This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-15-84 
entitled 'Managing For Results: Selected Agencies Need to Take 
Additional Efforts to Improve Customer Service' which was released on 
October 24, 2014. 

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 Addressees: 

October 2014: 

Managing For Results: 

Selected Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts to Improve Customer 
Service: 

GAO-15-84: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-15-84, a report to congressional addressees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Providing customer service has been a long-standing challenge for 
federal agencies. GPRAMA requires that agencies establish a balanced 
set of performance indicators to be used in measuring progress toward 
performance goals, including customer service. This report is part of 
GAO's response to its mandate to evaluate the implementation of 
GPRAMA. It evaluates (1) the extent to which selected agencies and 
their services are using customer service standards and measuring 
performance results against these standards, and how selected agencies 
are communicating standards and using customer feedback to improve 
customer service; and (2) the extent to which OMB and the PIC are 
facilitating federal agencies' use of tools and practices to improve 
customer service. GAO selected five agencies and their services based 
on prior work in which it surveyed 12 federal agencies that are among 
those with the most widespread contact with the public. GAO reviewed 
and compared agency customer service documents to federal legislation 
and guidance, and interviewed agency officials about customer service. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO reviewed the customer service standards at Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP), Forest Service, Federal Student Aid (FSA), the 
National Park Service (NPS), and two services in the Veterans Benefits 
Administration (VBA)—disability compensation and Veterans' Group Life 
Insurance (VGLI). GAO found that none of the agencies' standards 
included all of the key elements of customer service standards (see 
table). GAO identified key elements of effective customer service 
standards by reviewing the requirements of the GPRA Modernization Act 
of 2010 (GPRAMA) and executive orders that focused on providing 
greater accountability, oversight, and transparency. Without all of 
the key elements present, agencies may not be able to easily 
communicate performance targets or goals to customers, measure their 
progress towards meeting those goals, and pinpoint improvement 
opportunities. 

Table: Extent to Which Agencies' Customer Service Standards Met Key 
Elements: 

Key elements of effective customer service standards: 

Agency: CBP; 
Include targets or goals for performance: No; 
Include measures for performance targets or goals: No; 
Are Easily Publicly Available: Yes. 

Agency: Forest Service; 
Include targets or goals for performance: No; 
Include measures for performance targets or goals: No; 
Are Easily Publicly Available: No. 

Agency: FSA; 
Include targets or goals for performance: Yes; 
Include measures for performance targets or goals: Yes; 
Are Easily Publicly Available: No. 

Agency: NPS; 
Include targets or goals for performance: No[A]; 
Include measures for performance targets or goals: No[A]; 
Are Easily Publicly Available: No[A]. 

Agency: VBA's disability compensation; 
Include targets or goals for performance: Yes; 
Include measures for performance targets or goals: Yes; 
Are Easily Publicly Available: No. 

Agency: VBA's VGLI; 
Include targets or goals for performance: Yes; 
Include measures for performance targets or goals: Yes; 
Are Easily Publicly Available: No. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation. GAO-15-84. 

[A] NPS provided us two sets of standards, its “Visitors' Bill of 
Rights” and its visitor survey descriptions, both of which GAO 
assessed for key elements. 

[End of table] 

GAO found that all five agencies provide customers with opportunities 
to submit feedback, including comments and complaints. CBP and VBA's 
disability compensation had formal mechanisms for reviewing customer 
feedback, but the other agencies did not. For example, Forest Service 
and NPS do not have guidance for when to elevate customer comments 
from the local level up to the agency level. As a result, these 
agencies may not be effectively reviewing and addressing customer 
concerns across the agency. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has taken steps to 
facilitate the improvement of agencies' customer service initiatives. 
For example, OMB issued guidance to assist agencies in their 
implementation of Executive Order 13571, Streamlining Service Delivery 
and Improving Customer Service which was issued to strengthen customer 
service and require agencies to develop and publish a customer service 
plan. OMB formed a task force to assist agencies with the development 
of customer service plans. Moving forward, OMB has identified customer 
service as a cross-agency priority (CAP) goal in 2014 in an effort to 
elevate the importance of customer service by the federal government 
and intends to have the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) play a 
role in the CAP goal implementation planning for customer service. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the five agencies update their customer service 
standards and that Forest Service, NPS, FSA, and VBA's VGLI implement 
formal feedback mechanisms to improve customer service. CBP, Forest 
Service, FSA, NPS, and VBA all agreed with GAO's recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-84]. For more 
information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806 or 
mihmj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

None of the Agencies Met All Key Elements to Improve Customer Service 
Standards; Additional Focus on Customer Feedback May Further Assist 
Agencies Moving Forward: 

Identification of Customer Service as a Cross-Agency Priority Goal May 
Provide Additional Focus Needed to Further Improve the Customer 
Experience Governmment-wide: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Forest Service Customer Service Standards for 
Recreational Facilities and Services: 

Appendix III: Federal Student Aid Customer Service Standards for 
Student Loans under the Direct Loan Origination and Disbursement 
Program through the Common Origination and Disbursement System (COD): 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Agriculture: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix VII: Comments from Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Agencies and Services Included in Review: 

Table 2: Selected Legislation, Executive Orders, and Memorandums 
Affecting Federal Customer Service: 

Table 3: Extent to Which Agencies' Customer Service Standards Include 
Key Elements: 

Table 4: Assessment of Customs and Border Protection Customer Service 
Standards Against Key Elements: 

Table 5: Assessment of Forest Service Customer Service Standards 
Against Key Elements: 

Table 6: Assessment of Federal Student Aid Customer Service Standards 
Against Key Elements: 

Table 7: Assessment of National Park Service Customer Service 
Standards Against Key Elements: 

Table 8: Assessment of Veterans Benefits Administration Customer 
Service Standards Against Key Elements: 

Table 9: Not All Selected Agencies Had an Internal Process to Review 
and Elevate Customer Feedback: 

Table 10: Agencies and Services Included in Review: 

Table 11: Customer Service Standards--Selected Legislation and 
Guidance: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Customs and Border Protection's "Pledge to Travelers" 
Included on Agency Webpage: 

Figure 2: Information on Customs and Border Protection's Webpage on 
How Customer Complaints Are Addressed: 

Figure 3: Customer Service as a Designated Cross-Agency Priority Goal: 

Abbreviations: 

CAP goal: cross-agency priority goal: 

CBP: Customs and Border Protection: 

COD: Common Origination and Disbursement: 

FSA: Federal Student Aid: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

GPRAMA: GPRA Modernization Act of 2010: 

NPS: National Park Service: 

OIRA: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

PIC: Performance Improvement Council: 

PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act: 

VA: Veterans Affairs: 

VBA: Veterans Benefits Administration: 

VGLI: Veterans' Group Life Insurance: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

October 24, 2014: 

Congressional Addressees, 

Federal agency personnel interact with the public in a vast number of 
ways: providing medical and insurance benefits to veterans, managing 
border and airport security, informing and educating visitors within 
national parks and forests, and in many other roles. The circumstances 
and expectations for service vary within this range of roles, based 
upon the particular transaction such as providing information, 
evaluating benefit eligibility, implementing regulations, and managing 
law enforcement. These diverse functions help the federal government 
ensure public health and safety. For this reason, it is critical for 
agencies to gauge how services are meeting their customers' needs, 
while also sustaining and focusing agency efforts on continuing 
improvements in service delivery. 

For the last 20 years - in recognition of the importance of service 
delivery in effective governance - both Congress and the executive 
branch have taken action to improve federal agencies' customer 
service. Most recently, Congress enacted the GPRA Modernization Act of 
2010 (GPRAMA) to focus and sustain attention on agency performance and 
improvement.[Footnote 1] GPRAMA requires that agencies establish a 
balanced set of performance indicators to be used in measuring 
progress toward performance goals, including goals for customer 
service.[Footnote 2] 

This report is part of a series of reports under our mandate to 
periodically examine implementation of GPRAMA.[Footnote 3] The 
objectives of this report are to evaluate (1) the extent to which 
selected agencies and their services are using customer service 
standards and measuring performance results against these standards, 
and how selected agencies are communicating standards and using 
customer feedback to improve customer service; and (2) the extent to 
which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Performance 
Improvement Council (PIC) are facilitating federal agencies' use of 
tools and practices to improve customer service. 

For our review we selected five agencies and their services (see table 
1).[Footnote 4] We made our selection based on prior work in which we 
surveyed 12 federal agencies that were previously found to be among 
those with the most widespread contact with the public.[Footnote 5] 
For the prior report, five of those agencies were selected for 
additional follow-up interviews--based on their responses to key 
survey questions--in order to gain a fuller understanding of their 
responses. For this report, we selected the same five agencies and 
their services to determine the progress made by each since the 
issuance in 2011 of Executive Order 13571, Streamlining Service 
Delivery and Improving Customer Service.[Footnote 6] 

Table 1: Agencies and Services Included in Review: 

Department: Department of Agriculture; 
Agency: Forest Service; 
Service: Managing recreational facilities and services. 

Department: Department of Education; 
Agency: Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA); 
Service: Awarding student loans under the Direct Loan Program. 

Department: Department of Homeland Security; 
Agency: Customs and Border Protection (CBP); 
Service: Conducting border security inspections of individuals. 

Department: Department of the Interior; 
Agency: National Park Service (NPS); 
Service: Providing visitor and interpretive services. 

Department: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Agency: Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA); 
Service: Providing disability compensation. 

Department: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Agency: Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA); 
Service: Providing Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI). 

Source: GAO summary of agency information. GAO-15-84. 

[End of table] 

To address how selected agencies are using customer service standards 
and measuring performance against those standards and how the agencies 
are communicating standards and using customer feedback to improve 
service, we interviewed agency officials and reviewed our relevant 
prior work on customer service and on the agencies in our sample. We 
also reviewed agencies' customer service standards, available 
performance measures related to those standards, information on 
customer service satisfaction surveys and feedback mechanisms, and 
departmental and agency strategic and customer service plans. In 
addition, we compared agency information to key elements for effective 
customer service standards. The key elements we selected for assessing 
customer service standards include requirements found in GPRA, GPRAMA, 
executive orders, and OMB guidance and memorandums that include how 
customer service standards are to be used and measured, including how 
standards should be communicated to customers.[Footnote 7] We 
conducted Internet searches to determine the extent to which customer 
service information was made publicly available by the agencies. We 
did not evaluate agency performance data or determine the reliability 
of such data, nor did we evaluate the overall effectiveness of or 
level of customer service provided by any of the agencies reviewed as 
these issues were not within the scope of our engagement. 

To evaluate the extent to which OMB and the Performance Improvement 
Council (PIC) are facilitating federal agencies' use of tools and 
practices to improve customer service, we reviewed OMB guidance and 
memorandums, customer service task force agendas, and other documents 
related to customer service and survey administration. We interviewed 
officials from OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(OIRA) and the Office of Performance and Personnel Management. We also 
reviewed information on customer service published on Performance.gov, 
a government-wide performance website maintained by OMB. For a more 
detailed description of our scope and methodology, see appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit in Washington, D.C., between 
November 2013 to October 2014 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards, which require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. 

Background: 

Over the last 20 years, both Congress and the executive branch have 
taken actions to improve federal customer service. On January 5, 1993, 
the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) was enacted to, among 
other things, improve the effectiveness and efficiency of federal 
programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance 
and to measure results.[Footnote 8] GPRA was also intended to address 
several broad purposes, including promoting a new focus on results, 
service quality, and customer satisfaction. 

Building on GPRA, Executive Order 12862, Setting Customer Service 
Standards, was issued on September 11, 1993.[Footnote 9] The order 
stated that all executive departments and agencies that "provide 
significant services directly to the public shall provide those 
services in a manner that seeks to meet the customer service standard 
established" which is "equal to the best in business."[Footnote 10] It 
also stated that the departments and agencies shall take a number of 
actions related to this requirement. 

On March 22, 1995, a presidential memorandum on improving customer 
service was issued, which stated "[f]or the first time, the Federal 
Government's customers have been told what they have a right to expect 
when they ask for service."[Footnote 11] The memorandum further stated 
that the government must be customer-driven and customer-focused and 
clarified expectations regarding agency actions, standards, and 
measurements. To mark the occasion of the fifth anniversary of 
President Clinton's reinventing government initiative, another 
presidential memorandum was issued on March 3, 1998, which called for 
efforts to "engage customers in conversations about further improving 
Government service."[Footnote 12] 

In 2010 we assessed how federal agencies were setting customer service 
standards, measuring results, reporting those results and using them 
to improve service. To do this work, we conducted a survey, based on 
the requirements of Executive Order 12862 and the related memorandums, 
of 13 services provided by 12 federal agencies.[Footnote 13] In 
addition, we examined steps the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
had taken to facilitate federal agency use of tools and practices to 
improve customer service. We found that although all of the services 
in our review had customer service standards, not all were made 
available in a way that would be easy for customers to find and 
access, or in some cases, the standards were not made available at 
all.[Footnote 14] In addition, we found that some agency officials 
thought the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and its 
clearance process made obtaining customer input difficult. 

Since 2010, an additional law has been enacted and an executive order 
has been issued that affect federal agencies and how they provide 
customer service. GPRAMA significantly enhanced the requirements of 
GPRA requiring agencies to develop annual performance plans that 
include performance goals for an agency's program activities and 
accompanying performance measures.[Footnote 15] Under GPRAMA, these 
performance goals should be in a quantifiable and measurable form to 
define the level of performance to be achieved for program activities 
each year.[Footnote 16] 

On April 27, 2011, Executive Order 13571, Streamlining Service 
Delivery and Improving Customer Service, was issued to strengthen 
customer service and require agencies to develop and publish a 
customer service plan, in consultation with OMB.[Footnote 17] On June 
13, 2011, OMB issued guidance to agencies to assist in implementing 
the activities outlined in Executive Order 13571.[Footnote 18] 

As required by GPRAMA, in March 2014 OMB announced the creation of a 
new set of cross-agency priority (CAP) goals in the fiscal year 2015 
budget, which included customer service as a CAP goal to further build 
upon the progress being made by individual agencies.[Footnote 19] 
According to OMB officials, the agency is committed to improving 
customer service government-wide and to getting agency leadership to 
focus on the issue. To that end, OMB identified a number of actions 
that support improved customer service (see text box). 

Text box: 

Cross-Agency Priority Goal: Customer Service: 
To build upon the progress being made by individual agencies, the 
administration is taking action to deliver improved customer service 
across the federal enterprise. To accomplish this goal, the 
administration will: 
* streamline transactions,
* develop standards for high impact services, and. 
* utilize technology to improve the customer experience. 

Source: Performance.gov. GAO-15-84. 

[End of text box] 

Most recently, OMB issued additional guidance on July 18, 2014, 
regarding the president's Management Agenda priorities, which will be 
executed through the CAP goals, for the fiscal year 2016 budget. 
[Footnote 20] OMB's guidance states that 15 specific departments and 
agencies, which are members of the customer service CAP goal community 
of practice, should include additional customer service information 
with their fiscal year 2016 budget submissions.[Footnote 21] These 15 
departments and agencies include the 5 departments in our review. 
According to the guidance, each department is to highlight a limited 
number of key activities, provide the requested funding levels for the 
activities and describe how the requests were informed by citizen 
feedback, and report on the activities' projected contribution to 
improving the department's mission and outcomes. 

Table 2 summarizes selected legislation, executive orders, and 
memorandums affecting federal customer service. 

Table 2: Selected Legislation, Executive Orders, and Memorandums 
Affecting Federal Customer Service: 

Government Performance and Results Act[A]; January 1993; 
Among other things the purpose of this act are to: 
* set program goals, measure program performance against those goals, 
and report publicly on their progress; 
* improve federal program effectiveness and public accountability by 
promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer 
satisfaction; 
* help federal managers improve service delivery by requiring that 
they plan for meeting program objectives and by providing them with 
information about program results and service quality. 

Executive Order 12862--Setting Customer Service Standards[B]; 
Presidential Memorandum on Customer Service[C]; September 1993; 
Requires that certain agencies, among other things: 
* 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; 
* make information, services, and complaint systems easily accessible; 
and; 
* provide a means to address customer complaints. 

Presidential Memorandum on Conducting "Conversations with America" to 
Further; March 1995; 
Clarifies that the requirements of Executive Order 12862 were 
continuing requirements and reinforced that, among other things: 
* customer service standards (standards) established customers' rights 
and expectations; 
* standards should be published; 
* agencies shall measure results against standards, and report results 
to customers on an annual basis; 
* measures should be objective where possible, and should include 
customer service; and; 
* replacement standards should be published, if warranted. 

Presidential Memorandum on Conducting "Conversations with America" to 
Further Improve Customer Service[D]; March 1998; 
Requires that covered agencies, among other things: 
* put in place a process to address customer complaints; and; 
* track and analyze the data they receive and use it to change 
processes that do not serve customers well. 

Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010[E]; 
January 2011; 
The act among other things: 
* states agency performance plans establish a balanced set of 
performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing progress 
toward each performance goal, including, as appropriate, customer 
service, efficiency, output, and outcome indicators; and; 
* defines customer service measures as an assessment of service 
delivery, which can include an assessment of quality, timeliness, and 
satisfaction among other factors. 

Executive Order 13571--Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving 
Customer Service[F]; April 2011; 
Requires agencies to, among other things: 
* work with OMB to develop a customer service plan (plan); 
* establish a signature initiative that uses technology to improve the 
customer experience; 
* establish mechanisms to solicit customer feedback; 
* set clear customer service standards; and; 
* improve customer service by adopting best practices. 

Office of Management and Budget Memorandum on Implementing Executive 
Order 13571[G]; June 2011; 
Clarifies that, among other things--plans should: 
* address three to five of the agency's highest volume services, 
including the most critical and significant transactions with 
customers; and; 
* include setting, communicating, and using customer service standards. 
Clarifies that standards should where possible: 
* include targets for speed, quality/accuracy, and satisfaction; and; 
* be understandable to the public, easily accessible at the point of 
service and on the Internet, and measurable, where appropriate. 

Source: GAO summaries of relevant federal laws, executive orders, and 
presidential and OMB memorandums. GAO-15-84. 

Note: The purpose of this table is to summarize sections of federal 
laws, executive orders, and presidential and OMB memorandums that only 
relate to customer service and are relevant to this report's 
objectives. 

[A] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). 

[B] Exec. Order No. 12862, Setting Customer Service Standards (Sept. 
11, 1993), 58 Fed. Reg. 48,257 (Sept. 14, 1993). 

[C] Memorandum on Customer Service, 31 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 456 
(Mar. 22, 1995) (released by Office of the Press Secretary on Mar. 23, 
1995). 

[D] Memorandum on Conducting "Conversations with America" to Further 
Improve Customer Service, 34 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 368 (Mar. 3, 
1998). 

[E] Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011). 

[F] Exec. Order No. 13571 (Apr. 27, 2011), Streamlining Service 
Delivery and Improving Customer Service, 76 Fed. Reg. 24,339 (May 2, 
2011). 

[G] Office of Management and Budget, Implementing Executive Order 
13571 on Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service, 
Memorandum M-11-24 (June 13, 2011). 

[End of table] 

None of the Agencies Met All Key Elements to Improve Customer Service 
Standards; Additional Focus on Customer Feedback May Further Assist 
Agencies Moving Forward: 

Customer service standards (standards) should inform customers as to 
what they have a right to expect when they request services.[Footnote 
22] The customer service executive orders, memorandums, and guidance 
do not include strict guidelines on how standards should be 
structured, allowing agencies to develop their standards based in part 
on their particular needs and mission. As a result, each of the 
agencies in our review had standards that varied in the amount and 
type of information included, reflecting differences in needs and 
mission. Because flexibility exists in how agencies create standards--
rooted in the purposes of GPRA and GPRAMA, the customer service 
executive orders, memorandums, and guidance--we identified key 
elements of effective customer service standards that would allow 
agencies to better serve the needs of their customers by providing 
greater accountability, oversight, and transparency. Such key elements 
are themselves based on the purposes and some requirements of GPRA, 
GPRAMA, and executive orders: to set performance targets or goals, 
measure performance against the set targets or goals, and communicate 
such information to customers. Specifically, we assessed each of the 
agency's standards against the following key elements: whether the 
standards (1) include targets or goals for performance; (2) include 
performance measures; and (3) are made easily publicly available. 
Although standards may vary from agency to agency based on need and 
mission, each agency's standards should include the key elements in 
order to improve customer service moving forward. 

Performance targets or goals. We have previously found that a 
fundamental element in an organization's efforts to manage for results 
is its ability to set meaningful goals for performance and to measure 
progress toward those goals.[Footnote 23] The customer service 
executive orders, memorandums, and guidance also reflect these 
principles. Specifically, Executive Order 13571 stated that agencies 
set "clear customer service standards and expectations, including, 
where appropriate, performance goals for customer service required by 
the GPRA."[Footnote 24] The law defines a performance goal as a 
"target level of performance expressed as a tangible, measurable 
objective, against which actual achievement can be compared, including 
a goal expressed as a quantitative standard, value, or rate."[Footnote 
25] OMB provided further guidance that standards should, where 
possible, include targets for speed, quality/accuracy, and 
satisfaction.[Footnote 26] Although Executive Order 13571and OMB 
guidance state performance goals should be established "where 
appropriate" and targets "where possible," without clearly defined 
goals for customer service, agencies are unable to effectively 
communicate their service intentions to customers. As a result, we 
identified performance goals as a key element for effective customer 
service standards. Standards that include performance targets or goals 
allow agencies to define, among other things, the level, quality, and 
timeliness of the service they provide to their customers. 

Performance measures. Our prior work has found that performance 
information can be used across a range of management functions to 
improve results, from setting program priorities and allocating 
resources to taking corrective action to solve program problems. 
Measuring performance allows organizations to track the progress they 
are making toward their goals and gives managers crucial information 
on which to base their organizational and management decisions. 
[Footnote 27] Executive Order 12862 stated that agencies shall "post 
service standards and measure results against them,"[Footnote 28] and 
a 1995 presidential memorandum further stated that agencies shall "on 
an ongoing basis, measure results achieved against the customer 
service standards and should also include customer satisfaction as a 
measure."[Footnote 29] Among other things, GPRAMA requires that each 
agency performance plan should "establish a balanced set of 
performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing progress 
toward each performance goal, including, as appropriate, customer 
service, efficiency, output, and outcome indicators."[Footnote 30] We 
have found that if agencies do not use performance measures and 
performance information to track progress toward goals, they may be at 
risk of failing to achieve their goals.[Footnote 31] 

We have also found that there has been little improvement in managers' 
reported use of performance information or practices that could help 
promote this use.[Footnote 32] For example, since 1997 we have 
surveyed federal managers to determine the extent to which agencies 
are using performance information to improve agency results. In 1997, 
when we first administered the survey, approximately 32 percent of 
federal managers government-wide reported to a great or very great 
extent that they have performance measures that tell them whether or 
not they are satisfying their customers. In 2013, 16 years after the 
first survey, this measure increased by approximately 8 percentage 
points to 40 percent, a statistically significant difference but still 
less than a majority of managers reporting positively on having such 
measures. 

Easily publicly available. According to Executive Order 12862, 
agencies are to post their standards, while Executive Order 13571 
requires agencies to post customer service metrics and best practices 
online. Most recently, OMB provided additional guidance that the 
standards be "easily accessible at the point of service and on the 
Internet."[Footnote 33] Without such easily available information, 
customers may not know what to expect, when to expect it, or from whom. 

None of the agencies in our review had standards that included all of 
the key elements (see table 3). Without all of the key elements 
present in their standards, agencies may not be able to inform 
customers, provide accountability, measure progress, or improve 
customer service. 

Table 3: Extent to Which Agencies' Customer Service Standards Include 
Key Elements: 

Key elements: Customs and Border Protection; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: No; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: No; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: Yes. 

Key elements: Forest Service; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: No; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: No; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: No. 

Key elements: Federal Student Aid; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: Yes; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: Yes; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: No. 

Key elements: National Park Service[A]; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: No[B]; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: No[B]; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: No[B]. 

Key elements: Veterans Benefits Administration's disability 
compensation; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: Yes; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: Yes; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: No. 

Key elements: Veterans Benefits Administration's Veterans' Group Life 
Insurance; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: Yes; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: Yes; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: No. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation. GAO-15-84. 

[A] NPS provided us two sets of standards, its "Visitors' Bill of 
Rights" and its visitor satisfaction survey descriptions, both of 
which we assessed. Based on our analysis, we determined that neither 
set of standards included key elements. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Is a Model for Providing Customer 
Information, but Other Elements are Missing: 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the unified border agency 
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged with the 
management, control, and protection of our nation's borders at and 
between the official ports of entry. CBP's primary mission is to 
protect the American public against terrorists and weapons of terror 
from entering the country while fostering the nation's economic 
security. CBP's border security inspection of individuals processes 
travelers that present themselves for entry into the United States. 
According to CBP, over 362 million passengers, pedestrians, and crew 
were inspected in fiscal year 2013 in 328 distinct ports of entry. 

CBP's border security inspection standards are made easily available 
to the public; however, its standards do not include performance 
targets or goals and, according to CBP officials, CBP does not measure 
performance against those standards (see table 4). 

Table 4: Assessment of Customs and Border Protection Customer Service 
Standards Against Key Elements: 

Agency: Customs and Border Protection; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: No; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: No; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: Yes. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents. GAO-15-84. 

[End of table] 

CBP's standards, its "Pledge to Travelers" are qualitative in nature, 
for example, "we pledge to treat you with courtesy, dignity, and 
respect," and "we pledge to provide reasonable assistance due to delay 
or disability" (see text box). 

Text box: 

Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) “Pledge to Travelers” for Border 
Security Inspections of Individuals: 
* We pledge to cordially greet and welcome you to the United States. 
* We pledge to treat you with courtesy, dignity, and respect. 
* We pledge to explain the CBP process to you. 
* We pledge to have a supervisor listen to your comments. 
* We pledge to accept and respond to your comments in written, verbal, 
or electronic form. 
* We pledge to provide reasonable assistance due to delay or 
disability. 

Source: Customs and Border Protection. GAO-15-84. 

[End of table] 

According to CBP officials, the standards outline CBP's service in 
ideal circumstances for law-abiding travelers; CBP officials stated 
that theirs is a law enforcement agency and as a result, although the 
pledge applies to all travelers, different actions are taken for those 
attempting to break the law. The standards did not include 
descriptions or otherwise define what "courtesy, dignity, and respect" 
or "reasonable assistance" meant to CBP. In addition, CBP standards do 
not include a performance goal or target and CBP officials told us 
that they do not have performance measures that directly link to their 
standards nor did they provide a reason why they do not link. As a 
result, CBP officials are unable to determine the extent to which the 
agency is meeting customer service needs based on their standards. 

Instead, agency officials told us they are able to use customer 
comment data to infer how well the agency performs regarding the 
pledge. According to CBP officials, in fiscal year 2013 agency-wide 
CBP received 2,285 comments specifically related to the "Pledge to 
Travelers" and CBP officer conduct. To date for fiscal year 2014, CBP 
received 1,339 customer comments. With this information, CBP officials 
said they are able to identify areas where improvements or additional 
officer training is needed such as providing clarification about 
nonimmigrant visas for temporary stays. However, without clearly 
stated performance goals or measures directly linked to those goals, 
CBP is unable to determine the extent to which the standards are being 
met agency-wide, identify areas to improve service, or strategies to 
close performance gaps. 

CBP was the only agency in our review that makes its standards easily 
available to the public. CBP posts its standards on the Internet on 
its webpage, as well as at points of service in entry ports, field 
offices, and headquarters, according to CBP officials (see figure 1). 

Figure 1: Customs and Border Protection's "Pledge to Travelers" 
Included on Agency Webpage: 

[Refer to PDF for image: webpage illustration] 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Pledge to Travelers: 
* We pledge to cordially greet and welcome you to the United States. 
* We pledge to treat you with courtesy, dignity, and respect. 
* We pledge to explain the CBP process to you. 
* We pledge to have a supervisor listen to your comments. 
* We pledge to accept and respond to your comments in written, verbal, 
or electronic form. 
* We pledge to provide reasonable assistance due to delay or 
disability. 

Source: CBP.gov website Travel/Customer Service page as of May 21, 
2014. GAO-15-84. 

[End of figure] 

Forest Service's Standards Do Not Include Any Key Elements: 

Forest Service's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and 
productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs 
of present and future generations. Forest Service's recreational 
facilities provide customers with passes and permits to experience the 
forests through such activities as hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, 
cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. Forest Service's recreational 
facilities standards do not include any key elements for improving 
customer service (see table 5). 

Table 5: Assessment of Forest Service Customer Service Standards 
Against Key Elements: 

Agency: Forest Service; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: No; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: No; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: No. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents. GAO-15-84. 

[End of table] 

Forest Service's standards are a part of the agency's "National 
Quality Standards," an internal document that contains employee 
performance requirements that employees need to meet as part of their 
performance ratings--for example, "garbage does not exceed the 
capacity of garbage containers" (see text box). The standards did not 
include additional descriptions such as frequency--for example, that 
the garbage should be emptied on a daily basis. Forest Service 
officials also told us that there were no performance measures 
directly linked to their employee operations and maintenance 
performance standards and that the results are self-reported by local 
supervisors on an annual basis. As a result, Forest Service is unable 
to determine the extent to which the standards are being met agency-
wide, to identify areas to improve service, or to develop strategies 
to close performance gaps. 

Text box: 

Forest Service Customer Service Standards for Recreational Facilities
Excerpt of Forest Service standards (see appendix II for the complete 
list of standards): 
* Visitors are not exposed to human waste. 
* Water, wastewater, and sewage treatment systems meet federal, state 
and local water quality regulations. 
* Garbage does not exceed the capacity of garbage containers. 
* Individual units and common areas are free of litter including 
domestic animal waste. 
* Facilities are free of graffiti. 
* Restrooms and garbage locations are free of objectionable odor. 
* Constructed features are clean. 

Source: Forest Service. GAO-15-84. 

[End of text box] 

Forest Service officials stated that the agency is finalizing changes 
to the standards (which were developed in 2005) based on employee 
performance and other current practices within the agency and expects 
to finalize those changes by the end of fiscal year 2014. However, 
according to Forest Service officials, these changes will not include 
performance goals or measures. In 2010, we found that Forest Service 
did not make its standards available to customers as officials felt 
the standards would not be helpful to the visitors who evaluate such 
things as cleanliness of rest rooms against their own standards and 
not those set forth by Forest Service.[Footnote 34] Forest Service 
officials stated that there has been no change since 2010 and the 
standards continue to be embedded in internal employee performance 
reviews and are not publicly available at all. With clearly defined 
performance goals and measures, Forest Service could more easily 
communicate its definition of cleanliness, as well as other services, 
to its customers. In addition, according to executive orders and 
guidance, standards were specifically intended to inform the public, 
irrespective of Forest Service's position that its standards are not 
publicly available because they may not be helpful to visitors. 

Office of Federal Student Aid's Standards Include Performance Goals 
and Are Measured; However, Standards Are Not Made Publicly Available: 

Federal Student Aid's (FSA) core mission is to ensure that all 
eligible individuals benefit from federal financial assistance--
grants, work-study, and loans--for education beyond high school. FSA 
provides student loans under the Direct Loan Program, where the 
Department of Education is the lender. FSA's customers include student 
and parent applicants, borrowers, and colleges and universities that 
disburse Direct Loans and other federal aid authorized under Title IV 
of the Higher Education Act of 1965[Footnote 35] directly to eligible 
student borrowers.[Footnote 36] FSA provided the standards for the 
Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system through which FSA 
disburses Direct Loan funds to participating Title IV school customers 
for our analysis. These standards included two key elements--standards 
that include performance targets or goals and performance measures 
that are directly linked to the goals. However, the standards are not 
made publicly available (see table 6). 

Table 6: Assessment of Federal Student Aid Customer Service Standards 
Against Key Elements: 

Agency: Federal Student Aid; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: Yes; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: Yes; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: No. 

Source: GAO analysis of FSA documents. GAO-15-84. 

[End of table] 

According to FSA officials, their standards for disbursing direct 
loans are requirements embedded within performance-based contracts 
that the service contractor must meet.[Footnote 37] FSA officials 
stated that each phase of the loan life cycle was governed by separate 
performance-based contracts and standards.[Footnote 38] FSA's COD 
standards, which govern one of these life-cycle phases, include 
performance goals to be achieved for the service contractor.[Footnote 
39] However, the language used in the contracts is specifically 
designed to lay out the technical requirements for the service 
provider and as a result, without technical knowledge it may be more 
difficult for individuals outside of the service industry, such as 
parents and students, to understand (see text box). 

Text box: 

Federal Student Aid Customer Service Standards for Student Loans under 
the Direct Loan Program: 

Excerpt of Direct Loan Origination and Disbursement through the Common 
Origination and Disbursement System (COD) Standards (see appendix III 
for the complete list of standards): 
* Received unprocessed batches from schools will be reviewed each 
business day. The Contractor will review and resolve unprocessed 
batches within 3 business days from identification.
* Availability of the COD Web site including all of the individual 
application and infrastructure components that result in availability 
of the application to the business excluding scheduled downtime, 
required processing outages and FSA provided technology service (e.g. 
telecommunications, networking). 

Source: Federal Student Aid. GAO-15-84. 

[End of text box] 

FSA has performance measures directly linked to the standards, 
including target time frames for achieving the standards that range 
from daily to monthly. FSA officials told us that the COD contract 
service provider collects and reviews the performance data on a daily 
basis and provides performance reports to FSA management monthly in 
its Customer Experience Dashboard. The dashboard provides the current 
performance data against historical data for the same period. For 
example, it provides the number of Free Application for Federal 
Student Aid applications received in 2013-2014 compared to the same 
time in 2011-2012. According to FSA officials, the performance data 
are used to determine the service provider's level of performance. If 
the standards are not being achieved, remedies may be taken as 
outlined in the contract. According to FSA officials, the standards 
are viewed as the minimum level of performance expected. The officials 
said the performance metrics have not been adjusted in approximately 4 
years, but the agency is discussing metric changes for contract 
renewal. The COD standards overall were developed through consultation 
between the agency and education subject matter experts and were last 
modified in 2006. 

In 2010, we found that FSA did not make its standards available to 
customers for the Direct Loan Program because they were not intended 
to inform the public.[Footnote 40] According to FSA officials, there 
has been no change since 2010 and its standards continue to be 
embedded within various service contracts and are not available to 
FSA's customers. However, according to executive orders and guidance, 
standards were specifically intended to inform the public, 
irrespective of FSA's position that its standards are for the service 
provider and are not intended to inform the public. As a result, FSA's 
customers may not be fully aware of the services that are available. 

National Park Service's Standards Do Not Include Any Key Elements: 

The National Park Service's (NPS) mission is to preserve "unimpaired 
the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park 
system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and 
future generations." According to NPS, its interpretive and 
educational services advance this mission by providing memorable 
educational and recreational experiences that help the public 
understand the meaning and relevance of park resources and foster 
development of a sense of stewardship by forging a connection between 
park resources, visitors, the community, and the national park system. 
NPS customers are the visitors using the programs, services, and 
facilities that NPS offers. NPS provided two sets of standards that we 
assessed--the "Visitors' Bill of Rights" and visitor satisfaction 
survey descriptions. Neither of the standards included any key 
elements of effective customer service standards (see table 7). 

Table 7: Assessment of National Park Service Customer Service 
Standards Against Key Elements: 

Agency: National Park Service[A]; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: No[B]; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: No[B]; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: No[B]. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents. GAO-15-84. 

[A] NPS provided us two sets of standards, its "Visitors' Bill of 
Rights" and its visitor satisfaction survey descriptions, both of 
which we assessed. Based on our analysis, we determined that neither 
set of standards included key elements. 

[End of table] 

The first set of customer service standards, the "Visitors' Bill of 
Rights," is included in an internal training module which NPS 
officials stated is a standard to which they train employees.[Footnote 
41] The "Visitors' Bill of Rights" is a set of qualitative standards 
and includes descriptions of what NPS park visitors have a right to 
expect during their stay, such as "have their privacy and independence 
respected," (see text box). NPS officials stated that this standard 
was developed in 1996 and has not been updated since then. According 
to NPS officials, there are no performance measures linked to the 
"Visitors' Bill of Rights" as the standards were intended for internal 
training purposes. In addition, these standards are not publicly 
available. 

Text box: 

National Park Service's Customer Service Standards for Visitor and 
Interpretive Services: 

First set of standards—-Visitors' Bill of Rights: 
Visitors have the right to:
* have their privacy and independence respected;
* retain and express their own values;
* be treated with courtesy and consideration; and
* receive accurate and balanced information. 

Second set of standards—visitor satisfaction survey scorecard measure 
definitions:
* Visitor understanding level is at least 83 percent.
* Visitor satisfaction level overall is at least 90 percent.
* Visitor satisfaction with visitor services is at least 88 percent.
• Visitor satisfaction with park facilities is at least 83 percent.
* Ratio of number of interpretive contacts per visitor is at least 0.8. 

Source: National Park Service. GAO-15-84. 

[End of text box] 

NPS also provided as standards its visitor satisfaction survey 
scorecard descriptions. The survey measures each park unit's 
performance related to visitor satisfaction, visitor understanding, 
and appreciation. The survey is a random sample of visitors in 330 
units. According to the fiscal year 2013 results of the visitor 
survey, approximately 97 percent of park visitors were satisfied 
overall with appropriate facilities, services, and recreational 
opportunities.[Footnote 42] According to NPS officials, this set of 
standards includes benchmark scores--standard and exceptional ratings-
-that the individual parks are rated against. While it is important 
for agencies to solicit a customer's level of satisfaction for 
services provided, as is done by NPS, such feedback should be 
conducted in addition to having a set of predetermined customer 
service standards that include performance targets or goals that can 
be measured.[Footnote 43] Further, the visitor surveys are conducted 
after customers have received NPS services; one of the purposes of 
standards is to inform customers of what they can expect prior to 
receiving the services. Without clearly stated performance goals or 
measures directly linked to those goals, NPS is unable to determine 
the extent to which the standards are being met agency-wide or 
strategies to close performance gaps. 

Finally, these standards are not made easily publicly available. 
According to executive orders and guidance, standards were 
specifically intended to inform the public. As such, standards need to 
be identified as standards and made easily publicly available. 
However, we found the results of the visitor survey on the NPS website 
under the NPS Social Science Branch publications and were not 
identified as standards. As a result, customers may not easily be able 
to find the results of the surveys much less make the connection that 
the survey and its results reflect NPS's standards for service. 

Veterans Benefits Administration Standards Include Performance Goals 
and Are Measured for Performance but Are Not Made Easily Publicly 
Available: 

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) disability compensation 
program provides monetary support to over 3.7 million veterans with 
disabling conditions that were incurred or aggravated during military 
service. The program also provides monthly payments to about 370,000 
beneficiaries including surviving spouses, dependent children, and 
dependent parents in recognition of the economic loss caused by a 
veteran's death during military service or, after discharge from 
military service, as a result of a service connected disability. The 
Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) program, also within VBA, allows 
veterans to continue their life insurance coverage after separation 
from the military. VGLI serviced approximately 426,000 customers 
during 2013. VBA's disability compensation and VGLI's customer service 
standards each include two key elements, but neither are made publicly 
available (see table 8). 

Table 8: Assessment of Veterans Benefits Administration Customer 
Service Standards Against Key Elements: 

Program: Disability compensation; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: Yes; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: Yes; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: No. 

Program: Veterans' Group Life Insurance; 
Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: Yes; 
Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: Yes; 
Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: No. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents. GAO-15-84. 

[End of table] 

Disability Compensation: 

VBA's disability compensation standards include two key elements of 
effective customer service standards--goals for performance and 
performance measures; however the standards are not made easily 
publicly available (see table 8). The standards are quantitative, such 
as "increase compensation claims processing timeliness to 125 days and 
quality to 98 percent accuracy for medical issues" (see text 
box).[Footnote 44] According to VBA officials, standards are re-
evaluated on an annual basis and adjusted as appropriate. For example, 
disability compensation standards were updated in fiscal year 2014 
with a new standard added to increase the percentage of claims filed 
online for the disability compensation program. 

Text box: 

Veterans Benefits Administration Disability Compensation's Customer 
Service Standards: 

* Increase compensation claims processing timeliness to 125 days and 
quality to 98 percent accuracy for medical issues.
* Increase the percentage of claims filed online.
* Increase the annual number of disability compensation claims 
received virtually/electronically from a baseline of 2 percent in 
2013, to 12 percent in 2014, and 20 percent in 2015.
* Increase the National Call Center Satisfaction Index Score.
* Increase the number of registered eBenefits users to 3.8 million in 
2014 and 5 million in 2015. 

Source: Veterans Benefits Administration Benefits Assistance Service. 
GAO-15-84. 

[End of text box] 

VBA disability compensation has performance measures that are directly 
linked to customer service standards and, according to VBA officials, 
the results serve as performance indicators of its service contractor 
for disability compensation since 2010. The service contractor gathers 
the performance data and reports out to VBA management. For example, 
according to VBA officials, data collected for VBA call centers is 
reported by the service contractor to VBA management on a daily basis, 
with supplemental analysis reports provided monthly. These reports 
include overall satisfaction results, service attributes and 
diagnostic data. Other performance data, such as data collected on the 
online reporting site, can be accessed by VBA management on a daily 
basis for all satisfaction scores according to VBA officials. To 
identify any areas of opportunity, VBA officials said they hold 
monthly monitoring sessions to listen to customer satisfaction 
surveys, which are implemented over the phone. According to VBA 
officials, reported data are analyzed by both VBA and the service 
contractor to identify opportunities to make process improvements that 
may increase satisfaction results to meet the agency's goals. When the 
performance results do not meet the standards, a plan is executed to 
drive up performance, according to VBA officials. Performance data are 
also used to quantify the various aspects of the delivery of benefits 
and services, to identify best practices that may exist within VBA 
lines of business and regional offices, and to recognize employees who 
provide outstanding customer service, according to VBA officials. 

Disability compensation standards are available on the Department of 
Veterans Affairs' (VA) web-page through publicly available reports 
such as the Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) and are also 
identified in VA's Strategic Plan. These documents serve a larger 
purpose, and while not excluding customers, are targeted to a much 
broader audience. However, these documents may not be readily 
understood, much less known, to most customers. As a result, although 
VBA disability compensation information is online, it is not easily 
available or accessible to its customers. 

Veterans' Group Life Insurance: 

Similarly, VGLI's standards include performance goals allowing 
performance to be measured (see table 8 above). VGLI's standards are 
quantitative in nature, such as "98 percent of e-mails responded to 
within 24 hours of receipt." VGLI standards are reviewed on an annual 
basis, and adjusted as appropriate. For example, the most recent 
update of the standards was in 2013, when there was an adjustment of 
the standard for first call resolution from 78 percent to 82 percent. 
According to VGLI officials, this adjustment reflected process 
improvements and technological enhancements (see text box). 

Text box: 

Veterans Benefits Administration Veterans' Group Life Insurance 
Customer Service Standard: 
* 80% of calls answered within 20 seconds.
* 97% of correspondence handled within 5 business days of receipt.
* 98% of e-mails responded to within 24 hours of receipt.
* 90% overall satisfaction with Office of Service members' Group Life 
Insurance.
* 82% first call resolution rate. 

Source: Veterans' Group Life Insurance. GAO-15-84. 

[End of text box] 

According to a VGLI official, VGLI's service contractor reviews the 
performance standards annually and makes adjustments as appropriate 
based on industry standards, process improvements, and technological 
enhancements. For example, the service contractor makes adjustments to 
the numbers of employees working on specific tasks based on 
fluctuations in workflow throughout the year. In addition, the service 
contractor has trained its employees to be functional in several 
areas, and as a result employees can be temporarily reassigned based 
on work needs. For example, the service contractor stated that 
employees who primarily serve an administrative function are also 
trained to work in the call center if the center is experiencing 
higher than normal call volume. In addition, performance measures are 
directly linked to the standards and are also benchmarked against the 
insurance industry by the service contractor. Specifically, the 
service contractor measures performance and collects data, then 
reports out to VGLI officials on a monthly basis using a data metrics 
dashboard as well as quarterly briefings. However, VGLI's standards 
are not made publicly available as the standards are used internally 
for its service contract, according to VGLI officials. As we 
previously stated, based on the executive orders and guidance, 
standards were specifically intended to inform the public and should 
be made publicly available, regardless of VGLI's use of the standards. 
Without such information, VGLI's customers may not be fully aware of 
the services that are available. 

Some Agencies' Feedback Mechanisms Were Better Able to Identify Needed 
Service Improvements Agency-wide: 

All of the agencies in our review provide customers with opportunities 
to submit feedback, including comments and complaints, through a 
variety of ways such as satisfaction surveys, comment cards submitted 
in person or online, e-mails, and call centers. However, not all of 
the agencies in our review had a formal or systematic mechanism for 
reviewing customer feedback (see table 9). 

Table 9: Not All Selected Agencies Had an Internal Process to Review 
and Elevate Customer Feedback: 

Agencies: Internal process to elevate and review customer feedback; 
Customs and Border Protection: Yes; 
Forest Service: No; 
Federal Student Aid: No[A]; 
National Park Service: No; 
Veterans Benefits Administration's Disability Compensation: Yes; 
Veterans Benefits Administration's Veterans' Group Life Insurance: 
No[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. GAO-15-84. 

[A] FSA and VBA's VGLI have feedback review mechanisms in place that 
are managed by external service providers. According to agency 
officials, the agency management does not routinely get involved in 
reviewing customer feedback. 

[End of table] 

Specifically, we found that CBP and VBA's disability compensation have 
a formal mechanism in place to review customer feedback. Forest 
Service and NPS do not have criteria or guidance for when to elevate 
customer comments from the local level up to the agency level. FSA and 
VBA's VGLI rely on service providers to review and elevate the 
customers' comments at the service provider's discretion. Executive 
Order 13571 stated that agencies should establish "mechanisms to 
solicit customer feedback on Government services" and that agencies 
use "such feedback regularly to make service improvements."[Footnote 
45] OMB guidance to agencies for implementing Executive Order 13571 
further stated that agencies "collect ongoing, timely, actionable 
customer feedback to identify early warning signals of customer 
service issues."[Footnote 46] Although the executive order and 
guidance did not provide specific details as to how the agency 
feedback mechanisms should be developed, research on best practices 
emphasizes the need for a single, centralized management framework for 
receiving customer feedback so that all information about the 
customers can be linked together to facilitate a more complete 
knowledge of the customer.[Footnote 47] In addition, the Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for agencies to 
develop control activities, such as policies, procedures, techniques, 
and mechanisms that enforce management's directives, which helps to 
reinforce the need for agencies to develop guidance or policies for 
reviewing and elevating customer feedback.[Footnote 48] Moving 
forward, a feedback mechanism that better aligns with OMB guidance, 
best practices, and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government could include guidance for reviewing customer feedback and 
taking action to resolve potential problems at the agency level from 
service providers and disparate locations across the country. In 
addition, such a feedback mechanism would also enable agencies to 
determine if customer concerns are localized, specific to a given 
function, agency-wide, or systemic. 

Customs and Border Protection. CBP has a formal mechanism in place to 
review customer feedback and is the only agency in our review that has 
a customer service web page that allows customers to file comments and 
complaints online and that includes information such as how CBP 
handles traveler complaints (see figure 2). According to CBP 
officials, the agency received approximately 8,700 complaints and 723 
compliments in fiscal year 2013, a year in which CBP officers 
inspected over 362 million passengers, pedestrians, and crew. 
According to the same officials, for the past 3 years CBP's INFO 
Center, where customers can call or email with questions or 
complaints, has tracked the history, timing, and resolution of a 
comment, and the specific port from where the comment originated. The 
center receives between 800 and 1,200 calls a day as well as 150 
emails a day. According to CBP officials, 95 percent of the complaints 
are closed within 95 days or sooner. 

Figure 2: Information on Customs and Border Protection's Webpage on 
How Customer Complaints Are Addressed: 

[Refer to PDF for image: webpage illustration] 

How CBP Handles Traveler Complaints: 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection currently has in place four primary 
programs to address and respond to customer complaints and 
compliments, They are the Passenger Service Representatives, Comment 
Cards, C8P INFO Center, and a program where port directors and 
supervisors personally respond to telephone and verbal complaints. 

Comment Card Program: 

CRP comment card program a Rows travelers to express, in writing, any 
concern, complaint, or compliment they may have as a result of their 
Customs processing experience, Customs Headquarters personnel review 
comment cards and attempt to contact each complainant. Comment cards 
provide CBP with valuable feedback from travelers; are given to all 
air and sea travelers who undergo a secondary examination; are given 
to all air, land, and sea travelers who are subjected to a personal 
search. 

Source: CBP.gov website Travel page as of May 21,2014. GAO-15-84. 

[End of figure] 

CBP officials said they routinely use customer comments to improve 
customer service. For example, CBP officials reported using customer 
feedback to identify a misconception among CBP officers at a specific 
port concerning the time limitations of a type of nonimmigrant visa 
for temporary stay. After identifying the problem through customer 
feedback, CBP officials reported that additional officer training was 
provided and the complaints on visa admittance at that specific port 
declined. 

Forest Service. According to Forest Service officials, most customer 
feedback was submitted, reviewed, and handled at the local unit level 
(forests). For example, in comments visitors reported dangerous steps 
along the Double Arch Trail in Kentucky's Daniel Boone National 
Forest, and in 2013 Forest Service repaired those steps. According to 
Forest Service officials, local customer feedback is only elevated to 
the attention of headquarters staff at the discretion of local 
management and stated that local management can use the monthly 
meetings with regional management to discuss any issues or problems. 
However, Forest Service officials did not provide us criteria or 
documentation for situations when local management would elevate such 
feedback to headquarters for additional review or input. In addition, 
Forest Service officials stated that there is no mechanism for 
collecting comments agency-wide. As a result of this decentralized 
approach, Forest Service may be unable to determine the extent to 
which potential problems may exist agency-wide or identify needed 
improvements. 

Office of Federal Student Aid. According to FSA officials, customers 
primarily provide direct feedback online or on the phone through a 
contracted service provider, who is responsible for resolving any 
issues that may arise. Issues may be elevated to FSA at the contract 
service provider's discretion but, according to FSA officials, FSA is 
not commonly involved. 

In addition, FSA officials did not provide any criteria or process by 
which the service provider would elevate customer feedback. FSA 
officials told us there are different service providers for the 
different phases of a loan. As a result, although each phase may be 
distinct, FSA may be unable to identify similar problems or concerns 
that occurred over time. Providing additional guidance, such as 
specific criteria of which customer comments or feedback should be 
elevated to FSA's attention by the service provider, would better 
position FSA to not only provide better oversight of its service 
provider but to also potentially improve customer service. 

FSA did share an example of how it launched the Financial Aid 
Counseling Tool (FACT) in response to schools' requests for an 
enhanced financial literacy tool that would be available to students 
year-round. According to FSA officials, FACT assists borrowers in 
making informed decisions about their loans and managing their debt by 
providing access to their real time loan balances, budgeting 
worksheets, and features to project income planning and to estimate 
monthly loan payments for various repayment options. However FSA was 
not able to provide further clarification or documentation as to why 
this specific case was raised to its attention over others and why 
subsequent action was taken. 

National Park Service. According to NPS officials, most customer 
feedback is submitted at the level of each park via visitor comment 
cards. Visitors may also write to regional and national NPS offices 
with their feedback, as well as submit formal complaints regarding 
accessibility and discrimination. There is a general "contact us" 
feedback option online. NPS officials told us that feedback submitted 
at local parks is reviewed at that level and only elevated at the 
discretion of local management. NPS headquarters officials were unable 
to provide examples of using customer feedback to improve service and 
instead reached out to local parks for information. For example, 
Golden Gate Park in California implemented a park-wide restroom 
improvement program, improved signage, and replaced a missing park map 
and brochures in certain areas based on customer feedback. According 
to NPS officials, NPS does not have agency-wide policies or processes 
to guide the review of feedback or to inform management about the 
nature and extent of the feedback to help improve operations and 
customer service. As a result, NPS may not be able to identify 
systemic or consistent problems across all of its units unless such 
information is elevated. 

Veterans Benefits Administration Disability Compensation. VBA's 
mechanism for managing disability compensation customer feedback is 
largely managed by its service provider, according to VBA officials. 
The officials said most customer comments are submitted via call 
centers where there is a standard procedure for phone call 
escalations. Concerns are forwarded from the service provider to VBA 
based on agency guidance, and appropriate follow-up action is taken by 
the VA regional office. This process is managed and tracked through an 
internal system, according to VBA officials. As a result, although 
VBA's disability compensation customer feedback is largely managed by 
service providers, VBA officials have a formal mechanism in place to 
oversee not only the feedback that has been escalated, but also the 
service provided to customers. 

In October 2010, VBA disability compensation launched a customer 
satisfaction research program for its national call centers and 
subsequently identified 97 service enhancements, 55 of which have been 
implemented, according to VBA officials. For example, VBA disability 
compensation implemented Virtual Hold Call Back technology, which 
allows callers to leave their name and phone number to receive an 
automatic return call. Since the implementation date of September 
2011, the system has returned over 10 million calls, according to VBA 
officials. 

Veterans Benefits Administration-Veterans' Group Life Insurance. 
According to a VGLI official, VGLI's service provider reviews and 
handles customer feedback that may be submitted through VGLI's portal-
an on-line chat mechanism with customer service representatives. 
However, we were unable to find an online contact or complaint option 
on VGLI's website. According to VGLI officials, customers also have 
the option to submit written feedback to VBA. VGLI holds quarterly 
meetings with its service provider to discuss service improvements 
that may be needed based on the feedback; however, VGLI officials said 
there were no criteria or process by which specific types of feedback 
were brought to their attention. As a result, VGLI officials may not 
be aware of potential system-wide issues affecting customers that may 
be reflected in their feedback. 

According to VGLI officials, feedback was used to identify the 
challenges veterans faced concerning the limits of and their desire 
for more life insurance coverage. As a result of the feedback, VGLI 
initiated "VGLI Buy Up" which allows veterans to increase their life 
insurance coverage once every 5 years by $25,000. In addition, proof 
of medical eligibility is not required. 

Identification of Customer Service as a Cross-Agency Priority Goal May 
Provide Additional Focus Needed to Further Improve the Customer 
Experience Governmment-wide: 

OMB has taken several steps to facilitate the improvement of agencies' 
customer service initiatives. For example, in 2010 we recommended, and 
OMB later took steps to implement, that the Director of OMB should (1) 
direct agencies to consider options to make their customer service 
standards and results more readily available to customers and (2) 
collaborate with the President's Management Advisory Board and 
agencies to provide citizens with the information necessary to hold 
government accountable for customer service, among other 
things.[Footnote 49] To implement these recommendations, OMB issued 
its customer service plan memorandum, as developed by OMB's Deputy 
Director for Management, in June 2011 following the issuance of 
Executive Order 13571, which was issued to improve customer service 
and require agencies to develop and publish a customer service plan. 
The memorandum stated that OMB would establish and coordinate a 
Customer Service Task Force to "facilitate the exchange of best 
practices and the development of agency customer service plans and 
signature initiatives…that will meet regularly until agencies 
published their plans."[Footnote 50] 

Task force actions. According to the task force schedule and agendas 
we obtained from OMB, the task force met with agency officials on a 
monthly basis from June to September 2011 before agency plans were 
posted on Performance.gov in October 2011.[Footnote 51] The task force 
was made up of senior agency officials responsible for the development 
of their agencies' plans. According to an OMB official, senior agency 
officials identified best practices based on customer service 
experiences from within their own agencies. We wanted to review the 
outcome of these meetings including the self-identified best 
practices; however, according to OMB, no meeting minutes were taken 
and the staff involved in the task force are no longer with OMB. 

Department actions. Each of the departments included in our review 
published their plans as scheduled. However, of the five agencies in 
our review, only CBP officials told us that they used the plan as a 
tool to manage and oversee aspects of customer service. According to 
Executive Order 13571, the plans were to address how the departments 
would "provide services in a manner that seeks to streamline service 
delivery and improve the experience of its customers"[Footnote 52] and 
the OMB interpretive guidance stated that the plans should "identify 
implementation steps for the customer service activities outlined in 
EO 13571."[Footnote 53] However, two of the agencies told us that 
unless required to do so by OMB, they do not intend to update their 
customer service plans. Further, Forest Service officials were not 
even aware that a department-wide customer service plan had been 
created. We have previously found that a well-developed and documented 
project plan encourages agency managers and stakeholders to 
systematically consider what is to be done, when and how it will be 
done, what skills will be needed, and how to gauge progress and 
results.[Footnote 54] However, we found that the plans were in effect, 
static documents and did not reflect any updates to milestones or 
actions taken. We discussed the usefulness of the customer service 
plans with OMB officials and they agreed that the departments could 
have implemented the plans more effectively. OMB stated that moving 
forward, the CAP goal implementation plan, which is discussed later, 
may better help provide additional focus on customer service 
government-wide. 

Performance Improvement Council role. We also inquired about the role 
of the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) in helping agencies with 
their customer service efforts. The PIC, however, did not have an 
active role in assisting agencies with the development of their plans. 
The PIC, chaired by OMB's Deputy Director for Management and composed 
of performance improvement officers from various federal agencies, is 
charged with, among other responsibilities, facilitating the exchange 
of successful performance improvement practices among agencies, 
working to resolve government-wide or crosscutting performance issues, 
and assisting OMB in implementing certain GPRAMA requirements. 
[Footnote 55] Further, the PIC's role includes considering the 
performance improvement experiences of customers of government 
services. Despite their designated role in improving customer 
experience, OMB officials confirmed that the PIC was not actively 
involved in the task force. However, moving forward, OMB stated that 
if plans on involving the PIC in the CAP goal implementation plan for 
customer service. 

OMB additional actions. Although OMB has taken action to move customer 
service forward government-wide, such as developing guidance and 
facilitating the task force, other steps were not completed because of 
budget limitations, according to OMB officials. These uncompleted 
actions pertain to OMB's prior effort to provide oversight and 
accountability of agencies' customer service metrics. In 2010, we 
found that OMB was developing a pilot dashboard that contained agency 
standards and some related measures, with links to agency web sites 
where customers could track their individual transaction status, where 
available. We found that OMB had asked agencies participating in the 
pilot to identify metrics that were drivers of customer satisfaction, 
such as wait time, processing time, and first call resolution. OMB 
expected the pilot dashboard to launch publicly in late fall 2010. 
[Footnote 56] However, an OMB official told us that although the 
agency had begun work on the performance dashboard, there was a 
reprioritization of resources within OMB and the pilot effort was 
discontinued. The OMB official did not know if the pilot efforts would 
begin again. Such a performance dashboard would have been the first of 
its kind government-wide and may have enabled OMB to provide greater 
oversight of agency customer service performance against identified 
standards. Nevertheless, OMB envisions that the attention given to 
customer service by making it a CAP goal will move customer service 
forward government-wide. 

Fast Track Process May Not Speed-Up Survey Approval Process: 

In 2010, we found that in certain instances the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA) clearance process made obtaining customer input 
difficult because of lengthy delays to obtain approval for a survey to 
collect customer input (see text box).[Footnote 57] For example, we 
previously found that NPS stated that lengthy delays in obtaining 
approval for information collections, such as visitor surveys, under 
the PRA sometimes caused research to be postponed or even 
abandoned.[Footnote 58] We also found that Forest Service officials 
considered the time needed to obtain clearance for surveys to be a 
major barrier to gathering input from customers on their level of 
satisfaction.[Footnote 59] 

In early 2010, OMB also issued three memorandums--relevant to customer 
service goals--containing clarifying guidance to improve the 
implementation of the PRA.[Footnote 60] The memorandums provided 
information for federal agencies to facilitate their understanding of 
PRA clearances and when and how they can be used. On June 15, 2011, 
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) issued a 
memorandum outlining the new Fast Track process for survey approval 
which would allow agencies to obtain timely feedback on service 
delivery using such types of voluntary collections as online surveys 
and comment cards or complaint forms.[Footnote 61] According to OIRA 
officials, the biggest challenge in implementing the Fast Track 
process has been disseminating information to agencies on when to use 
Fast Track. An OMB official told us that the agency is aware of the 
lack of communication concerning the Fast Track process and in the 
upcoming year plans to address this information gap. 

Text box: 

Paperwork Reduction Act: 

Before requiring or requesting information from the public, such as 
through customer satisfaction surveys, federal agencies are required 
by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to seek public comment as well as 
approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the 
proposed collection of information. The PRA requires federal agencies 
to minimize the burden on the public resulting from their information 
collections, and to maximize the practical utility of the information 
collected. To comply with the PRA process, agencies must develop and 
review proposed collections to ensure that they meet the goals of the 
act. Once approved internally, agencies generally must publish a 60-
day notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on the 
agency's proposed collection, consider the public comments, submit the 
proposed collection to OMB and publish a second Federal Register 
notice inviting public comment to the agency and OMB. OMB may act on 
the agency's request only after the 30-day comment period has closed. 
Under the PRA, OMB determines whether a proposed collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility. The PRA 
gives OMB 60 days to approve or disapprove a proposed collection; 
however, OMB can also instruct the agency to make a substantive or 
material change to the proposed collection. 

Source: GAO. GAO-15-84. 

Note: See GAO-11-44. 

[End of text box] 

OIRA officials provided us with the following data on the Fast Track 
process. As of May 2014, 85 agencies have been approved to use the 
Fast Track process for survey approval, including all of the agencies 
in our review. OIRA officials said they have approved 580 data 
collection requests using the Fast Track process, returned 67 requests 
to agencies because of improper submission, and 24 requests were 
withdrawn by the agencies themselves. 

Use of the new Fast Track process varied among the agencies we 
reviewed. For example, Forest Service officials told us that their 
local forest units had experienced a slight improvement in timeliness 
of their survey approvals because they used the Fast Track process. 
However, the Forest Service officials also told us that surveys 
primarily administered by headquarters serve a different purpose and 
rely heavily on statistical analysis for research. Such surveys, 
according to Forest Service officials, would not be eligible for the 
Fast Track process because of their statistical rigor. According to 
OIRA guidance, Fast Track is not intended to be used for surveys that 
require statistical rigor that will be used for making significant 
policy or resource allocation decisions, or for collections whose 
results are intended to be published. According to FSA officials, they 
have neither noticed an improvement or degradation in the approval 
process under the Fast Track process. FSA officials told us that OMB 
has routinely approved surveys that fall under the Fast Track process 
within the designated time frames, with few exceptions. VBA disability 
compensation officials also told us that their surveys were not 
eligible for the Fast Track process because their surveys did not meet 
all the requirements for Fast Track. For NPS, according to officials, 
the time involved with the procedural review through the Fast Track is 
still lengthy and is perceived as prohibitive for parks and programs 
to conduct valuable and usable social science research surveys. 
Finally, CBP officials told us that they have not used the Fast Track 
process and have no plans to do so in the near future. Officials at 
VBA's VGLI did not have an opinion on the Fast Track process because 
they have not used it. 

Customer Service Identified as Cross-Agency Priority Goal: 

OMB identified customer service as a cross-agency priority goal (CAP) 
goal in March 2014 to further build upon the progress being made by 
individual agencies (see figure 3). 

Figure 3: Customer Service as a Designated Cross-Agency Priority Goal: 

[Refer to PDF for image: webpage illustration] 

Customer Service: 

Goal Statement: Deliver world-class customer services to citizens by 
making it faster and easier for individuals and businesses to complete 
transactions and have a positive experience with government. 

Overview: 

The American people deserve a Government that is responsive to their 
needs. Citizens and businesses expect government services to be well-
designed, efficient, and generally comparable to the services they 
receive from leading private sector organizations. Whether they call 
the IRS for an answer to a tax question or visit a Social Security 
Administration office to adjust their benefits, they should experience 
high-quality interactions with the Federal Government. Despite some 
important strides to improve customer service over the past fifteen 
years, too often many Federal Government services fail to meet the 
expectations of citizens and business, creating unnecessary hassle and 
cost for citizens, businesses, and the government itself. The Federal 
Government must keep pace with the public's expectations and transform 
its customer services — soliciting regular customer feedback, 
streamlining processes, and delivering consistent quality service 
across customer channels. 

Source: Performance.gov website Customer Service page as of May 21, 
2014. GAO-15-84. 

[End of figure] 

By focusing on developing standards for high impact services, OMB 
recognizes that government leaders have a responsibility to understand 
customer expectations and service needs, and continually evaluate and 
improve their effectiveness in meeting those needs. According to OMB 
officials, two goal leaders and a goal team are responsible for the 
CAP goal. In June 2014, the CAP goal team issued an implementation 
plan to increase customer satisfaction and promote positive 
experiences, issued an action plan to achieve that goal, and assigned 
a team to oversee and manage the project. The implementation plan, 
issued on the Performance.gov website, identified the development and 
implementation of standards, practices, and tools as one of the CAP 
goal team's four strategies or sub-goals to further improve customer 
service.[Footnote 62] According to the implementation plan, the 
problem of fragmentation within and across agencies has made the 
establishment of customer service initiatives difficult. The CAP goal 
team's strategy to address the problem of fragmentation will be to 
establish an infrastructure to improve coordination and to develop 
sustain change over time by developing a community of practice across 
agencies and clarifying who is responsible for customer service. 
According to the implementation plan, the community of practice will 
share best practices and develop guidance that the agencies will use 
to develop customer service standards. While it is too early to assess 
the effect of the new CAP goal, this new effort does offer an 
opportunity for OMB to begin to elevate the importance of customer 
service government-wide and to engage agencies on how to better meet 
customer needs. 

Conclusions: 

All five agencies established customer service standards. However, 
those standards did not always include performance targets or goals, 
did not always have performance measures, and were not always easily 
publicly available. Specifically, three of the five agencies in our 
review did not have all of the elements of a customer-centered 
performance management approach for delivering federal service. Having 
customer standards that include performance targets or goals allows 
customers to understand what to expect for the services they are 
seeking. Without standards customers may be left not knowing or 
confused over what to expect when using a government-provided service. 
We also found that not all agencies measured performance to determine 
whether customer service standards were being met. Measuring 
performance allows agencies to track the progress they are making 
toward meeting those standards and gives managers crucial information 
on which to base decisions as well as to update those standards, when 
necessary. Thus, if agencies do not measure performance to track 
progress toward meeting customer service standards then they risk 
failing to meet the needs of their customers. 

In addition, communicating customer service standards to the public in 
a way that is useful and readily available to customers is important 
in enabling the public to hold government accountable and to inform 
customer decision making. Four of five agencies we reviewed did not 
make customer service standards easily available to customers. For 
example one agency provided its standards through documents that serve 
larger purposes, such as departmental performance and accountability 
reports and agency strategic plans. While not excluding customers, 
those documents are targeted to a much broader audience. Notably, all 
five agencies in our review use customer feedback to improve customer 
service. Agencies reported they used this feedback in a number of 
instances to make improvements to training and the number of services 
offered among other things. However, only CBP and VBA's disability 
compensation had a formal or systematic process for reviewing customer 
feedback. Having such a feedback mechanism could help agencies link 
information about their customers and ultimately assist agencies with 
customer service improvements. 

In March 2014, OMB made customer service a CAP goal. In June 2014 OMB 
released an implementation plan for customer service that included a 
goal statement to increase customer satisfaction and to promote 
positive experiences, released an action plan to achieve that goal, 
and assigned a team to oversee and manage the project. While it is too 
early to assess the effect of the new CAP goal, this new effort does 
offer an opportunity for OMB to begin to elevate the importance of 
customer service government-wide and to engage agencies on how to 
better meet customer needs. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Recognizing that moving toward a more customer-oriented culture within 
federal agencies is likely to be a continuous effort, we recommend 
that the: 

Secretary of Agriculture direct the Under Secretary for Natural 
Resources and Environment to take the following four actions to 
improve Forest Service's customer service standards and feedback 
review: ensure standards include performance targets or goals; ensure 
standards include performance measures; ensure standards are easily 
publicly available; and develop a feedback mechanism to collect 
comments agency-wide, which should include guidance or criteria to 
elevate customer feedback from local and regional offices to identify 
the need for and to make service improvements; 

Secretary of Education direct Federal Student Aid's Chief Operating 
Officer to take the following two actions to improve Federal Student 
Aid's customer service standards and feedback review: ensure standards 
are easily publicly available and develop a feedback mechanism that 
includes guidance or criteria for service providers to elevate 
customer feedback to identify the need for and to make service 
improvements; 

Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection take the following 
two actions to improve CBP's customer service standards: ensure 
standards include performance targets or goals and ensure standards 
include performance measures; 

Secretary of the Interior direct the Assistant Secretary of Fish, 
Wildlife and Parks to take the following four actions to improve the 
National Park Service's customer service standards and feedback 
review: ensure standards include performance targets or goals; ensure 
standards include performance measures; ensure standards are easily 
publicly available; and develop a feedback mechanism that includes 
guidance or criteria to review and elevate customer feedback from 
local and regional offices to identify the need for and to make 
service improvements; 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Veterans Benefits 
Administration to improve disability compensation customer service 
standards by making the standards easily publicly available; and: 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Veterans Benefits 
Administration to take the following two actions to improve Veterans' 
Group Life Insurance's customer service standards and feedback review: 
ensure standards are easily publicly available and develop a feedback 
mechanism that includes guidance or criteria for service providers to 
elevate customer feedback and identify the need for and to make 
service improvements. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the OMB and the Departments of 
Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Interior and Veterans 
Affairs. The Chief of the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture), 
the Chief Operating Officer at Federal Student Aid (Department of 
Education), the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs provided written comments on a draft of the report, 
which are reprinted in appendixes IV, V, VI, and VII respectively. In 
their written responses, the Departments of Agriculture, Education, 
Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs agreed with our 
recommendations. Department of Interior officials also stated that 
they agreed with our recommendation in an e-mail. Finally, OMB, the 
Departments of Homeland Security, Education and Veterans Affairs also 
suggested technical changes to the report, which we incorporated where 
appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OMB and the 
heads of the five agencies that were included in this review as well 
as interested congressional committees and other interested parties. 
This report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of our report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix VIII. 

Signed by: 

J. Christopher Mihm 
Managing Director, Strategic Issues: 

List of Congressional Addressees: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D.
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Mark R. Warner: 
Chairman: 
Task Force on Government Performance: 
Committee on the Budget: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of this study were to address the extent to which (1) 
selected agencies and their services are using customer service 
standards and measuring performance results against these standards, 
and how selected agencies are communicating standards and using 
customer feedback to improve customer service; and (2) the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) and the Performance Improvement Council 
are facilitating federal agencies' use of tools and practices to 
improve customer service. To address our two objectives, we selected 
agencies and their services for our review based on prior work in 
which we surveyed 12 federal agencies (which are among those with the 
most widespread contact with the public) about 13 services they 
provided.[Footnote 63] For the prior report, five of those agencies 
were selected for additional follow-up interviews--based on their 
responses to key survey questions--in order to gain a fuller 
understanding of their responses. For this report, we selected the 
same five agencies and their services to determine the progress made 
by each since the issuance in 2011 of Executive Order 13571 on 
improving customer service (see table 10).[Footnote 64] To determine 
progress made, we expanded our review to include in-depth interviews 
with agency officials and an examination of relevant customer service 
documentation such as plans, performance measures, and feedback 
mechanisms. 

Table 10: Agencies and Services Included in Review: 

Department: Department of Agriculture; 
Agency: Forest Service; 
Service: Managing recreational facilities and services. 

Department: Department of Education; 
Agency: Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA); 
Service: Awarding student loans under the Direct Loan Program. 

Department: Department of Homeland Security; 
Agency: Customs and Border Protection (CBP); 
Service: Conducting border security inspections of individuals. 

Department: Department of the Interior; 
Agency: National Park Service (NPS); 
Service: Providing visitor and interpretive services. 

Department: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Agency: Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA); 
Service: Providing disability compensation. 

Department: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Agency: Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA); 
Service: Providing Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI). 

Source: GAO summary of agency information. GAO-15-84. 

[End of table] 

To address how selected agencies are using customer service standards 
and measuring performance against those standards, communicating 
standards, and using customer feedback to improve service, we reviewed 
our relevant prior work on customer service and the specific agencies 
in our sample. We requested and reviewed agencies' customer service 
standards and available performance measures related to those 
standards. In addition, we compared agency information to relevant 
executive orders, presidential and OMB memorandums, and OMB guidance 
consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) provisions 
related to customer service (see table 11).[Footnote 65] 

Table 11: Customer Service Standards--Selected Legislation and 
Guidance: 

Key elements: Selected legislation and guidance; 

Customer service standards that include targets or goals for 
performance: The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) stated that 
agencies, shall among other things, "establish performance goals to 
define the level of performance to be achieved" by a program activity. 
Executive Order 13571 stated that agencies set "clear customer service 
standards and expectations, including, where appropriate, performance 
goals for customer service required by the GPRA." OMB guidance further 
stated that standards should include targets for speed, 
quality/accuracy, and satisfaction; 

Customer service standards that include measures for performance 
targets or goals: A 1995 presidential memorandum on improving customer 
service stated that agencies shall, on an ongoing basis, measure 
results achieved against the customer service standards and should 
also include customer satisfaction as a measure. 
GPRAMA states that agencies should "establish a balanced set of 
performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing progress 
toward each performance goal, including, as appropriate, customer 
service, efficiency, output, and outcome indicators"; 

Customer service standards that are easily publicly available: As 
stated in Executive Order 12862 and reinforced by subsequent 
presidential memorandums and Executive Order 13571, agencies were to 
post their standards and make information and services easily 
available. 
Most recently, OMB provided additional guidance that the standards be 
"easily accessible at the point of service and on the Internet." 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant federal laws and executive orders. 
GAO-15-84. 

[End of table] 

The key elements we selected for assessing customer service standards 
include requirements found in GPRA, GPRAMA, executive orders, and OMB 
guidance and memorandums that focus on how customer service standards 
are to be used and measured including how standards should be 
communicated to customers. 

We conducted interviews with agency officials from various offices--
such as performance and budget--as well as those directly involved in 
customer service. We did not evaluate the overall effectiveness of or 
level of customer service provided by any of the agencies reviewed as 
these issues were not within the scope of our engagement. We requested 
and reviewed agency information on customer service satisfaction 
surveys and feedback mechanisms, and departmental and agency strategic 
and customer service plans. In addition, we conducted Internet 
searches to determine the extent to which customer service information 
was made publicly available by the agencies.[Footnote 66] 
Specifically, we assessed the agencies on the contents of their 
standards and not against the level or quality of customer service 
they provide. In addition, we did not evaluate agency performance data 
or determine the reliability of such data as these issues were not 
within the scope of our engagement.[Footnote 67] 

To evaluate the extent to which OMB and the Performance Improvement 
Council (PIC) are facilitating federal agencies' use of tools and 
practices to improve customer service, we reviewed OMB guidance and 
memorandums, customer service task force agendas, and other documents 
related to customer service and survey administration including the 
Fast Track process. We interviewed officials from OMB's Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs and the Office of Performance and 
Personnel Management. We also reviewed information on customer service 
published on Performance.gov, a government-wide performance website. 

We conducted this performance audit in Washington, D.C., between 
November 2013 to October 2014 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards, which require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Forest Service Customer Service Standards for 
Recreational Facilities and Services: 

Health and Cleanliness: 

1. *Visitors are not exposed to human waste. 

2. *Water, wastewater, and sewage treatment systems meet federal, 
state, and local water quality regulations. 

3. Garbage does not exceed the capacity of garbage containers. 

4. Individual units and common areas are free of litter including 
domestic animal waste. 

5. Facilities are free of graffiti. 

6. Restrooms and garbage locations are free of objectionable odor. 

7. Constructed features are clean. 

Resource Setting: 

1. *Effects from recreation use do not conflict with environmental 
laws (such as ESA, NHPA, Clean Water, TES, etc). 

2. Recreation opportunities, site development, and site management are 
consistent with Recreation management system (ROS, SMS, BBM) 
objectives, development scale, and the Forest land: 

management plan. 3. Landscape character and resource conditions at the 
recreation site are consistent with the Forest scenic integrity 
objectives and Forest Plan prescriptions. 

4. Visitors and vehicles do not exceed site capacity. 

Safety and Security: 

1. *High-risk conditions do not exist in recreation sites. 

2. *Utility inspections meet federal, state, and local requirements. 

3. Laws, regulations and special orders are enforced. 

4. Visitors are provided a sense of security. 

Responsiveness: 

1. *When signed as accessible, constructed features meet current 
accessibility guidelines. 

2. Visitors feel welcome. 

3. Information boards are posted in a user-friendly and professional 
manner. 

4. Visitors are provided opportunities to communicate satisfactions 
(needs, expectations). 

5. Visitor information facilities are staffed appropriately during 
seasons of use and current information is available. 

6. Recreation site information is accurate and available from a 
variety of sources and outlets. 

Condition of Facilities: 

1. Constructed features are serviceable and in good repair throughout 
the designed service life. 

2. Constructed features in disrepair due to lack of scheduled 
maintenance, or in non-compliance with safety codes (e.g. life safety, 
OSHA, environmental, etc.) or other regulatory requirements (ABA/ADA, 
etc.), or beyond the designed service life, are repaired, 
rehabilitated, replaced, or decommissioned. 

3. New, altered, or expanded constructed features meet Forest Service 
design standards and are consistent with an approved site development 
plan, including an accessibility transition plan. 

Critical National Standards are identified with an asterisk (*). If 
not met, the resulting conditions pose a high probability of immediate 
or permanent loss to people or property. If they cannot be met, due to 
budget or other constraints, immediate action must be taken to correct 
or mitigate the problem. Immediate action may include closing to 
public use the site, trail, area, permit, or portions of the affected 
site, trail or area. If conditions, facilities, or services addressed 
by "non-critical" standards decline to the point where the health or 
safety of the visitor is threatened, then mitigating actions must be 
taken. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Federal Student Aid Customer Service Standards for 
Student Loans under the Direct Loan Origination and Disbursement 
Program through the Common Origination and Disbursement System (COD): 

1. Received unprocessed batches from schools will be reviewed each 
business day. The Contractor will review and resolve unprocessed 
batches within 3 business days from identification. 

2. Availability of the COD Web site including all of the individual 
application and infrastructure components that result in availability 
of the application to the business excluding scheduled downtime, 
required processing outages and FSA provided technology service (e.g. 
telecommunications, networking, AIMS, and PM). 

3. The number of days (30 days) required to fix commingled data 
incidents (Type 1 & Type 2): 

4. Availability of the Total Access Ad Hoc functionality including all 
of the individual application and infrastructure components that 
result in availability of the application to the business excluding 
scheduled downtime and required processing outages. 

5. Contractor shall provide bi-lingual (English and Spanish) phone 
support to schools, students, parents, and borrowers Monday - Friday 
from 8: 00AM to 8: 00PM Eastern Standard Time. All incoming calls 
shall be routed through the existing COD toll-free support number and 
routed to the appropriate Customer Service Representative with the 
purpose of responding to the caller issues. 

6. The average amount of time a user spends on hold in the Interactive 
Voice Response system. The average speed of answer is measured from 
the time the user selects an option to speak with a customer service 
representative until a customer service representative answers the 
phone. 

7. Of the total calls received, the percentage of calls in the 
Interactive Voice Response that are abandoned by the Customer before 
reaching the customer service representative. 

8. The Contractor shall monitor and evaluate communications (telephone 
calls and emails) between Customer Service Representatives, Schools, 
Third Party Servicers, and Borrowers. The Contractor shall monitor and 
evaluate a random sampling of communications. The results of the 
evaluations will be collected and reported monthly. The purpose of the 
evaluations is to help confirm that the information provided to 
Schools, Third Party Servicers and Borrowers meets or exceeds the 
quality performance metric. 

9. Deposit all funds received from schools, students, and third party 
servicers into established United States Treasury accounts. 

10. The Contractor shall successfully restore COD Mainframe 
application data and core COD processing functionality (as defined in 
Section C.2.7.1) within the allotted time frame of each annual DR test. 

11. Critical severity problems shall be resolved within 24 hours, or 
worked continuously until they are resolved. 

12. The number of existing open problems at the time of release by 
priority are resolved within 30 days of the Release implementation 
date. This does not include problems that possess a workaround 
acceptable to Federal Student Aid. 

13. The percentage of new problems introduced by a Service Pack 
implementation as measured within 30 days from the Service Pack 
implementation date. This will be determined by dividing the number of 
new problems detected after a Service Pack implementation that are 
associated with the Service Pack code modifications by the number of 
service tickets (problems and enhancements) the Service Pack attempted 
to resolve. 

14. Publication of the COD Technical Reference prior to or on the 
mutually agreed upon publication date. Mutual agreement to change the 
publication date will reset the publication date for this SLA. 

15. Publication of the COD Project Briefing based on a mutually agreed 
upon schedule excluding any Federal Holidays or closures. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Agriculture: 

USDA: 
United States Department of Agriculture: 
Forest Service: 
Washington Office: 
1400 Independence Avenue, SW: 
Washington, DC 20250: 

File Code: 1420: 
Date: October 8, 2014: 

Mr. J. Christopher Mihm: 
Managing Director, Strategic Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
411 G. Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Mihm: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the 
draft U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report "Managing for 
Results: Selected Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts to Improve 
Customer Service" (GAO-15-84). The Forest Service has reviewed the 
report and generally agrees with its findings and recommendations. 

GAO recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Under 
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment take the following 
four actions to improve Forest Service's customer service standards 
and feedback review to include: standards that include performance 
targets or goals; standards that are measured for performance; 
standards that are easily publicly available; and a feedback mechanism 
to collect comments agency-wide including guidance or criteria to 
elevate customer feedback from local and regional offices to identify 
the need for and make service improvements. 

The Forest Service is committed to providing quality recreation 
experiences that meet our customers' expectations. The standards we 
use to guide employee performance in maintaining our recreation 
facilities and areas help ensure that quality. The report and its 
recommendations highlight that a logical next step for the Forest 
Service is to develop a set of standards that we present to the 
public, and a mechanism to collect feedback from customers. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft report. If you have 
any questions, please contact Thelma Strong, Chief Financial Officer, 
at (202) 205-1321, or tstrong@fs.fed.us. 
Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Mary Wagner, for: 
Thomas L. Tidwell: 
Chief: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Federal Student Aid: 
An Office of the U.S. Department of Education: 
Proud Sponsor of the American Mind: 
830 First Street, NE: 
Washington, DC 20202: 
[hyperlink, http://www.StudentAid.gov] 

October 7, 2014: 

Ms. Lisa Pearson: 
Assistant Director, Strategic Initiatives: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Pearson: 

Thank you for providing the Department of Education (Department) with 
an opportunity to review and respond to the draft Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) report, "Managing For Results: Selected 
Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts to Improve Customer Service" 
(GAO-15-84). In administering the student financial assistance 
programs, Federal Student Aid (FSA) works closely with a broad range 
of students, parents, borrowers, and postsecondary institutions; and 
we recognize the importance of providing high-quality customer service 
to this diverse population. We appreciate GAO's acknowledgment that 
FSA standards include performance targets and that we measure 
performance against those targets as part of our day-to-day 
operations. We also appreciate the opportunity to see how other 
selected federal agencies approach customer service. 

We concur with the recommendation GAO made to FSA in its draft report: 
we recommend that the Secretary of Education direct Federal Student 
Aid's Chief Operating Officer take the following two actions to 
improve Federal Student Aid's customer service standards and feedback 
review to include. standards that are easily publicly available and a 
feedback mechanism including guidance or criteria for service 
providers to elevate customer feedback to identify the need for and 
make service improvements. 

We have already taken action consistent with GAO's recommendation and 
plan further process refinements to increase customer transparency and 
expectations of our services. The Department's response to the 
recommendation follows. 

Action 1: "...improve Federal Student Aid's customer service standards 
and feedback review to include: standards that are easily publicly 
available..." 

Response to Action 1: We will explore ways to develop and implement 
customer-facing service standards. As GAO notes in its report, most of 
our service standards are inward-facing and used as a way to monitor 
vendor performance. We agree that complementing outward-facing metrics 
would better inform our customers of the level of service they should 
expect. This is particularly true for loan servicing, our largest and 
most complex group of activities. Accordingly, we are working to 
develop outward (or customer) facing standards to dovetail into 
process materials we already provide to our applicants and borrowers. 

Action 2: "...improve Federal Student Aid's customer service standards 
and feedback review to include ... feedback mechanism including 
guidance or criteria for service providers to elevate customer 
feedback to identify the need for and make service improvements." 

Response to Action 2: We will examine ways to improve or expand our 
processes for elevating customer feedback. 

As GAO notes in its report, most initial customer interactions are 
made through Department vendors. In addition, FSA receives feedback 
through several other avenues. As a routine part of our contractor 
oversight, FSA surveys its customers quarterly for feedback on their 
servicing experiences. We meet with each of our Direct Loan servicers 
and review the survey results, discuss improvements they intend to 
make based on the data, and make suggestions for improvement. As GAO 
also noted in its report, we review comments from surveys to identify 
potential servicing issues and areas for potential improvements. 

In addition to the borrower survey, we receive customer feedback 
through regularly monitoring servicer phone calls, as well as through 
issues escalated to the FSA Ombudsman or, in other cases, through 
correspondence to Department management or Congressional offices. We 
review all issues that are escalated to us to determine if they 
reflect a systemic problem that needs to be addressed or highlight an 
opportunity to improve our processes or services. We meet with each 
servicer weekly to discuss borrower issues including ways that the 
servicer believes FSA might improve customer service to borrowers. 

Lastly, in addition to mainstream media, FSA aggressively leverages 
social media (Facebook, Twitter and YouTube), and our Web site: 
[hyperlink, http://www.studentaid.gov/], to drive awareness of our 
services; elicit customer feedback; digitally engage and interact with 
students and borrowers; and drive traffic to FSA's Web sites. FSA 
conducts regular social media engagements with customers (i.e. Twitter 
Town Halls) and uses various social media management tools to monitor 
real-time customer conversations across multiple social media 
channels, and blogs around FSA's key products and services (FAFSA, 
student loans, grant programs, etc.). Customer feedback and insights 
garnered through social media channels are regularly documented and 
shared internally to improve products and services across the student 
aid lifecycle. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
GAO report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James Manning, for: 
James W. Runcie: 
Chief Operating Officer: 
Federal Student Aid: 

Enclosure: Technical Comments: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

October 7, 2014: 

J. Christopher Mihm: 
Managing Director, Strategic Issues: 
U. S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: GAO Draft Repo11 GAO-15-84: "Managing For Results: Selected Agencies
Need to Take Additional Efforts to Improve Customer Service" 

Dear Mr. Mihm: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
repo11. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

The Department appreciates GAO's recognition that the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) was one of the few agencies reviewed which had 
formal mechanisms for reviewing customer feedback. For example, GAO 
found that CBP was the only agency in their review that (1) made 
customer service standards easily available to the public, and (2) had 
a "customer service" web page that allowed customers to file comments 
and complaints online and included information, such as, "How CBP 
Handles Traveler Complaints." 

The draft report contained one recommendation for DHS with which the 
Department concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that the 
Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

Recommendation: Improve CBP's customer service standards to include: 
standards that include performance targets or goal and standards that 
are measured for performance. 

Response: Concur. To implement this recommendation, CBP's Office of 
Field Operations will work with a task force on customer service 
comprised of experts who represent companies with international 
reputations for customer experience excellence. This task force will 
determine the best methods to measure the traveler's experience during 
the arrivals process from the time they deplane through baggage 
control and egress. The task force's work will also include an in-depth
assessment of the key drivers of the traveler's experience, 
development of traveler surveys to measure performance, and a 
methodology for continued assessment and improvement. Estimated 
Completion Date: September 30, 2015. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. Technical comments were previously provided under 
separate cover. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 
questions. We look forward to working with you in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker, CIA, CFE: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Department of Veterans Affairs: 
Washington, DC 20420: 

October 3, 2014: 

Mr. J. Christopher Mihm: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Mihm: 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, "Managing For Results: 
Selected Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts to Improve Customer 
Service" (GAO-15-84). VA generally agrees with GAO's conclusions and 
concurs with GAO's recommendations to the Department. 

The enclosure specifically addresses GAO's recommendations and 
provides an action plan and technical comments on the draft report. VA 
appreciates the opportunity to comment on your draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jose D. Riojas: 
Chief of Staff: 

Enclosure: 

Department of Veterans Affairs 01A) Response to Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report: "Managing For Results: 
Selected Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts to Improve Customer 
Service" (GAO-15-84): 

GAO Recommendation: Recognizing that moving toward a more customer-
oriented culture within federal agencies is likely to be a continuous 
effort, GAO recommends that: 

Recommendation 1: the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Veterans
Benefits Administration to improve disability compensation customer 
service standards to make it easily publicly available; 

VA Comment: Concur. Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA) is exploring 
the best approach to make the customer service standards more easily 
available and accessible to the public. Target Completion Date: 
November 30, 2014. 

Recommendation 2: the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Veterans
Benefits Administration's take the following two actions to improve 
Veterans' Group Life Insurance's customer service standards and 
feedback review to include: standards that are easily publicly 
available; and a feedback mechanism including guidance or criteria for 
service providers to elevate customer feedback and identify the need 
for and make service improvements. 

VA Comment: Concur. VBA is exploring the best approach to make the 
customer service standards more easily available and accessible to the 
public. Additionally, we are exploring the option to include a 
feedback mechanism that includes guidance and criteria for service 
providers to evaluate customer feedback and to identify any need for
service improvements. Target Completion Date: November 30, 2014. 

Technical Comment: 

Page 33, paragraph 2, first sentence: 

"VBA's mechanism for managing disability compensation customer 
feedback is largely managed by its service provider, according to VBA 
officials." 

VA Comment: GAO makes reference to the service provider managing the 
customer feedback mechanism. This should be changed to reflect that 
the service provider supports VBA in managing and overseeing the 
program. 

VA Recommended Edit: VA suggests the following revision: 

"VBA's mechanism for managing disability compensation customer 
feedback is largely supported by its service provider, with VBA 
managing and overseeing the overarching customer feedback process." 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the above contact, Lisa Pearson (Assistant Director) 
and Dewi Djunaidy supervised this review and the development of the 
resulting report. Pat Norris, Diantha Garms, Tom Beall, Jehan Chase, 
Deirdre Duffy, Robert Robinson, and Scott Zellner made significant 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011). GPRAMA 
significantly enhanced the Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993). 

[2] Pub. L. No. 111-352, § 3, 31 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(6). 

[3] Pub. L. No. 111-352, § 15(b)(1), 31 U.S.C. § 1115 note. 

[4] For the purposes of this report, we will refer to services by 
their agency name (for example, Forest Service) with the exception of 
the two services within the Veterans Benefits Administration--
disability compensation and Veterans' Group Life Insurance --which we 
identify as services. 

[5] GAO, Managing for Results: Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies' 
Customer Service Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 
2010). Services were chosen for the survey based on a list--developed 
by the National Performance Review in the late 1990s--of agencies with 
the most contact with the public, input from subject matter experts, 
and available public data. 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. 

[6] Executive Order No. 13571 (Apr. 27, 2011), Streamlining Service 
Delivery and Improving Customer Service, 76 Fed. Reg. 24,339 (May 2, 
2011). 

[7] Exec. Order No. 12862, Setting Customer Service Standards (Sept. 
11, 1993), 58 Fed. Reg. 48,257 (Sept. 14, 1993); Exec. Order No. 
13571, Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service 
(Apr. 27, 2011), 76 Fed. Reg. 24,339 (May 2, 2011); Memorandum on 
Customer Service, 31 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 456 (Mar. 22, 1995) 
(released by Office of the Press Secretary on Mar. 23, 1995); 
Memorandum on Conducting "Conversations with America" to Further 
Improve Customer Service, 34 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 368 (Mar. 3, 
1998); Office of Management and Budget, Implementing Executive Order 
13571 on Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service, 
Memorandum M-11-24 (June 13, 2011); Office of Management and Budget, 
New Fast Track Process for Collecting Service Delivery Feedback Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, Memorandum M-11-26 (June 15, 2011); 
Office of Management and Budget, Information Collection under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, Memorandum (Apr. 7, 2010); Office of 
Management and Budget, Social Media, Web-Based Interactive 
Technologies, and the Paperwork Reduction Act, Memorandum (Apr. 7, 
2010); Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Act--
Generic Clearances, Memorandum (May 28, 2010). 

[8] Pub. L. No. 103-62, § 2, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993). 

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

[10] 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. 

[11] Memorandum on Customer Service 31 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 456 
(Mar 22, 1995) (released by Office of the Press Secretary on Mar. 23, 
1995). 

[12] Memorandum on Conducting "Conversations with America" to Further 
Improve Customer Service. 34 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 368 (Mar. 3, 
1998). 

[13] 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. 

[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44]. 

[15] GPRA, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993); GPRAMA, Pub. L. 
No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011). 

[16] Pub. L. No. 111-352, § 3, as codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1115(b). 

[17] Exec. Order No. 13571, § 2. Streamlining Service Delivery and 
Improving Customer Service, 76 Fed. Reg. 24,339-40 (Apr. 27, 2011). 

[18] Office of Management and Budget, Implementing Executive Order 
13571 on Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service, 
Memorandum M-11-24 (June 13, 2011). 

[19] According to OMB, CAP goals address the longstanding challenge of 
addressing problems that are government-wide and require active 
collaboration between multiple agencies. To establish these goals, OMB 
solicited nominations from federal agencies and several congressional 
committees. In addition, OMB identified Smarter IT Delivery as a CAP 
goal with the purpose of improving outcomes and customer satisfaction 
with federal services through smarter IT delivery and stronger agency 
accountability for success. 

[20] Office of Management and Budget, Management Agenda Priorities for 
the FY 2016 Budget, Memorandum M-14-12 (July 18, 2014). 

[21] The 15 departments and agencies are as follows: the Departments 
of Agriculture; Commerce; Education; Health and Human Services; 
Homeland Security; Housing and Urban Development (Federal Housing 
Administration only); Interior; Labor; State (Consular Affairs only); 
Treasury; Veterans Affairs; and General Services Administration; 
Office of Personnel Management; Small Business Administration; and 
Social Security Administration. Office of Management and Budget, 
Management Agenda Priorities for the FY 2016 Budget, Memorandum M-14-
12, at 2 (July 18, 2014). 

[22] Memorandum on Customer Service, 31 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 456 
(Mar. 22, 1995) (released by Office of the Press Secretary on Mar. 23, 
1995). 

[23] GAO, Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully 
Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance 
Challenges, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-518] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013). 

[24] Exec. Ord. No. 13571, § 2(c) (Apr. 27, 2011), Streamlining 
Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service, 76 Fed. Reg. 24,339, 
24,339-40 (May 2, 2011). 

[25] 31 U.S.C. § 1115(h)(9). 

[26] Office of Management and Budget, Implementing Executive Order 
13571 on Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service, 
Memorandum M-11-24 (June 13, 2011). 

[27] See GAO, Small Business Administration: Additional Guidance on 
Documenting Credit Elsewhere Decisions Could Improve 7(a) Program 
Oversight, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-228] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2009) and Small Business Administration: 
Additional Measures Needed to Assess 7(a) Loan Program's Performance, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-769] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 13, 2007). 

[28] Exec. Ord. No. 12862, § 1 (c). 

[29] Memorandum, Improving Customer Service, § 3 (March 23, 1995). 

[30] 31 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(6). 

[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-518]. 

[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-518]. 

[33] Memorandum, M-11-24, Appendix § 2 at 2. We conducted an Internet 
search on each agencies' websites to determine whether or not customer 
service standards were easily available. 

[34] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44]. 

[35] Pub. L. No. 89-329, 79 Stat. 1232-1254 (Nov. 8, 1965), codified 
at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1070-1099d and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2751-2756b. 

[36] Student and parent applicants complete FSA's Free Application for 
Federal Student Aid, which determines eligibility for federal student 
aid, including Direct Loans. FSA disburses Direct Loan funds to 
participating Title IV school customers through the Common Origination 
and Disbursement (COD) system. Schools disburse the Direct Loan funds, 
and other federal aid including grants, directly to eligible student 
borrowers. The Direct Loan Program provides four types of student 
loans: direct subsidized loans, direct unsubsidized loans, direct PLUS 
loans, and direct consolidation loans. FSA's Direct Loan Servicers 
provide loan servicing to borrower customers. 

[37] Performance-based contracts specify the desired outcomes and 
allow the servicer to determine how best to achieve those outcomes, 
rather than prescribe the methods contractors should use. COD has its 
own contract and service provider. 

[38] FSA identified three general Direct Loan Program life-cycle 
phases: (1) Aid Awareness & Application Processing; (2) Aid Award & 
Disbursement; and (3) Loan Servicing. 

[39] FSA provided us with standards for the COD system phase of the 
Direct Loan program. This was the phase in the scope of [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44], as well. 

[40] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44]. 

[41] NPS provided its management policies as another example of its 
standards, specifically sections outlining interpretive and 
educational programs, use of the parks, and park facilities. These 
approximately 50 pages of policies, while informative about such 
topics as interpretive competencies and skills, do not include any 
statement of what the standards are for the visitor and interpretive 
services and therefore we did not include the policies in our analysis. 

[42] According to the 2013 NPS Visitor Survey Data Report, the system-
wide response rate was 35 percent with 41,643 total visitors 
responding to the survey. 

[43] All of the agencies in our review conducted customer satisfaction 
surveys. However, NPS is the only agency that provided visitor 
satisfaction surveys as its customer service standards. 

[44] According to VBA disability compensation officials, the average 
number of days to complete rating-related claims in 2013 was 200 days. 

[45] Exec. Ord. No. 13571, § 2(b). 

[46] Memorandum, M-11-24, Appendix § 1, at 1. 

[47] GAO, Transportation Information Security Sharing: Stakeholder 
Satisfaction Varies; TSA Could Take Additional Actions to Strengthen 
Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-506] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2104) and Defense Logistics: Improving 
Customer Feedback Program Could Enhance DLA's Delivery of Services, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-776] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 9, 2002). We conducted an extensive literature search of best 
practice organizations to determine popular techniques for collecting 
customer feedback that we used to evaluate activities related to 
defense logistics. 

[48] GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: 
November 1999). 

[49] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44]. 

[50] Memorandum M-11-24 § 1, at 2. 

[51] According to OMB, Performance.gov is intended to highlight the 
administration's management initiatives and address the performance 
reporting requirements of GPRAMA (see, 31 U.S.C. § 1116(a)). 

[52] Exec. Ord. No. 13571, §2. 

[53] Memorandum M-11-24 § 1, at 1. 

[54] GAO, Federal Employees: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen 
Performance Management Pilot, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-755] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 
2013). 

[55] Exec. Order No. 13450, Improving Government Program Performance, 
72 Fed. Reg. 64,519 (Nov. 15, 2007) first established the Performance 
Improvement Council, whose establishment was later codified under 
GPRAMA at 31 U.S.C. § 1124(b). 

[56] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44]. 

[57] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44]; Pub. L. No. 
104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (May 22, 1995), codified at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-
3520. 

[58] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44]. 

[59] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44]. 

[60] Office of Management and Budget, Information Collection under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, Memorandum (Apr. 7, 2010); Office of 
Management and Budget, Social Media, Web-Based Interactive 
Technologies, and the Paperwork Reduction Act, Memorandum (Apr. 7, 
2010); and Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Act--
Generic Clearances, Memorandum (May 28, 2010). 

[61] Office of Management and Budget, New Fast Track Process for 
Collecting Service Delivery Feedback Under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, Memorandum M-11-26 (June 15, 2011). According to the memorandum, 
examples of collections that would generally not fall under the new 
process are: (1) surveys that require statistical rigor because they 
will be used for making significant policy or resource allocation 
decisions; (2) collections where the results are intended to be 
published; and (3) collections that are intended for the purpose of 
basic research and that do not directly benefit the agency's service 
delivery. 

[62] [62] The four cross-agency priority goal strategies for customer 
service are: (1) improve top customer interactions; (2) develop and 
implement standards,; practices, and tools; (3) feedback and 
transparency; and (4) focus on the frontline. 

[63] GAO, Managing for Results: Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies' 
Customer Service Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 
2010). Services were chosen for the survey based on a list--developed 
by the National Performance Review in the late 1990s--of agencies with 
the most contact with the public, input from subject matter experts, 
and available public data. 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. 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. 

[64] For purposes of this report, we will refer to services by their 
agency name (example Forest Service) with the exception of the two 
services within the Veterans Benefits Administration--disability 
compensation and Veterans' Group Life Insurance--which we identify as 
services. 

[65] Exec. Order No. 12862, Setting Customer Service Standards (Sept. 
11, 1993), 58 Fed. Reg. 48,257 (Sept. 14, 1993); Exec. Order No. 
13571, Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service, 
(Apr. 27, 2011), 76 Fed. Reg. 24,339 (May 2, 2011); Memorandum on 
Customer Service, 31 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 456 (Mar. 22, 1995) 
(released by Office of the Press Secretary on Mar. 23, 1995); 
Memorandum on Conducting "Conversations with America" to Further 
Improve Customer Service, 34 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 368 (Mar. 3, 
1998); Office of Management and Budget, Implementing Executive Order 
13571 on Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service, 
Memorandum M-11-24 (June 13, 2011); Office of Management and Budget, 
New Fast Track Process for Collecting Service Delivery Feedback Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, Memorandum M-11-26 (June 15, 2011); 
Office of Management and Budget, Information Collection under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, Memorandum (Apr. 7, 2010); Office of 
Management and Budget, Social Media, Web-Based Interactive 
Technologies, and the Paperwork Reduction Act, Memorandum (Apr. 7, 
2010); and Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Act--
Generic Clearances, Memorandum (May 28, 2010). 

[66] We conducted an Internet search on each agencies' website to 
determine whether or not customer service standards were available. 

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

[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, 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 
website, [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. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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

Contact: 
Website: [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: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 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, DC 20548. 

[End of document]