Customer Conflicts

he level of public trust in government has risen and fallen and risen again in recent years, based on factors ranging from the state of the economy to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But surveys on the public's overall level of faith in Uncle Sam often provide little insight into how individual agencies and programs are perceived by the people they serve.

In a recent study, the Pew Research Center set out to discover what happens when Americans are not simply asked their overall opinion of "the government," but to evaluate, as constituents and customers, the specific services agencies provide.

"The reality is that the government is not a remote, faceless bureaucracy. It is an entity that Americans routinely turn to with pressing, real-world concerns," concludes a Pew report on the study released in April.

Pew surveyed a range of constituents from five federal agencies-the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation Administration and Food and Drug Administration-on their views of the agencies' performance, their attitudes about the agencies' missions, and their overall level of trust in government. Approximately 3,000 people were surveyed.

While only 40 percent of respondents said they trusted the federal government at least most of the time, agencies fared much better when judged as individual entities. Overall, Pew's research confirmed the not-so-surprising hypothesis that constituents' opinions are strongly linked to their views of an agency's mission. Environmental activists rate the EPA much higher than those opposed to strict environmental regulations, for example.

The lesson, according to Pew, is one that federal managers can take to heart: Many factors that affect the public's view of government are simply "beyond the scope of managerial improvements."

The Pew study comes on the heels of the first-ever governmentwide customer satisfaction survey, completed last December by the University of Michigan Business School, the American Society for Quality and consulting firm Arthur Andersen. The results of that survey showed that agency's customers ranked government services as almost as good as-and in some cases better than-those offered by the private sector. In the aggregate, the federal government ranked at 68.6 on a scale of 100, compared to 72 for the average private-sector firm.

While Morley Winograd, director of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, touted the survey results as evidence of the Clinton administration's success in reinventing government, naysayers criticized the survey's approach. In many cases, the critics said, surveyed customers were bound to be happy with the government because they were on the receiving end of federal benefits. For example, it was not surprising that parents of Head Start students and beneficiaries of the Women, Infants and Children nutritional program gave those programs high marks.

By contrast, the Pew survey canvassed a wide range of agency stakeholders, including those regulated by the agency, those receiving agency benefits and those seeking to influence agency policy. For example, to evaluate FAA, Pew talked to frequent fliers, pilots, air traffic controllers and airline officials. The survey asked questions in four categories: favorability, which measures whether respondents' overall attitude toward the agency is positive or negative; performance, which assesses how agencies perform their key functions; customer service, which focuses on employees' courtesy, effectiveness and availability; and equal treatment-whether the agency treats all constituents equally.

Overall impressions of agencies varied widely according to who was surveyed. "Favorability ratings vary from agency to agency and, within agencies, among the various constituent groups," reflecting the widely different relationships respondents have with the agency, the survey found.

When agencies received low ratings, it was often because a group simply didn't like what an agency was required to do. The IRS, for example, got the lowest scores in the favorability category, because less than half of taxpayers and business tax officers rated the agency highly. On the other hand, more than 60 percent of professional tax preparers liked the IRS.

The Food and Drug Administration fared best with its constituents in terms of overall favorability. More than 80 percent of medical professionals, chronically ill individuals, business officers and members of advocacy groups gave the agency a thumbs-up rating. The FAA, EPA and SSA also received favorable ratings from more than half of their constituents and got better marks than the government as a whole.

Positive Perfomance

Agency performance marks were not as high but were mostly positive. The FAA led the pack, with 70 percent to 80 percent of frequent fliers, airline pilots and union members rating the agency positively.

At SSA, on the other hand, ratings of performance, like overall favorability, depended on who was being asked the question. Nearly 70 percent of retirees who receive Social Security benefits said the agency performs well, while only 37 percent of working people whose taxes fund the program agreed.

Either way, constituents expressed little hostility toward agencies. Most were happy with the service they received from federal employees.

Answers to the question "do you think the agency treats all people equally?" however, were mixed. Only a little more than a third of taxpayers said they think the IRS treats everyone the same. Most members of the general public surveyed said the EPA was guilty of favoritism, and chronically ill people said the same thing about the FDA.

In fact, only in the case of SSA did a majority of an agency's constituents think that it gives everyone a fair shake.

Agencies received the lowest scores for their administrative practices. But the dissatisfaction did not carry over to agency employees, who were given fairly high scores for their dealings with the public. The FAA received the highest customer service ratings, but even the IRS was recognized for its service, with majorities in each IRS constituent group ranking employees as courteous and efficient.

Nevertheless, Pew's researchers noted that "even if an agency is perceived as performing smoothly and efficiently, it will not be seen in a favorable light unless its mission is regarded positively."