were to address how the departments  would “provide services in a manner that seeks to streamline service  delivery and improve the experience of its customers” and the OMB  interpretive guidance stated that the plans should “identify implementation  steps for the customer service activities outlined in EO 13571.”  However, two of the agencies told us that unless required to do so by  OMB, they do not intend to update their customer service plans. Further,  Forest Service officials were not even aware that a department-wide  customer service plan had been created. We have previously found that a  well-developed and documented project plan encourages agency  managers and stakeholders to systematically consider what is to be done,  when and how it will be done, what skills will be needed, and how to  gauge progress and results. However, we found that the plans were in  effect, static documents and did not reflect any updates to milestones or  actions taken. We discussed the usefulness of the customer service plans  with OMB officials and they agreed that the departments could have  implemented the plans more effectively. OMB stated that moving forward,  the CAP goal implementation plan, which is discussed later, may better  help provide additional focus on customer service government-wide.
Performance Improvement Council role. We also inquired about the  role of the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) in helping agencies  with their customer service efforts. The PIC, however, did not have an  active role in assisting agencies with the development of their plans. The  PIC, chaired by OMB’s Deputy Director for Management and composed  of performance improvement officers from various federal agencies, is  charged with, among other responsibilities, facilitating the exchange of  successful performance improvement practices among agencies, working  to resolve government-wide or crosscutting performance issues, and  assisting OMB in implementing certain GPRAMA requirements. Further, the PIC’s role includes considering the performance improvement  experiences of customers of government services. Despite their  designated role in improving customer experience, OMB officials  confirmed that the PIC was not actively involved in the task force.  However, moving forward, OMB stated that if plans on involving the PIC  in the CAP goal implementation plan for customer service.
OMB additional actions. Although OMB has taken action to move  customer service forward government-wide, such as developing guidance  and facilitating the task force, other steps were not completed because of  budget limitations, according to OMB officials. These uncompleted  actions pertain to OMB’s prior effort to provide oversight and  accountability of agencies’ customer service metrics. In 2010, we found  that OMB was developing a pilot dashboard that contained agency  standards and some related measures, with links to agency web sites  where customers could track their individual transaction status, where  available. We found that OMB had asked agencies participating in the  pilot to identify metrics that were drivers of customer satisfaction, such as  wait time, processing time, and first call resolution. OMB expected the  pilot dashboard to launch publicly in late fall 2010.official told us that although the agency had begun work on the  performance dashboard, there was a reprioritization of resources within  OMB and the pilot effort was discontinued. The OMB official did not know  if the pilot efforts would begin again. Such a performance dashboard  would have been the first of its kind government-wide and may have  enabled OMB to provide greater oversight of agency customer service  performance against identified standards. Nevertheless, OMB envisions  that the attention given to customer service by making it a CAP goal will  move customer service forward government-wide.
subsections: section_title: Fast Track Process May Not Speed-Up Survey Approval Process
paragraphs: In 2010, we found that in certain instances the Paperwork Reduction Act  of 1995 (PRA) clearance process made obtaining customer input difficult  because of lengthy delays to obtain approval for a survey to collect  customer input (see text box). For example, we previously found that  NPS stated that lengthy delays in obtaining approval for information  collections, such as visitor surveys, under the PRA sometimes caused  research to be postponed or even abandoned.
We also found that  Forest Service officials considered the time needed to obtain clearance  for surveys to be a major barrier to gathering input from customers on  their level of satisfaction.
In early 2010, OMB also issued three memorandums—relevant to  customer service goals—containing clarifying guidance to improve the  implementation of the PRA. federal agencies to facilitate their understanding of PRA clearances and  when and how they can be used. On June 15, 2011, OMB’s Office of  Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) issued a memorandum  outlining the new Fast Track process for survey approval which would  allow agencies to obtain timely feedback on service delivery using such  types of voluntary collections as online surveys and comment cards or  complaint forms. According to OIRA officials, the biggest challenge in  implementing the Fast Track process has been disseminating information  to agencies on when to use Fast Track. An OMB official told us that the  agency is aware of the lack of communication concerning the Fast Track  process and in the upcoming year plans to address this information gap.
Office of Management and Budget, Information Collection under the Paperwork  Reduction Act, Memorandum (Apr. 7, 2010); Office of Management and Budget, Social  Media, Web-Based Interactive Technologies, and the Paperwork Reduction Act,  Memorandum (Apr. 7, 2010); and Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork  Reduction Act—Generic Clearances, Memorandum (May 28, 2010).
Paperwork Reduction Act  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.
OIRA officials provided us with the following data on the Fast Track  process. As of May 2014, 85 agencies have been approved to use the  Fast Track process for survey approval, including all of the agencies in  our review. OIRA officials said they have approved 580 data collection  requests using the Fast Track process, returned 67 requests to agencies  because of improper submission, and 24 requests were withdrawn by the  agencies themselves.
Use of the new Fast Track process varied among the agencies we  reviewed. For example, Forest Service officials told us that their local  forest units had experienced a slight improvement in timeliness of their  survey approvals because they used the Fast Track process. However,  the Forest Service officials also told us that surveys primarily  administered by headquarters serve a different purpose and rely heavily  on statistical analysis for research. Such surveys, according to Forest  Service officials, would not be eligible for the Fast Track process because  of their statistical rigor. According to OIRA guidance, Fast Track is not  intended to be used for surveys that require statistical rigor that will be  used for making significant policy or resource allocation decisions, or for  collections whose results are intended to be published. According to FSA  officials, they have neither noticed an improvement or degradation in the  approval process under the Fast Track process. FSA officials told us that  OMB has routinely approved surveys that fall under the Fast Track  process within the designated time frames, with few exceptions. VBA  disability compensation officials also told us that their surveys were not  eligible for the Fast Track process because their surveys did not meet all  the requirements for Fast Track. For NPS, according to officials, the time  involved with the procedural review through the Fast Track is still lengthy  and is perceived as prohibitive for parks and programs to conduct  valuable and usable social science research surveys. Finally, CBP  officials told us that they have not used the Fast Track process and have  no plans to do so in the near future. Officials at VBA’s VGLI did not have  an opinion on the Fast Track process because they have not used it.
section_title: Customer Service Identified as Cross- Agency Priority Goal
paragraphs: OMB identified customer service as a cross-agency priority goal (CAP)  goal in March 2014 to further build upon the progress being made by  individual agencies (see figure 3).
By focusing on developing standards for high impact services, OMB  recognizes that government leaders have a responsibility to understand  customer expectations and service needs, and continually evaluate and  improve their effectiveness in meeting those needs. According to OMB  officials, two goal leaders and a goal team are responsible for the CAP  goal. In June 2014, the CAP goal team issued an implementation plan to  increase customer satisfaction and promote positive experiences, issued  an action plan to achieve that goal, and assigned a team to oversee and  manage the project. The implementation plan, issued on the  Performance.gov website, identified the development and implementation  of standards, practices, and tools as one of the CAP goal team’s four  strategies or sub-goals to further improve customer service. According  to the implementation plan, the problem of fragmentation within and  across agencies has made the establishment of customer service  initiatives difficult. The CAP goal team’s strategy to address the problem  of fragmentation will be to establish an infrastructure to improve  coordination and to develop sustain change over time by developing a  community of practice across agencies and clarifying who is responsible  for customer service. According to the implementation plan, the  community of practice will share best practices and develop guidance that  the agencies will use to develop customer service standards. While it is  too early to assess the effect of the new CAP goal, this new effort does  offer an opportunity for OMB to begin to elevate the importance of  customer service government-wide and to engage agencies on how to  better meet customer needs.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: All five agencies established customer service standards. However, those  standards did not always include performance targets or goals, did not  always have performance measures, and were not always easily publicly  available. Specifically, three of the five agencies in our review did not  have all of the elements of a customer-centered performance  management approach for delivering federal service. Having customer  standards that include performance targets or goals allows customers to  understand what to expect for the services they are seeking. Without  standards customers may be left not knowing or confused over what to  expect when using a government-provided service. We also found that  not all agencies measured performance to determine whether customer  service standards were being met. Measuring performance allows  agencies to track the progress they are making toward meeting those  standards and gives managers crucial information on which to base  decisions as well as to update those standards, when necessary. Thus, if  agencies do not measure performance to track progress toward meeting  customer service standards then they risk failing to meet the needs of  their customers.
In addition, communicating customer service standards to the public in a  way that is useful and readily available to customers is important in  enabling the public to hold government accountable and to inform  customer decision making. Four of five agencies we reviewed did not  make customer service standards easily available to customers. For  example one agency provided its standards through documents that  serve larger purposes, such as departmental performance and  accountability reports and agency strategic plans. While not excluding  customers, those documents are targeted to a much broader audience.  Notably, all five agencies in our review use customer feedback to improve  customer service. Agencies reported they used this feedback in a number  of instances to make improvements to training and the number of  services offered among other things. However, only CBP and VBA’s  disability compensation had a formal or systematic process for reviewing  customer feedback. Having such a feedback mechanism could help  agencies link information about their customers and ultimately assist  agencies with customer service improvements.
In March 2014, OMB made customer service a CAP goal. In June 2014  OMB released an implementation plan for customer service that included  a goal statement to increase customer satisfaction and to promote  positive experiences, released an action plan to achieve that goal, and  assigned a team to oversee and manage the project. While it is too early  to assess the effect of the new CAP goal, this new effort does offer an  opportunity for OMB to begin to elevate the importance of customer  service government-wide and to engage agencies on how to better meet  customer needs.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: Recognizing that moving toward a more customer-oriented culture within  federal agencies is likely to be a continuous effort, we recommend that  the:  Secretary of Agriculture direct the Under Secretary for Natural Resources  and Environment to take the following four actions to improve Forest  Service’s customer service standards and feedback review: ensure  standards include performance targets or goals; ensure standards include  performance measures; ensure standards are easily publicly available;  and develop a feedback mechanism to collect comments agency-wide,  which should include guidance or criteria to elevate customer feedback  from local and regional offices to identify the need for and to make service  improvements;  Secretary of Education direct Federal Student Aid’s Chief Operating  Officer to take the following two actions to improve Federal Student Aid’s  customer service standards and feedback review: ensure standards are  easily publicly available and develop a feedback mechanism that includes  guidance or criteria for service providers to elevate customer feedback to  identify the need for and to make service improvements;  Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection take the following  two actions to improve CBP’s customer service standards: ensure  standards include performance targets or goals and ensure standards  include performance measures;  Secretary of the Interior direct the Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife  and Parks to take the following four actions to improve the National Park  Service’s customer service standards and feedback review: ensure  standards include performance targets or goals; ensure standards include  performance measures; ensure standards are easily publicly available;  and develop a feedback mechanism that includes guidance or criteria to  review and elevate customer feedback from local and regional offices to  identify the need for and to make service improvements;  Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Veterans Benefits Administration  to improve disability compensation customer service standards by making  the standards easily publicly available; and  Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Veterans Benefits Administration  to take the following two actions to improve Veterans’ Group Life  Insurance’s customer service standards and feedback review: ensure  standards are easily publicly available and develop a feedback  mechanism that includes guidance or criteria for service providers to  elevate customer feedback and identify the need for and to make service  improvements.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the OMB and the Departments of  Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Interior and Veterans Affairs.  The Chief of the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture), the Chief  Operating Officer at Federal Student Aid (Department of Education), the  Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of  Veterans  Affairs provided written comments on a draft of the report, which are  reprinted in appendixes IV, V, VI, and VII respectively. In their written  responses, the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland  Security and Veterans Affairs agreed with our recommendations.  Department of Interior officials also stated that they agreed with our  recommendation in an e-mail. Finally, OMB, the Departments of  Homeland Security, Education and Veterans Affairs also suggested  technical changes to the report, which we incorporated where  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OMB and the  heads of the five agencies that were included in this review as well as  interested congressional committees and other interested parties. This  report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of our report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix  VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this study were to address the extent to which (1)  selected agencies and their services are using customer service  standards and measuring performance results against these standards,  and how selected agencies are communicating standards and using  customer feedback to improve customer service; and (2) the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) and the Performance Improvement  Council are facilitating federal agencies’ use of tools and practices to  improve customer service. To address our two objectives, we selected  agencies and their services for our review based on prior work in which  we surveyed 12 federal agencies (which are among those with the most  widespread contact with the public) about 13 services they provided.  For the prior report, five of those agencies were selected for additional  follow-up interviews—based on their responses to key survey questions— in order to gain a fuller understanding of their responses. For this report,  we selected the same five agencies and their services to determine the  progress made by each since the issuance in 2011 of Executive Order  13571 on improving customer service (see table 10). To determine  progress made, we expanded our review to include in-depth interviews  with agency officials and an examination of relevant customer service  documentation such as plans, performance measures, and feedback  mechanisms.
To address how selected agencies are using customer service standards  and measuring performance against those standards, communicating  standards, and using customer feedback to improve service, we reviewed  our relevant prior work on customer service and the specific agencies in  our sample. We requested and reviewed agencies’ customer service  standards and available performance measures related to those  standards. In addition, we compared agency information to relevant  executive orders, presidential and OMB memorandums, and OMB  guidance consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA)  provisions related to customer service (see table 11).
The key elements we selected for assessing customer service standards  include requirements found in GPRA, GPRAMA, executive orders, and  OMB guidance and memorandums that focus on how customer service  standards are to be used and measured including how standards should  be communicated to customers.
We conducted interviews with agency officials from various offices—such  as performance and budget—as well as those directly involved in  customer service. We did not evaluate the overall effectiveness of or level  of customer service provided by any of the agencies reviewed as these  issues were not within the scope of our engagement. We requested and  reviewed agency information on customer service satisfaction surveys  and feedback mechanisms, and departmental and agency strategic and  customer service plans. In addition, we conducted Internet searches to  determine the extent to which customer service information was made  publicly available by the agencies. Specifically, we assessed the  agencies on the contents of their standards and not against the level or  quality of customer service they provide. In addition, we did not evaluate  agency performance data or determine the reliability of such data as  these issues were not within the scope of our engagement.
To evaluate the extent to which OMB and the Performance Improvement  Council (PIC) are facilitating federal agencies’ use of tools and practices  to improve customer service, we reviewed OMB guidance and  memorandums, customer service task force agendas, and other  documents related to customer service and survey administration  including the Fast Track process. We interviewed officials from OMB’s  Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the Office of  Performance and Personnel Management. We also reviewed information  on customer service published on Performance.gov, a government-wide  performance website.
We conducted this performance audit in Washington, D.C., between  November 2013 to October 2014 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: Forest Service Customer Service Standards for Recreational Facilities and Services
paragraphs: 1. *Visitors are not exposed to human waste.  2. *Water, wastewater, and sewage treatment systems meet federal,       state, and local water quality regulations.  3. Garbage does not exceed the capacity of garbage containers.  4. Individual units and common areas are free of litter including       domestic animal waste.  5. Facilities are free of graffiti.  6. Restrooms and garbage locations are free of objectionable odor.  7. Constructed features are clean.  1. *Effects from recreation use do not conflict with environmental laws           (such as ESA, NHPA, Clean Water, TES, etc).  2. Recreation opportunities, site development, and site management       are consistent with Recreation management system (ROS, SMS,       BBM) objectives, development scale, and the Forest land       management plan.  3. Landscape character and resource conditions at the recreation site          are consistent with the Forest scenic integrity objectives and Forest       Plan prescriptions.  4. Visitors and vehicles do not exceed site capacity. 1. *High-risk conditions do not exist in recreation sites.  2. *Utility inspections meet federal, state, and local requirements.  3. Laws, regulations and special orders are enforced.  4. Visitors are provided a sense of security.  1. *When signed as accessible, constructed features meet current        accessibility guidelines.  2. Visitors feel welcome.  3. Information boards are posted in a user-friendly and professional       manner.  4. Visitors are provided opportunities to communicate satisfactions       (needs, expectations).  5. Visitor information facilities are staffed appropriately during seasons       of use and current information is available.  6. Recreation site information is accurate and available from a variety        of sources and outlets. 1. Constructed features are serviceable and in good repair throughout       the designed service life.  2. Constructed features in disrepair due to lack of scheduled       maintenance, or in non-compliance with safety codes (e.g. life       safety, OSHA, environmental, etc.) or other regulatory requirements       (ABA/ADA, etc.), or beyond the designed service life, are repaired,       rehabilitated, replaced, or decommissioned.  3. New, altered, or expanded constructed features meet Forest       Service design standards and are consistent with an approved site       development plan, including an accessibility transition plan.      Critical National Standards are identified with an asterisk (*). If not         met, the resulting conditions pose a high probability of immediate or         permanent loss to people or property. If they cannot be met, due to         budget or other constraints, immediate action must be taken to         correct or mitigate the problem. Immediate action may include         closing to public use the site, trail, area, permit, or portions of the         affected site, trail or area. If conditions, facilities, or services         addressed by “non-critical” standards decline to the point where the         health or safety of the visitor is threatened, then mitigating actions         must be taken.
section_title: Appendix III: Federal Student Aid Customer Service Standards for Student Loans under the Direct Loan Origination and Disbursement Program through the Common Origination and Disbursement System (COD)
paragraphs: Appendix III: Federal Student Aid Customer  Service Standards for Student Loans under the  Direct Loan Origination and Disbursement  Program through the Common Origination and  Disbursement System (COD)
1.  Received unprocessed batches from schools will be reviewed each  business day. The Contractor will review and resolve unprocessed  batches within 3 business days from identification.  2.  Availability of the COD Web site including all of the individual  application and infrastructure components that result in availability of  the application to the business excluding scheduled downtime,  required processing outages and FSA provided technology service  (e.g. telecommunications, networking, AIMS, and PM).  3.  The number of days (30 days) required to fix commingled data  incidents (Type 1 & Type 2)  4.  Availability of the Total Access Ad Hoc functionality including all of the  individual application and infrastructure components that result in  availability of the application to the business excluding scheduled  downtime and required processing outages.  5.  Contractor shall provide bi-lingual (English and Spanish) phone  support to schools, students, parents, and borrowers Monday - Friday  from 8:00AM to 8:00PM Eastern Standard Time. All incoming calls  shall be routed through the existing COD toll-free support number and  routed to the appropriate Customer Service Representative with the  purpose of responding to the caller issues.  6.  The average amount of time a user spends on hold in the Interactive  Voice Response system. The average speed of answer is measured  from the time the user selects an option to speak with a customer  service representative until a customer service representative  answers the phone.  7.  Of the total calls received, the percentage of calls in the Interactive  Voice Response that are abandoned by the Customer before reaching  the customer service representative.  8.  The Contractor shall monitor and evaluate communications  (telephone calls and emails) between Customer Service  Representatives, Schools, Third Party Servicers, and Borrowers. The  Contractor shall monitor and evaluate a random sampling of  communications. The results of the evaluations will be collected and  reported monthly. The purpose of the evaluations is to help confirm  that the information provided to Schools, Third Party Servicers and  Borrowers meets or exceeds the quality performance metric.  9.  Deposit all funds received from schools, students, and third party  servicers into established United States Treasury accounts.  10. The Contractor shall successfully restore COD Mainframe application  data and core COD processing functionality (as defined in Section  C.2.7.1) within the allotted time frame of each annual DR test.  11. Critical severity problems shall be resolved within 24 hours, or worked  continuously until they are resolved.  12. The number of existing open problems at the time of release by  priority are resolved within 30 days of the Release implementation  date. This does not include problems that possess a workaround  acceptable to Federal Student Aid.  13. The percentage of new problems introduced by a Service Pack  implementation as measured within 30 days from the Service Pack  implementation date. This will be determined by dividing the number  of new problems detected after a Service Pack implementation that  are associated with the Service Pack code modifications by the  number of service tickets (problems and enhancements) the Service  Pack attempted to resolve.  14. Publication of the COD Technical Reference prior to or on the  mutually agreed upon publication date. Mutual agreement to change  the publication date will reset the publication date for this SLA.  15. Publication of the COD Project Briefing based on a mutually agreed  upon schedule excluding any Federal Holidays or closures.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from Department of Veterans Affairs
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the above contact, Lisa Pearson (Assistant Director) and  Dewi Djunaidy supervised this review and the development of the  resulting report. Pat Norris, Diantha Garms, Tom Beall, Jehan Chase,  Deirdre Duffy, Robert Robinson, and Scott Zellner made significant  contributions to this report.