This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-44 
entitled 'Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies’ Customer Service 
Efforts: Managing for Results' which was released on October 27, 2010. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

Managing for Results: 

Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies' Customer Service Efforts: 

GAO-11-44: 

GAO Highlights: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

All 13 government services GAO surveyed (see table below) 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. 

Table: Thirteen Government Services GAO Surveyed: 

Direct Student Loans; 
Forest Recreation Services; 
Park Visitor and Interpretive Services; 
Medicare; 
Indian Health Service Medical Care; 
Border Inspections of Individuals; 
Passenger and Baggage Screening; 
Passport Services; 
Social Security; 
Tax Information and Advice; 
Veteran Disability Compensation; 
Veterans’ Group Life Insurance
Veteran Medical Care. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table]

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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

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. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44] or key 
components. For more information, contact Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 
512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

All Selected Services Have Customer Service Standards and Measure 
Results of Service: 

Most Selected Services Could Increase the Public Availability of 
Customer Service Information, but All Use Results to Improve Service 
Quality: 

Several Additional Tools and Practices for Customer Service Management 
Are Used by State, Local, and Non-U.S. National Governments: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: List of Services Contacted: 

Appendix III: Examples of Standards from Surveyed Services: 

Appendix IV: High-Priority Performance Goals Related to Customer 
Service: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Customs and Border Protection's Pledge to Travelers: 

Figure 2: The Department of Veterans Affairs' Life Insurance Customer 
Service Web Site: 

Figure 3: Customs and Border Protection's Border Wait Times Web Site: 

Figure 4: IRS Critical Job Elements for Taxpayer Assistance Related to 
Customer Satisfaction: 

Figure 5: Govbenefits.gov Web Site: 

Figure 6: Example of Medicare Hospital Comparison Web Page: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

October 27, 2010: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George V. Voinovich: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 
Workforce and the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Diane E. Watson: 
Chairwoman: 
Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Henry Cuellar: 
House of Representatives: 

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.[Footnote 1] The same year, in order to carry out the 
principles of the National Performance Review,[Footnote 2] President 
Clinton issued Executive Order 12862, which required agencies to post 
customer service standards and measure results against them.[Footnote 
3] 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.[Footnote 4] 

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.[Footnote 5] 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 
Student Aid: 

* Visitor and interpretive services provided by the National Park 
Service: 

* Health insurance under Medicare provided by the Centers for Medicare 
& Medicaid Services: 

* Medical care provided by the Indian Health Service: 

* Border security inspection of individuals provided by Customs and 
Border Protection: 

* Passenger and baggage screening provided by the Transportation 
Security Administration: 

* Passport services provided by the Bureau of Consular Affairs: 

* Provision of tax information and advice to individuals provided by 
the Internal Revenue Service: 

* Disability compensation provided by the Veterans Benefits 
Administration: 

* 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 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

* Health and safety information provided by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention: 

* Research and education grants provided by the National Science 
Foundation: 

* Procurement of goods and services for the government provided by the 
Federal Acquisition Service: 

* 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.[Footnote 6]  

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. 

Background: 

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:[Footnote 7] 

* 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 best in business: 

* provide customers with choices in both the sources of service and the 
means of delivery: 

* make information, services, and complaint systems easily accessible 
and: 

* 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. 

All Selected Services Have Customer Service Standards and Measure 
Results of Service: 

All Surveyed Services Established and Reviewed Standards: 

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.[Footnote 8] 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.[Footnote 9] 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. 

Nearly All Surveyed Services Have Measures of Customer Service and 
Customer Satisfaction: 

All 13 of the surveyed services reported having measures of customer 
service, and 11 of the services reported having measures of 
satisfaction.[Footnote 10] 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.[Footnote 11] 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.[Footnote 12] 
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, [hyperlink, 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.[Footnote 13] 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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Affects Gathering of Customer Views: 

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.[Footnote 14] 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.[Footnote 15] 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.[Footnote 16] 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.[Footnote 17] 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.[Footnote 18] 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,[Footnote 19] 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. 

All Surveyed Services Use Various Methods to Gather Frontline 
Employees' Ideas for Improving Customer Service: 

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. 

Selected Services with Less Widespread Contact with the Public Also Set 
Customer Service Standards and Measure Results: 

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.[Footnote 20] 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. 

Most Selected Services Could Increase the Public Availability of 
Customer Service Information, but All Use Results to Improve Service 
Quality: 

Most Surveyed Services Share Standards and Results, but Could Increase 
Their Availability to Customers: 

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," [hyperlink, 
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, [hyperlink, 
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. 

Figure 1: Customs and Border Protection's Pledge to Travelers: 

[Refer to PDF for image: CBP's pledge to travelers displayed on their 
customer service web site] 

Source: DHS, GAO (presentation). 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 21] 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, 
[hyperlink, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/].[Footnote 22] 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, [hyperlink, 
http://www.insurance.va.gov/]. 

Figure 2: The Department of Veterans Affairs' Life Insurance Customer 
Service Web Site: 

[Refer to PDF for image: customer service results reported on VA's life 
insurance website] 

Source: VA, GAO (presentation). 

[End of figure] 

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 entry. This information is 
assembled into an historical database that provides hourly flight 
processing time estimates for any time of day, and is available to the 
public on the airport wait times Web site. 

Figure 3: Customs and Border Protection's Border Wait Times Web Site: 

[Refer to PDF for image: Border wait times reported on CBP's website] 

Source: DHS, GAO (presentation). 

[End of figure] 

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: 

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.[Footnote 23] 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.[Footnote 24] 

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. 

Most Surveyed Services Consider Customer Service Measures in Employee 
Performance Appraisals: 

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,[Footnote 25] 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.[Footnote 
26] 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 agreement with the union. 

Figure 4: IRS Critical Job Elements for Taxpayer Assistance Related to 
Customer Satisfaction: 

[Refer to PDF for image: text box] 

Customer Satisfaction – Application: 

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. 

Customer Satisfaction – Knowledge: 

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.

Source: IRS, GAO (presentation). 

[End of figure] 

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. 

Selected Services with Less Widespread Contact with the Public Also 
Make Customer Service Information Available and Use Results: 

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. 

Several Additional Tools and Practices for Customer Service Management 
Are Used by State, Local, and Non-U.S. National Governments: 

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. 

Improved Understanding of Customers Helps to Align Standards with 
Customer Needs: 

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.[Footnote 27] 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.[Footnote 28] 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.[Footnote 
29] 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 spent: 

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, [hyperlink, 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[Footnote 30] to both provide timely 
information to citizens and improve understanding of customer needs by 
searching microblogs for references to their agency name or 
acronym.[Footnote 31] 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, 
[hyperlink,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.[Footnote 32] 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. 

Self-Service Options and Customer Relationship Management Systems Can 
Improve Customers' Experiences and Facilitate Better Decision Making: 

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, [hyperlink, 
http://www.GovBenefits.gov]. 

Figure 5: Govbenefits.gov Web Site: 

[Refer to PDF for image: The web pages at Gov.Benefits.gov enable 
customers to search for government benefit programs for which they may 
be eligible] 

Source: DOL/GovBenefits.gov, GAO(presentation). 

[End of figure] 

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. 

With or without prior use of self-service, when customers interact 
directly with government service providers, they expect the government 
to have relevant information about them to produce an effective 
customer service experience. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is 
a tool to help service providers use data to understand their customers 
and provide better service. CRM uses technology to provide a single, 
integrated view of customers, enabling an organization to reach desired 
outcomes with a minimum of customer effort, thereby improving customer 
service. Singapore's Central Provident Fund Board, which manages the 
comprehensive social security savings plan for working Singaporeans, 
has a CRM system that centrally stores information about their 
customers which enables both board staff and citizens to track the 
status of customer transactions via the Web. Moreover, the board's 
complete profiling of customers within their CRM system enables them to 
personalize their service to their customers. Personalized service 
improves customer service by reducing the investment of time required 
of customers and aids customer decision making by providing customers 
with relevant and timely information. However, experts caution that 
privacy concerns need to be considered when federal agencies introduce 
CRM.[Footnote 33] Nevertheless, federal agencies, such as GSA and the 
Small Business Administration, have implemented, or are in the process 
of implementing, CRM systems. SBA is implementing a CRM tool that 
aggregates data from a variety of systems to allow employees to access 
information in less time and in a more concise format when interacting 
with small business borrowers, lenders and other stakeholders, which 
SBA believes will improve customer service. 

Offering Redress for Unmet Standards and Reporting Meaningful 
Performance Results Can Foster Accountability for Effective Customer 
Service: 

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. 

Public reporting of agency standards and performance results can also 
improve customer service by providing citizens with the facts they need 
to make informed decisions and hold agencies accountable for service 
quality. As previously discussed, about half of the surveyed services 
published results in documents that may not be easily accessible to 
customers. New York City's Customer Service Group has instituted an 
online tool called the Citywide Performance Report[Footnote 34] that 
allows the public to visualize trends based on general performance 
data, such as crime rates and cleanliness ratings of city parks, and 
hold underperforming agencies accountable. Due to the success of this 
tool, the Customer Service Group plans to create a similar portal 
dedicated to customer service performance data. The data would then be 
visually linked to locations using a Geographical Information System in 
order to present the information in a clear format for customers. 
Likewise, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service publishes 
comparative quality data, such as differential mortality rates at 
hospitals, which enables customers to make informed choices about where 
to receive treatment. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services has a Web site, [hyperlink, 
http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov], where customers can view 
comparative data on outcomes, process, and patient satisfaction. 

Figure 6: Example of Medicare Hospital Comparison Web Page: 

[Refer to PDF for image: HHS's Hospital Compare Web site enables 
customers to compare hospitals on measures of outcomes, processes and 
patient satisfaction] 

Source: HHS, GAO (presentation). 

[End of figure] 

OMB Has Taken Several Steps to Facilitate Use of Some Tools and 
Practices across Federal Agencies to Improve Customer Service: 

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.[ 35] 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.[Footnote 36] 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. 

Conclusions: 

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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 [hyperlink, 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. 

Signed by: 

Bernice Steinhardt: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 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. 

Survey of Federal Government Services: 

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,[Footnote 37] 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. 

Additional Interviews to Supplement the Survey: 

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. 

Identification of Tools and Practices: 

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[Footnote 38] 
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.

[End of section] 
 
Appendix II: List of Services Contacted: 

Table: Surveyed services: 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Organizational unit: Forest Service;  
Service: Recreational facilities and services. 

Agency: Department of Education; 
Organizational unit: Office of Federal Student Aid;  
Service: Student loans under the Direct Loan Program. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Organizational unit: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;  
Service: Health insurance under the Medicare program. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Organizational unit: Indian Health Service;  
Service: Medical care for American Indians and Alaskan Natives. 

Agency: Department of Homeland Security; 
Organizational unit: Customs and Border Protection;  
Service: Border security inspections of individuals. 

Agency: Department of Homeland Security; 
Organizational unit: Transportation Security Administration;  
Service: Passenger and baggage screening. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Organizational unit: National Park Service;  
Service: Visitor and interpretive services. 

Agency: Department of State; 
Organizational unit: Bureau of Consular Affairs;  
Service: Passport services. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury; 
Organizational unit: Internal Revenue Service;  
Service: Provision of tax information and advice to individuals. 

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Organizational unit: Veterans Benefits Administration;  
Service: Disability compensation. 

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Organizational unit: Veterans Benefits Administration;  
Service: Veterans’ Group Life Insurance. 

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Organizational unit: Veterans Health Administration;  
Service: Beneficiary medical care. 

Agency: Social Security Administration; 
Organizational unit: Social Security Administration;  
Service: Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance and Supplemental 
Security Income. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Table: Interviewed Services: 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Organizational unit: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;  
Service: Regulation of power plants and other uses of nuclear 
materials. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Organizational unit: National Science Foundation;  
Service: Provision of research and education grants. 

Agency: General Services Administration; 
Organizational unit: Public Building Services;  
Service: Property management services for other federal agencies. 

Agency: General Services Administration; 
Organizational unit: Federal Acquisition Service;  
Service: Procurement of goods and services for the government. 
                   
Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Examples of Standards from Surveyed Services 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. 

Passport Services Provided by the Bureau of Consular Affairs: 

* Bureau of Consular Affairs will provide service in a courteous, 
professional manner: 

* Bureau of Consular Affairs will always try to meet your travel needs: 

* Bureau of Consular Affairs customers have the right to speak with 
management if you are not satisfied with the service you have received: 

Health Insurance under Medicare Provided by the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services: 

* A target of 90 percent has been established for the Customer 
Satisfaction Survey pass rate: 

* A target of 90 percent has been established for the percent of 
persons with Medicare Advantage Plans who report they usually or always 
get needed care right away as soon as they thought they needed it: 

* A target of 90 percent has been established for the percent of 
persons with Medicare Fee for Service who report they usually or always 
get needed care right away as soon as they thought they needed it: 

* A target of 90 percent has been established for the percent of 
persons with Medicare Advantage Plans who report that it is usually or 
always easy to use their health plan to get the medicines their doctor 
prescribed: 

Border Security Inspection of Individuals Provided by Customs and 
Border Protection: 

* 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. 

* Provide reasonable assistance due to delay or disability: 

Passenger and Baggage Screening Provided by the Transportation Security 
Administration [Footnote 39]: 

* A target of > 78 percent has been established for the number of phone 
calls answered by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 
Contact Center within 20 seconds: 

* A target of < 4 percent has been established for the TSA Contact 
Center telephone call abandonment rate: 

* A target of > 98 percent has been set for the accuracy of TSA Contact 
Center telephone responses: 

* A target of 0 has been established for the number of reportable 
communications that were not escalated at the TSA Contact Center: 

Student Loans under the Direct Loan Program Provided by Federal Student 
Aid: 

* The Customer Support Center contractor shall provide bi-lingual 
(English or Spanish) phone support to schools, students, parents, and 
borrowers Monday through Friday: 

* A target of 80 percent has been established as the percentage of 
customers that will be on hold for less than 20 seconds in the 
Interactive Voice Response system: 

* A target of less than 2 percent has been established as the 
percentage of calls in the Interactive Voice Response that are 
abandoned by the customer before reaching the customer service 
representative: 

* A target of greater or equal to 95 percent has been established as 
the percentage of first time correct answers: 

* A target of 99 percent has been established as the percentage of 
availability of the Common Originations and Disbursement system and Web 
site excluding schedule downtime and required processing outages: 

Recreational Facilities and Services Provided by the Forest Service: 

* Provide all reservation transaction processing with 100 percent 
accuracy including advance reservations, walk-ins, cancellations, and 
transfers. 

* Provide trip planning and mappings with no more than 10 valid 
complaints per Month: 

* The trail and trailside are free of litter: 

* Interpretive presentations, publications, displays, Web sites, and 
visual aids are accessible: 

* Visitors are provided an opportunity to communicate satisfactions 

Medical Care Provided by the Indian Health Service [Footnote 40]: 

* Respond to internal customers within 2 working days. Send e-mail to 
address the issue or to provide a timeframe when you can work to 
address the issue: 

* Utilize "out of office" message as appropriate so customers know how 
long you will be away from the office, who to contact for assistance, 
and/or how to contact you if this is important: 

* Answer phone calls in three rings:

* Pleasant greeting: 

* Return phone calls within 1 business day: 

Provision of Tax Information and Advice to Individuals Provided by the 
Internal Revenue Service: 

* A target of 71.0 percent has been established for the relative 
success rate of taxpayers that call for customer account services 
seeking assistance from a Customer Service Representative: 

* A target of 91.2 percent has been established for the measure of how 
often the customer received the correct answer with the correct 
resolution to all tax law inquiries: 

* A target of 93.7 percent has been established for the measure of how 
often the customer received the correct answer with the correct 
resolution to all account inquiries: 

* A target of 698 seconds has been established for the average number 
of seconds customers waited in an assistor queue before receiving 
service: 

* A target of 92.0 percent has been established for the measure of 
taxpayer’s overall satisfaction with the services provided by Field 
Assistance personnel as determined by the customer satisfaction 
survey:  

Visitor and Interpretive Services Provided by the National Park Service 
[Footnote 41]: 

* A target of 97 percent has been established for the percent of 
visitors satisfied with appropriate facilities, services and 
recreational opportunities: 

* A target of 93 percent has been established for visitor understanding 
and appreciation of the significance of the park they are visiting: 

* A target of 90 percent has been established for the percent of 
designated National Historic Landmarks that are in good condition: 

* A target of 92 percent has been established for the percent of 
National Park Service (NPS) managed stream channel and shoreline miles 
in desired condition: 

* A target of 75 percent has been established for percent of miles of 
National Historic Trails and Wild and Scenic Rivers under NPS 
management meeting their heritage resource objectives: 

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security 
Income Provided by the Social Security Administration: 

* 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": 

* A fiscal year 2011 target of 264 seconds has been established as the 
average speed they wish to achieve for answering national 800 number 
calls: 

* A fiscal year 2011 target of 7 percent has been established as the 
percent busy rate they wish to achieve for national 800 number calls: 

Disability Compensation Provided by the Veterans Benefits 
Administration: 

* 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 rate: 

* A target of 75.0 percent has been established for overall quality, 
includes measures of technical proficiency, client contact behaviors, 
and effective call management. 

Life Insurance Provided by the Veterans Benefits Administration: 

* The standard for the average speed of answer for their call center is 
set at 20 seconds: 

* The standard for the overall customer satisfaction rate is set at 90 
percent: 

* The standard for the average processing days for Veterans Group Life 
Insurance (VGLI) applications is set at 5 days: 

* The standard for the financial accuracy of all claim payments is set 
at 99 percent: 

* The standard for the accuracy of VGLI application processing is 99 
percent: 

Medical Care Provided by the Veterans Health Administration: 

* A target score of 83 has been established for the responsiveness of 
hospital staff, calculated as the percentage of responses that fall in 
the top two categories: 

* A target score of 83 has been established for the privacy in hospital 
rooms, calculated as the percentage of responses that fall in the top 
three categories: 

* A target score of 56 has been established for the overall rating of 
health care, calculated as the percentage of responses that fall in the 
top two categories: 

* A target score of 80 has been established for getting care quickly, 
calculated as the percentage of responses that fall in the top two 
categories: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: High-Priority Performance Goals Related to Customer 
Service: 

The President’s budget for fiscal year 2011 included high -priority 
performance goals that agencies had committed to achieve within 18 to 
24 months.[Footnote 42] 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.[Footnote 43] 

Department of Education: 

* 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. 

Department of Homeland Security: 

* 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. 

Department of the Treasury: 

* 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. 

Department of Veterans Affairs: 

* 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. 

Social Security Administration: 

* 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. 

General Services Administration: 

* 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. 

Office of Personnel Management: 

* 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. 

Small Business Administration

* 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.

[End of section] 
 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: Bernice Steinhardt, (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov 

Staff Acknowledgments: 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. (450788)

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (August 3, 1993) (codified at 5 
U.S.C. § 306; 31 U.S.C. §§ 1101 note, 1105, 1115–1119, 9703–9704; 39 
U.S.C. §§ 2801–2805). 

[2] The National Performance Review was a major executive branch reform 
initiative launched in 1993 to improve government performance. In 1998, 
it was renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing Government. 

[3] Exec. Order No. 12862, "Setting Customer Service Standards," 58 
Fed. Reg. 48,257 (Sept. 11, 1993). 

[4] "Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act," H.R. 315, 111th Cong. 
(2009). 

[5] The sample of services was not a representative sample of services 
provided by the federal government, meaning that results from our 
survey cannot be generalized to apply to all services provided by the 
federal government. 

[6] The seven local, state, and foreign governments included: New York 
City, Georgia (USA), Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and 
Singapore. 

[7] The order defined the “best in business” as the highest quality of 
service delivered to customers by private organizations providing a 
comparable or analogous service. 

[8] IHS consists of a system of more than 650 IHS-funded facilities 
organized into 12 geographic areas of various sizes. Within the 12 
areas, direct care services are generally delivered by IHS-funded 
hospitals, health centers, and health stations. 

[9] The presidential memorandum “Improving Customer Service” states 
that surveying customers shall be a continuing agency activity. 
Additionally, the memorandum states that customer views should be 
obtained to determine whether standards have been set on what matters 
most to customers, and that agencies should publish replacement 
standards if needed to reflect these views. 

[10] We previously reported that significantly more federal managers 
governmentwide had customer service measures in 2007 than in 1997. GAO, 
Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on 
Using Performance Information to Improve Results, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1026T] (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 
2008). 

[11] The OMB review is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act clearance 
process. See the section below on the Paperwork Reduction Act for more 
information on this process. 

[12] The ACSI is a survey instrument that was developed at the 
University of Michigan. The Department of the Interior’s Federal 
Consulting Group has obtained generic Paperwork Reduction Act clearance 
for agencies to use the ACSI under a fee-for-service relationship. See 
the section below on the Paperwork Reduction Act for more information 
on generic clearances. 

[13] While SSA has methods to gather customer input regarding their 
level of satisfaction, we have previously recommended that SSA 
establish procedures for documenting and assessing customer reported 
complaints. See GAO, Social Security Administration: Additional Actions 
Needed in Ongoing Efforts to Improve 800-Number Service, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/05-735] (Washington, D.C.: August 08, 
2005). 

[14] 44 U.S.C. ch. 35, subchapter I. The Paperwork Reduction Act was 
originally enacted into law in 1980. Pub. L. No. 96-511 (Dec 11, 1980). 
The law was significantly revised by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13 (May 22, 1995). 

[15] Under the PRA, OMB’s review of agency information collections 
includes evaluation of factors such as unnecessary duplication with 
other information collections, reduction of burden on persons who shall 
provide information to the agency, consolidation and simplification of 
reporting requirements, use of effective statistical survey methods, 
and use of information technology to reduce burden and improve data 
quality. See 44 U.S.C. §§ 3506(c)(3) and 3507. 

[16] For example, if public harm is reasonably likely to result if 
normal clearance procedures are followed, an unanticipated event has 
occurred, or the normal clearance procedures are reasonably likely to 
prevent or disrupt the collection of information or to cause a 
statutory or court ordered deadline to be missed. See, 44 U.S.C. § 3507 
(j) and 5 C.F.R. § 1320.13 (a). 

[17] The Government Contact Center Council, Removing Barriers to 
Citizen Engagement, A White Paper for the Obama Administration (March 
2009). 

[18] "Improving Implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act," 74 Fed. 
Reg. 55,269 (Oct. 27, 2009). 

[19] Memorandum, Transparency and Open Government, 74 Fed. Reg. 4685 
(Jan. 21, 2009). 

[20] Two of the five services, which are provided by GSA, have 
customers who are government entities and are not subject to the 
requirements of executive order 12862. 

[21] Although the presidential memorandum does not explicitly require 
that customer service results be easily accessible to customers, it 
does require agencies to report results to customers at least annually 
in terms readily understood by individual customers. The intended goal 
of these stated requirements is the effective communication of customer 
service results to customers. In order to achieve this goal, however, 
agencies need to post these customer service results where customers 
are likely to find them. 

[22] We recently reported that CBP’s border wait times data are 
collected using inconsistent methods and are unreliable. GAO, Border 
Security: CBP Lacks the Data Needed to Assess the FAST Program at U.S. 
Northern Border Ports, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-
694] (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2010). 

[23] Although SSA has customer service standards for calls to their 
national phone number, we have previously recommended that SSA 
establish standards for field office customer waiting times and phone 
service. GAO, Social Security Administration: Service Delivery Plan 
Needed to Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-24] (Washington, D.C.: January 9, 
2009). 

[24] We recently reported on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 
assistance to beneficiaries affected by inappropriate marketing. GAO, 
Medicare Advantage: CMS Assists Beneficiaries Affected by Inappropriate 
Marketing but Has Limited Data on Scope of Issue, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-36] (Washington, D.C.: December 17, 
2009). 

[25] For the purposes of our report, we defined managers as those below 
SES but above supervisors of personnel in contact with customers. 

[26] The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 requires IRS to use 
the fair and equitable treatment of taxpayers by employees as one of 
the standards for evaluating employee performance. Pub. L. No. 105-206, 
§ 1204, 112 Stat. 685, 722 (July 22, 1998). 

[27] UK Cabinet Office, The Drivers of Satisfaction with Public 
Services (2004). 

[28] The United Kingdom Accreditation Service is a non-profit 
organization authorized by the UK government to assess organizations 
that provide certification, testing, inspection and calibration 
services. 

[29] New Zealand State Services Commission, Understanding the Drivers: 
Summary Report (Wellington, New Zealand, March 2009). 

[30] Microblogging is the practice of writing extremely short blog 
posts, similar to text messages. Twitter is an example of a microblog 
service. 

[31] "Microblogging," General Services Administration, last Modified 
July 21, 2009, [hyperlink, 
http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/technology/microblogging.shtml

[32] San Francisco’s 3-1-1 customer service center connects customers 
with service representatives who provide general government information 
and facilitate service requests. 

[33] The Privacy Act of 1974 establishes requirements governing the 
collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally 
identifiable information about individuals that are maintained in an 
agency’s system of records, including establishing appropriate 
safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of the 
information. The Privacy Act specifically prohibits agencies from 
disclosing information about an individual absent the consent of the 
individual, unless the disclosure is permitted under one of the 
statutory exceptions. Pub. L. No. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1897 (Dec. 31, 1974) 
(codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a). 

[34] "Citywide Performance Report," New York City Office of the Mayor, 
accessed 8/25/2010, [hyperlink, 
http://www.nyc.gov/html/ops/cpr/html/home/home.shtml] 

[35] Exec. Order. No. 13538, “Establishing the President’s Management 
Advisory Board,” 75 Fed. Reg. 20,895. 

[36] OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States 
Government, Fiscal Year 2011 (Washington D.C.: Feb. 1, 2010). 

[37] See section below on Additional Interviews to Supplement the 
Survey, for more information on the individuals contacted. 

[38] For example, Accenture, Leadership in Customer Service: Delivering 
on the Promise, 2007. 

[39] The TSA Contact Center handles contacts for all of TSA, not only 
for passenger and baggage screening. These standards apply to all 
contacts at the contact center. 

[40] IHS did not have standards at the service-wide level, but provided 
us with examples of standards from area offices and facilities. 

[41] Target figures reflect long term 2013 targets. 

[42] Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget 
of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011 (Washington, D.C., 
Feb. 1, 2010). 

[43] The goals listed in this appendix appear as they were reported in 
the President’s Budget for fiscal year 2011. Agencies may have updated 
the goals since that time. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: