Download:
pdf |
pdfAmerican Customer Satisfaction Index
Railroad Retirement Board
Customer Satisfaction Study
Disability Segment
September 2006
Final Report
FEDER*L C O N S U L T I N G G R O U P
**.fd.m-.fd.rs
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction & Methodology
a. Introduction
b. Overview of ACSI Modeling
c. Customer Segment Choice
d. Customer Sample and Data Collection
e. Questionnaire
f. Customer Responses
g. Benchmarking
I1
Results
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Model Indices
Customer Satisfaction (ACSI)
Customer Satisfaction Model
Drivers of Customer Satisfaction
Outcomes of Satisfactioflrior Expectations
Other Questions
I11 Summary and Recommendations
Appendices
A
B
C
D
Survey Questionnaire
Responses to Non-Modeled Questions
Attribute Tables by Select Segments
Frequencies and Means of Survey Questions
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter I
Introduction & Me,thodology
a. Introduction
The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is the national indicator of customer
evaluations of the quality of goods and services available to U.S. residents. It is the only
uniform, cross-industry/government measure of customer satisfaction. Since 1994, the ACSI has
measured satisfaction, its causes, and its effects, for seven economic sectors, 41 industries, more
than 200 private sector companies, two types of local government services, the U.S. Postal
Service, and the Internal Revenue Service. ACSI has measured more than 100 programs of
federal government agencies since 1999. This allows benchmarking between the public and
private sectors and provides information unique to each agency on how its activities that
interface with the public affect the satisfaction of customers. The effects of satisfaction are
estimated, in turn, on specific objectives (such as public trust).
The ACSI is produced through a partnership of the University of Michigan Business School, CFI
Group, and the American Society for Quality.
b. Overview of ACSI Methodology
The model on page 9 illustrates the multi-equation, cause and effect econometric model that the
ACSI uses. Data that is used to run the model comes from surveys of customers of each
measured company/agency. For private sector industries, company scores for the satisfaction
index and other model components are weighted by company revenues to produce industry
indices. Industry indices are weighted by industry revenues to produce economic sector indices.
The sector indices, in turn, are weighted by the sector's contribution to the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) to produce the national ACSI. For the public sector (i.e., the federal government
agencies), each agency is weighted by the budget expended on activities for the chosen customer
segment to produce a federal government ACSI score. The ACSI for the private sector is
updated on a rolling basis, with data collected each quarter from 1-2 sectors to replace data from
the prior year. Each company or agency is measured annually.
Every federal government agency serves many segments of the public and interacts with both
internal and external users. For the first year of ACSI measurement, each agency was asked to
identify a major customer segment central to its mission for which to measure satisfaction and
the causes and effects of satisfaction. In the years following the initial measurement,
government agencies continue to focus on customer segments of similar importance in their
studies of customer satisfaction.
c. Customer Segment Choice
This report is about customer perceptions of the Railroad Retirement Board disability segment.
This customer segment includes two groups - Total and Permanent and Occupational. Results
were weighted by proportion of population to create an overall satisfaction score for the
disability segment. Scores from Total and Permanent respondents were weighted to represent
25% of the total score and Occupational respondents were weighted to represent 75% of the total
score.
d. Customer Sample and Data Collection
Railroad Retirement Board provided a list of contacts with phone numbers for Total and
Permanent and Occupational customers. There were 2,137 contacts with phone numbers
provided in total with 1,589 phone numbers provided for Occupational and 548 phone numbers
provided for Total and Permanent customers. Data were collected for 100 Total and Permanent
customers and 150 Occupational customers. This sample is sufficient for analysis and will allow
for scores that have a confidence interval of approximately +I- 3.3 points for Total and
Permanent data and +I-2.7 points for Occupational data with scores reported on a scale of 0 to
100.
Data were collected via phone from July 10,2006 through July 12,2006.
e. Questionnaire
The questionnaire used is shown in Appendix A. It was designed to be agency-specific in terms
of activities, outcomes, and introductions to the questionnaire and specific question areas.
However, it follows a format common to all the federal agency questionnaires that use the ACSI
cause and effect model.
f. Customer Responses
Component and Attribute score detail is shown in the Model on page 9 of this report. Customer
responses to all closed-ended, scaled questions and the respective means are shown as frequency
tables in Appendix D.
g. Benchmarking
Selected benchmarks are provided on pages 7 and 8 of this report. These include comparable
Federal agencies and private sector organizations (e.g. insurance companies). Scores and
commentary for the most recent Federal Government ACSI results are also available at
www.customerservice.~ovand www.theacsi.org. Additional benchmarking information and
other useful resources, such as opportunities for sharing best practices with other agencies, can
be found at www.customerservice.~ovas well.
Chapter I1
ACSI Results
a. Model Indices
The government agency ACSI model is a variation of the model used to measure private sector
companies. Both were developed at the National Quality Research Center of the University of
Michigan Business School. Whereas the model for private sector, profit-making companies
measures Customer Loyalty as the principal outcome of satisfaction (measured by questions on
repurchase intention and price tolerance), each government agency defines the outcomes most
important to it for the customer segment measured. Each agency also identifies the principal
activities that interface with its customers. The model provides predictions of the impact of these
activities on customer satisfaction.
The RRB Customer Satisfaction model - disability segment, illustrated on page 9, should be
viewed as a cause and effect model that moves from left to right, with satisfaction (ACST) in the
middle. The rectangles are multi-variable components that are measured by survey questions.
The numbers in the upper right comers of the rectangles represent the strength of the effect of the
component on the left to the one to which the arrow points on the right. These values represent
"impacts." The larger the impact value, the more effect the component on the left has on the one
on the right. The meanings of the numbers shown in the model are the topic of the rest of this
chapter.
b. Customer Satisfaction (ACSI)
The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) is a weighted average of three questions, Q23,Q24,
and 425, in the questionnaire in Appendix A. The questions are answered on 1-10 scale and
converted to a 0-100 scale for reporting purposes. The three questions measure: Overall
satisfaction (423); Satisfaction compared to expectations (424); and Satisfaction compared to an
'ideal' organization (425). The model assigns the weights to each question in a way that
maximizes the ability of the index to predict changes in agency outcomes (at the right of the
model on page 9).
The 2006 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) for the disability segment for Railroad
Retirement Board is 85 on a 0-100 scale. This is 14 points higher than the current national
ACSI of 71 for the federal government. This score was derived by weighting the scores from
Occupational respondents to represent 75% of the overall score for the segment. Total and
Permanent scores were weighted to represent 25% of the overall score.
The Customer Satisfaction Index for the Occupational respondents is 87, while the Customer
Satisfaction Index for Total and Permanent respondents is 8 1. This 6-point difference between
the groups' scores is statistically significant at a 90% level of confidence.
Below are charts with Satisfaction benchmarks for other Federal Agencies, Life Insurance
Companies and Health Insurance Companies. RRB disability segment satisfaction compares
favorably to the other organizations in all benchmark comparisons.
Federal Government Agency Satisfaction Benchmarks
'VA - NCA Kin or other persons responsible for an
interment
-
HHS HRSA Users of services provided by MCHB state
grantees
-
HHS HRSA Users of services provided by MCHB
discretionary grantees
89
-
85
Railroad Retirement Board Disability Segment
-
85
PBGC Retirees I
VA
- VHA Inpatients at VA medical centers I
-
SSA Retirement benefits recipients
VA
83
1
81
- VHA Outpatients at VA clinics I
-
HHS CMS Medicare recipients
80
1
1
76
-
OPM Federal retirees and annuitants
75
All scores above are from 2005, with the exception of those noted by
* which are from 2004.
Life Insurance Companies Satisfaction Benchmarks
Railroad Retirement
Board Disability
Segment
-
The Northwestern
Mutual Life Insurance
Company
All Others
Life Insurance Segment
85
78
Health Insurance Companies Satisfaction Benchmarks
Railroad Retirement
Board Disability
Segment
-
85
Health Insurance
Segment
68
All Others
68
Blue Cross and Blue
Shield Association
68
1
Aetna lnc.
UnitedHealth Group
Incorporated
c. Customer Satisfaction Model
2006 Railroad Retirement Board Customer Satisfaction Model - Disability Segment
.................................................
1 Attributes 1
f Components .
.................................................
.......................................................
j Outcomes j
i
- Score
-
Ease of filing application
Guidance provided during process
Time required to complete application
Amount of information required
72
83
73
72
Length of time until receiving letter
Ease of understanding information
72
78
Courtesy of personnel scheduling you
Clarity of info about specialized exam
Convenience of location
84
75
74
Impact on CSI
rr@
-
Impact of c s l
Compared to expectations 81
Compared to ideal
RRB can use the scores (in circles) and impacts (in rectangles) from the model shown on page 9
to target areas for improvement that will have the greatest leverage on Customer Satisfaction and
desired outcomes.
Attribute scores are the mean (average) respondent scores to each individual question that was
asked in the survey. Respondents are asked to rate each item on a 1-10 scale with "1" being
"poor" and " 10" being "excellent." CFI Group converts the mean responses to these items to a
0-100 scale for reporting purposes. It is important to note that these scores are averages, not
percentages. The score is best thought of as an index, with 0 meaning "poor" and 100 meaning
"excellent."
A component score is the weighted average of the individual attribute ratings given by each
respondent to the questions presented in the survey. A score is a relative measure of performance
for a component, as given for a particular set of respondents. In the model illustrated on the
previous page, scores for attributes 'Length of time until receiving letter and 'Ease of
understanding information' are combined to create the component score for 'Decision Letter'.
Impacts should be read as the effect on the subsequent component if the initial driver
(component) were to be improved or decreased by five points. For example, if the score of
Application Process increased by 5 points (76 to 8 I), Customer Satisfaction would increase by
the amount of its impact, 1.0 points, (from 85 to 86). Similarly, if Customer Satisfaction were to
increase by 5 points, 'Confidence in RRB' would increase by 3.7 points from 90 to 93.7. (Note:
Scores are reported to nearest whole number, so the score 'Confidence in RRB' in this example
would be reported as 94.) If the driver increases by less than or more than five points, the
resulting change in the subsequent component would be the corresponding fraction of the
original impact. Impacts are additive. Thus, if multiple areas were to each improve by 5 points
the related improvement in satisfaction will be the sum of the impacts.
As with scores, impacts are also relative to one another. A low impact does not mean a
component is unimportant. Rather, it means that a five-point change in that one component is
unlikely to result in much improvement in Satisfaction at this time. Therefore, components with
higher impacts are generally recommended for improvement first, especially if scores are lower
for those components.
d. Drivers of Customer Satisfaction
Customer Service
Customer Service is both the highest performing area (89) and the area with the largest impact on
customer satisfaction (2.4). Customers score representatives the highest for their
courtesy1professionalism (93). However representative's knowledge (90) and responsiveness
(89) score highly as well. The information that representatives provide to customers was found to
be accurate (89) and clear (87). While the ease of getting in touch with representatives (86) was
the lowest rated item for this component, it still received a positive rating. The aggregate level
scores for Customer Service are shown in the chart below.
Disability Segment - Customer Service (Q17-22)
Customer Service
89
Courtesylprofessionalism
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Accuracy of the
information provided
Clarity of the information
provided
Ease of getting in touch
with RRB
A majority of respondents (85%)have had contact with Railroad Retirement Board by phone
contact with the field office. U.S. mail was mentioned by 62% of respondents, while 38%have
visited a field office in person. E-mail has only been used to contact Railroad Retirement Board
by only 5%of the respondents.
Disability Segment - Had the following types of contact with RRB (Q15-16)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Visiting a field
office in person
38%
Automated phone
system
Meeting traveling
field service rep
E-mail
90%
62%
U.S. Mail
Organized
seminars or
meetings
80%
1
I
18%
7%
%
p~
IM Ever had contact
While scores at an aggregate level for Customer Service are high, for those 11% of the
respondents who were most recently serviced at an office in person, the rating is even higher.
Their Customer Service score was 94. This score was significantly higher than the Customer
Service score for those 24% who had most recently had contact by U.S. mail (88) or for those
63% whose most recent contact was by phone contact with the field office (89). These
diflerences are statistically significant - at an 80% level of confidence for the diflerence between
the Customer Service scores for in person contact and phone contact with field oflice and at a
90% confidence level between the Customer Service scores for in person contact and U.S. mail
contact.
Disability Segment - Customer Service (Q17-22) by Most Recent Means of Contact (Q16)
Visting Field
Office
Phone
Contact
U.S. Mail
98
96
94
93
93
92
90
88
89
90
92
90
90
83
85
The courtesy/professionalismof its personnel
The knowledge of its personnel
The responsiveness of its personnel
The clarity of the information provided to you
The accuracy of the information provided to you
There is also a difference between the Customer Service ratings for Total and Permanent
customers versus those for Occupational customers. The Customer Service rating by
Occupational customers (91) was 6 points higher than the rating Total and Permanent customers
(85) gave this area. Each item in Customer Service was scored significantly higher at a 90%
level of confidence by Occupational customers.
-
Disability Segment Customer Service (Q17-22): Occupational Customers v. Total and
Permanent
~ccupational
-
;-.-:., *5i;<.,. &,-:,-*+?&g. !;;Z$g;:
.:'S*L~
:;&'i;;$g$:$::$d
:.;:<<*::,2.g3~~3.~.. ,
,
+
;.
;:
2
;
z
;
F
>
:
,
The ease of getting in touch with the Railroad Retirement Board
The courtesy/professionalism of its personnel
The knowledge of its personnel
The responsiveness of its personnel
The clarity of the information provided to you
The accuracy of the information provided to you
Significant
Difference
T&P
88
94
93
91
89
91
.
83
90
85
85
84
85
,
A.,
c.
"
. .PY--7herA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Application Process
The Application Process is also a key driver of satisfaction with an impact of 1.0. Customers
rated this area 76. Respondents were most content with the guidance they received during the
application process (83). However, customers' scores indicated that they were not as content
with the ease of filing the application (72). This is also reflected in the scores for the amount of
information required (72) and the amount of time required. (73) to complete the application.
Disability Segment - Application Process (Q10, 11,lla and l l b )
Guidance provided during application
process
83
Time required to complete the
application process
Ease of filing application
Amount of information required to
complete the application
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Total and Permanent customers found the application process to be more difficult than
Occupation customers did. Total and Permanent customers scored Application Process (72) 5
points lower than Occupational (77) customers did. In particular the ease of filing application
(66) and the guidance Total and Permanent customers received lower scores. Both items as well
as Application Process were significantly lower at a 90% level of confidence.
Disability Segment - Application Process (Q10, 11,lla and llb): Occupational Customers v.
Total and Permanent
Respondents who used publications to help them file their application gave higher ratings to the
application process than those who did not use publications. In particular, those using
publications scored the ease of filing application and the reasonableness of the amount of
information required significantly higher at a 90% level of confidence than those who did not.
Those using publications also found the guidance received during the application process to be
better; also a statistically significant diflerence at a 90% level of confidence.
Disability Segment - Application Process (Q10, 11,lla and llb): Used Publications v. Did
Not Use Publications (Q5)
Printed Information
A majority of respondents used the publications from the Railroad Retirement Board to help
them file their application. Overall 59%of respondents used the publications for filing.
Occupational respondents were more likely to use the publications than Total and Permanent
respondents were (63%versus 53%).
Total and Permanent Respondents (Q5)
Occupational Respondents (Q5)
Do not use
o
n
.ic
a
tip
u
b
l 37%
publications
~~~ouse@
use
Use
publications
53%
publications
6390
Printed Information (0.6)has a moderate impact on satisfaction compared to Customer Service
and the Application Process. Overall, customers scored this component 76. Respondents found
the information for filing for benefits to be helpful (81). Respondents were not as positive about
the clarity of information about both the application process (76) and benefit eligibility (74).
However, the clarity of the information about the advantages of the Disability Freeze (65) was
most problematic for customers.
-
Disability Segment Printed Information (Q6-9)
$~y*&~p&i~@;+@&?~~;
Helpfulness of information in filing , ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ i + ~ p I ; : ;
for benefits
, ; - ~ ~ig~si
~&~ix;&~,@~$;,~6 w s ~ % ; B $ $ g ~ g 5 2
Clarity of information about the
application process
Clarity of information about benefit
eligibility
Clarity of information about the
advantages of a Disability Freeze
76
74
Occupational customers found the Printed Information to be clearer about benefit eligibility and
about the application process than Total and Permanent Customers did. Both items were rated
significantly higher by Occupational customers (at a 90% level of confidence). While the
Printed Information component itself was not significantly different between the two groups at a
90% level of confidence, the 5-point difference is statistically significant at a less stringent 80%
level of confidence.
Disability Segment - Printed Information (Q6-9): Occupational v. Total and Permanent
Decision Letter
The Decision Letter is not a key driver of satisfaction. It has a low impact on Satisfaction of 0.3
and was rated 75 by respondents. Respondents gave higher ratings to the ease of understanding
the information contained in the disability decision letter (78) than to the length of time until they
received the letter (72).
Disability Segment - Decision Letter (Ql3-14)
Ease of understanding information
contained within the disability
decision letter
Length of time until you received a
disability decision letter
78
72
The Decision Letter is another area where Occupational respondents gave significantly higher
ratings than Total and Permanent respondents. All diferences in the table below are signijkant
at a 90% level of confidence.
Disability Segment - Decision Letter (Ql3-14): Occupational v. Total and Permanent
Consultative Examination
The Consultative Examination had zero impact (0.0) on customer satisfaction. This does not
necessarily mean that it is unimportant to customers, but that a further increase in performance
will not result in a subsequent increase in customer satisfaction. Overall, 42%of respondents had
a consultative examination. Just over half (52%)of Total and Permanent respondents had a
consultative examination scheduled by RRB, while 35%of Occupational respondents had an
examination scheduled.
Occupational Respondents (Q12)
Did not have
a specialized
medical
examination
scheduled
65%
Had a
specialized
medical
examination
scheduled
35%
Total and Permanent Respondents (Q12)
Did not have a
specialized
medical
examination
Had a
specialized
scheduled
48%
medical
examination
scheduled
52%
There was no difference in satisfaction or any component scores between respondents who had a
specialized medical examination scheduled and those who did not. Both groups had a Customer
Satisfaction Index of 85. This also was one area where there were no significant differences in
ratings between Occupational and Total and Permanent respondents.
Respondents rated the Consultative Examination 78. They gave the highest marks to the courtesy
of the personnel who scheduled them (84). However, they felt less positively about the
convenience of the examination's location (74) and the clarity of the information about the
specialized examination (75).
Disability Segment - Consultative Examination (Q12a, 12b and 12c)
--
Courtesy of the personnel
scheduling you
Clarity of the information about
the specialized examination
75
I
e. Outcomes (and expectations) of Customer Satisfaction
The RRB measures two outcomes from satisfied customers: customer complaints and confidence
in RRB to do a good job in the future.
Prior Expectations (026)
Disability customers rated their prior expectations of the RRB 72. There was no significant
difference between the ratings given by Occupational customers (73) and Total and Permanent
customers (72).
Complaints (028)
The rate of customer complaints for the Disability Segment is 5%. Total and Permanent
respondents (10%)were more likely to complain than Occupational respondents (3%). Those
customers who report having complained to RRB about its service are also asked to rate how
well their complaint was handled (Q29). The 14 respondents who had complained to RRB
scored the handling of their complaint 62. Those 5% of respondents who complained also had a
lower Customer Satisfaction Index - by 20 points. Those who complained had a Customer
Satisfaction Index of 66, while those who did not complain scored Satisfaction 86.
Confidence in RRB (030)
Respondents rated their confidence in RRB to do a good job of providing disability benefits in
the future a 90. Like attributes scores, confidence was measured on a 1 to 10 scale that was
converted to 0- 100 for reporting purposes. A score of 90 implies that customers are very
confident in RRB to continue to do a good job of providing disability benefits.
f. Other Questions
RRB was interested in learning about benefit recipients' rating of the various ways that RRB is
currently providing assistance and service to recipients, as well as their preferences for
conducting business in the future. Several questions in the survey were used to collect this user
information.
Specifically, the disability questionnaire asked customers to rate the overall value they placed on
five different modes of service: U.S. mail, e-mail, phone contact, in person, and InternetIWorld
Wide Web ( 4 3 1-435 of the questionnaire in Appendix A). These modes were rated on a scale
from 1 ("Not at all valuable") to 10 ("Very Valuable") and are reported on a 0 to 100 scale. Of
the five services recipients rate the Phone as the most valuable way to contact RRB at a 9 1. This
was followed by U.S. mail (86) and In person (80). The least favored methods were Email (41)
and the Internet (40). However, both e-mail and. Internet Value scores had very large standard
deviations, meaning that respondents tended to have extreme opinions about the value of those
two modes. Many "I ratings were given - approximately one quarter of respondents rated the
value of Internet or value of e-mail "I".
"
Disability Segment -Value score for each mode of service (Q31-35)
InterneWorId
Wide Web
B40,
&,".
,
,
,
,
,
1
With respect to how they would like to conduct business in the future, 56% of respondents prefer
phone contact for conducting future business with RRB. The second most preferred method of
contact is in person (23%) and 18% preferred mail. In a follow up question where respondents
were asked to select their second preferred method for contacting RRB results show respondents
equally split between U.S . mail (37%) and phone (35%).
Most Preferred Method of Contact (Q36) Second Most Preferred Method of Contact (Q37)
In person
Internet
4%
Phone
contact
contact
56%
35%
7%
Chapter I11
Summary and Recommendations
The Railroad Retirement Board disability benefit recipient rated their satisfaction with RRB
quite high (85). The segment's satisfaction score compares favorably to other satisfaction from
Federal Government agencies and the overall Federal Government ACSI (71). Customer
satisfaction with RRB was also much higher than private sector insurance companies for both
life and health insurance. Satisfaction scores for Total and Permanent and Occupational
customers were also calculated separately with Occupational (87) rating their satisfaction higher
than Total and Permanent (81) customers.
The 2006 Satisfaction survey measured performance in five component areas. Customer Service
was the highest performing area with a score of 89. In particular, customers gave customer
service the highest marks for their courtesy/professionalism. Customer Service is also the biggest
driver of customer satisfaction for the disability segment with an impact of 2.4. Thus, while
performance is already at a high level in this area, a further increase will boost satisfaction
higher. Total and Permanent customers may provide more of an opportunity to improve
Customer Service. They gave positive ratings to Customer Service (85). However, this still is 6points lower than the rating Occupational customers (91) gave this area.
The next biggest driver of customer satisfaction for the disability segment is the Application
Process with an impact of 1.0. Customers rated the Application Process somewhat lower than
they rated Customer Service with a score of 76. Customers felt positively about the guidance
they received from RRB during the process (83). However, customers felt less positively about
the ease of filing the application and the time and amount of information required in the process.
Total and Permanent Customers found the Application Process to be a bit more difficult than
Occupational customers did. In addition, Total and Permanent customers gave lower ratings to
the guidance provided during the application than Occupational customers did. Customers who
used the publications to help with filing had an easier time with the Application Process. They
rated Application Process significant higher than those who did not use the publications and gave
high marks to the guidance provide by RRB (87).
The Printed Information itself had a modest impact on satisfaction with an impact of 0.6.
Respondents felt the information was helpful in filing for benefits. However, the information
about the benefit of the Disability Freeze was not that clear. Occupational respondents were
more likely than Total and Permanent respondents to use the Printed Information (63% versus
53%).
The Decision Letter had a lower impact on satisfaction with an impact of 0.3 and received a
score of 75. Of note, Total and Permanent customers gave significantly lower ratings to the
Decision Letter and in particular to the length of time until they received a decision letter. The
Consultative Examination had 0.0 impact on satisfaction. Customers found the personnel who
scheduled them to be courteous.
A majority of respondents had contact with RRB by phone contact with the field office or by
U.S. mail. These are also the most valued modes for conducting business in the future. Only 5%
of disability segment customers have had contact by e-mail and for the most part, customers
place low value on that mode of service (as well as Internet).
The satisfaction score of 85 for the disability segment indicates that customers are, for the most
part, satisfied with RRB.However, by focusing on improving the lower scoring areas that have
higher impacts, there is an opportunity to drive satisfaction higher.
Customer Service is performing at a high level and there may not be much room to improve.
Continue providing knowledgeable, professional service to customers. However, since this
area had the highest impact on satisfaction it may be worth exploring ways to improve
performance, and in particular for the Total and Permanent customers who gave lower ratings
to customer service. Improving the ease of getting in touch with RRB and providing clearer
information may be opportunities to take Customer Service to a higher level.
Explore making the application process easier to complete. This is especially critical for
Total and Permanent customers.
One way of making the Application Process easier may be to promote the use of the
Publications in filing the application. Since nearly half of Total and Permanent customers and
over one-third of Occupational customers do not use the publications in helping them filing,
it would be valuable for the next customer survey to ask an open-ended follow up question to
these respondents as to why they did not use the publication.
Within the Printed Information explore ways of making the information about the Disability
Freeze and benefit eligibility (for Total and Permanent customers) clearer.
Finally, customers indicated that they place much higher value on conducting business by
phone, U.S. mail or in person. Continue offering these as primary modes for business.
However, e-mail may be a viable means for conducting business with far more than it is
currently used by. Only 5% of respondents report ever using e-mail for contacting RRB.
However, 18% of respondents rated the value of e-mail ' 8' or higher (on a scale of 1 to 10).
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A
SURVEY QLTESTIONNAIRE
Railroad Retirement Board
Beneficiary Satisfaction Survey 2006
Disability Segment
Final Version
(Items in BOLD are interviewer instructions, and are not intended to be read to the respondent. Items
marked i.e. or e.g. should only be read if respondent needs clarification)
Verify Respondent (Do not read)
Q1. Hello. The Railroad Retirement Board has hired my company, [Data Collection Company], to call on
their behalf. My name is
?
. May I please speak with
WAIT FOR RESPONSE
1. Correct Person on Phone (GO TO INTRO)
2. Not correct person, but Person is available (HOLD UNTIL RESPONDENT ANSWERS AND READ
BELOW)
Q2. Hello. The Railroad Retirement Board has hired my company, [Data Collection Company], to call on
their behalf. My name is
. (GO TO INTRO)
3. If Person not available
4. If No Such Person
5. RefusalIHung Up
(Schedule a call back)
"Thank you and have a nice day!"
lntro (Do not read)
IF SPEAKING WITH CORRECT PERSON CON'TINUE BELOW
We are conducting research on how satisfied disability annuitants are with services provided by federal
government agencies. The purpose of this research is to help the Railroad Retirement Board improve its
services to you. Your answers are voluntary, but your opinions are very important for this research. Your
responses will be completely confidential, and you will never be identified by name. This interview is
authorized by Office of Management and Budget Control No. 1501-0191. This interview will take
approximately 8 minutes.
Q3. Is now a good time?
1. Yes
2.
(Continue)
No "Can we schedule a time that is more convenient for you?"
(For all questions, please include choices 98 = Don't Know and 99 = RefusedIHung Up)
Screening Questions (Do not read)
Q4.The Railroad Retirement Board has told us that you are currently receiving disability benefits. Is this
correct?
1. Yes
2. No
(TERMINATE CALL "Thank you for your time. Have a nice day!")
98. Don't Know (TERMINATE CALL "Thank you for your time. Have a nice day!")
99. RefusalIHung up
(TERMINATE CALL "Thank you for your time. Have a nice day!")
Printed Information (Do not read)
To begin, think about the publications (from the Railroad Retirement Board) that you may have consulted
for information on applying for and receiving your disability benefits.
Q5.
Did you use the publications to help you file your application?
1. Yes (CONTINUE BELOW)
2. No (SKIP TO NEXT SECTION)
98. Don't Know (SKIP TO NEXT SECTION)
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means "Poor" and 10 means "Excellent," please rate the following:
Q6.
Clarity of information about benefit eligibility
Q7.
Clarity of information about the application process
Q8.
Helpfulness of information in filiug for benefits
Q9.
Clarity of information about the advantages of a Disability Freeze (i.e. entitlement to early
Medicare coverage and possible tax advantages)
Application Process (Do not read)
Now, think about the application process you went through to obtain your disability benefits. On a scale
from 1 to 10 where 1 means "Poor" and 10 means "Excellent," please rate the following:
Q10.
Ease of filing application
Q11.
Guidance provided during application process from the RRB office
Again, think about the application process that you went through to obtain your disability benefits. On a
scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means "Strongly Disagree" and 10 means "Strongly Agree," please rate how
much you agree or disagree with the following:
Ql la. The time required to complete the application process was reasonable
Ql I b. The amount of information required to complete the application process was reasonable
Consultative Examination (Do not read)
Q12. Did you have a specialized medical examination scheduled by RRB?
1. Yes (CONTINUE BELOW)
2. No (SKIP TO NEXT SECTION)
98. Don't Know (SKIP TO NEXT SECTION)
Now, think about your experience with regard to the specialized medical examination. On a scale from 1
to 10 where 1 means "Poor" and 10 means "Excellent," please rate the following:
Q12a. Courtesy of the personnel scheduling you
Q12b. Clarity of the information about the specialized examination
Q12c. Convenience of the location of the specialized examination
Decision Letterllnformation (Do not read)
Now, please think about your disability decision letter, which was the letter you received that notified you
that your disability annuity was granted.
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means "Poor" and 10 means "Excellent," please rate the following:
Q13.
Length of time until you received a disability decision letter
Q14.
Ease of understanding information contained within the disability decision letter
Customer Service (Do not read)
Now, think about the ways you have recently contacted the Railroad Retirement Board about your
disability benefits.
Q15. Please indicate whether you have had contact with the Railroad Retirement Board concerning
your disability benefits in the following ways: (Interviewer: read List, select all that apply)
Organized seminars or meetings
Visiting a field office in person
Meeting a traveling field service representative on Customer OutReach Program Service
(e.g., in a place other than the field office.)
By personal phone contact with a field office
Automated phone system (e.g., RRB's Help Line Services)
By e-mail
By U.S. mail
Q16.
Please indicate your most recent means of contact with the Railroad Retirement Board:
Organized seminars or meetings
Visiting a field office in person
Meeting a traveling field service representative on Customer OutReach Program Service
(e.g., in a place other than the field office.)
By personal phone contact with a field office
Automated phone system (e.g., RRB's Help Line Services)
By e-mail
By U.S. mail
Consider the most recent contact you have had with the Railroad Retirement Board concerning your
disability benefits. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means "Poor" and 10 means "Excellent," please rate
the Railroad Retirement Board on the following:
Q17.
The ease of getting in touch with the Railroad Retirement Board
Q18.
The courtesy/professionalismof its personnel
Q19.
'The knowledge of its personnel
Q20.
The responsiveness of its personnel
Q21.
The clarity of the information provided to you
Q22.
The accuracy of the information provided to you
ACSl Benchmark Questions (Do not read)
Q23.
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means, "Not at All Satisfied" and 10 means "Extremely
Satisfied," how satisfied are you with the services provided by the Railroad Retirement Board in
connection with your disability benefits?
Q24.
Using a 10-point scale on which 1 now means "Does Not Meet Expectations" and 10 means
"Exceeds Expectations," to what extent have the services provided by the Railroad Retirement
Board in connection to your disability application fallen short of or exceeded your expectations?
Q25.
Forget for a moment your experiences with the Railroad Retirement Board. Now, imagine an
ideal organization that handles applications for disability benefits. How well do you think the
Railroad Retirement Board compares with that ideal organization? Please use a 10-point scale
on which 1 means "Very Far from Ideal" and 10 means "Very Close to Ideal."
Prior Expectations (Do not read)
Q26.
Most of the questions I have been asking you are about your recent experiences with the
Railroad Retirement Board. Now, I would like you to think about your expectations of the Railroad
Retirement Board's services before you filed for disability benefits. Using a 10-point scale on
which 1 means "Very Low" and 10 means "Very High," how would you rate your prior
expectations of the overall quality of the disability benefits services provided by the Railroad
Retirement Board?
Outcome Measures (Do not read)
(NO Q27)
Next, I want you to think about your interaction with the Railroad Retirement Board since you started
receiving your disability benefits.
Q28.
Since you recently began receiving your disability benefits, have you complained to the Railroad
Retirement Board about its service providing your benefits?
1. Yes
2. No (skip to next section)
Q29.
Using a 10-point scale on which 1 means "Handled Very Poorly" and 10 means "Handled Very
Well," please rate how well your complaint was handled.
Q30.
Using a 10-point scale on which 1 means "Not At All Confident" and 10 means "Very Confident,"
how confident are you that the Railroad Retirement Board will do a good job in providing disability
benefits in the future?
Epilogue Question (Do not read)
Consider the value you place on the various ways the Railroad Retirement Board currently provides
assistance and service to you. Rate the following services using a 10-point scale where 1 means "Not At
All Valuable" and 10 means "Very Valuable."
Q31. U.S. mail
Q32.
E-mail
Q33.
Phone contact
Q34.
In person (e.g., a visit to a field office or meeting a traveling field service representative in a place
other than a field office)
Q35.
InternetNVorldWide Web (e.g., Benefit Online Services at RRB.gov)
Preference Questions (Do not read)
Finally, we'd like to ask just a couple more questions about your preferences...
Q36.
Of all the service options that the Railroad Retirement Board could offer you, which would be your
most preferred method for conducting future business (e.g., change of address, or making a
change to your direct deposit information)? (responses will be randomly rotated)
U.S. mail
E-mail
Phone contact
In person (e.g., a visit to a field office or meeting a traveling field service representative in a
place other than a field office)
InternetNVorld Wide Web (e.g., Benefit Online Services at RRB.gov)
Q37.
-Whichwould be your second most preferred method for conducting future business (e.g., change
of address or, making a change to your direct deposit information)? (responses will be
randomly rotated)
U.S. mail
E-mail
Phone contact
In person (e.g., a visit to a field office or meeting a traveling field service representative in a
place other than a field office)
InternetNVorld Wide Web (e.g., Benefit Online Services at RRB.gov)
Thank you for your time. The Railroad Retirement Board appreciates your views and will use them to
better serve its customers. Have a nice day!
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX B
NON-MODEL QUESTIONS
Percent
"&~~3p~~fi~&~~62n~3~&3~~l~~J~$~83J~@p
'i~~fi~~~~~~~g~&~9;$~gg~$$$Q;9>S;~
,-*...,-
,.,a-.,.,.zs.*,a
.;%.=
<*-..3
Cs.&*cn
=*?*
'
><*<.
2L.'*c,&.L,_.
_ <+>see3~,,5F~:.:-~ggE&&:::z~~~g:g~~g@&
Yes
No
Number of Respondents
59%
41%
245
.. ,..~, . ..
a~~~~&~g@~E&li4&aiTmedieal$ega$nat
,on99c
hed;ul,e,d;fig5e,q~,$
~
(
&
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
:. ,.+ .-.+ . .*=++.,,.&L
,z:iw
.,,*. 2
~(~$~~~.~;~~~~~~~j~~~~~~~~~~~;~~x.:
>.
~ % ~ * , e ' b - . i Z . L % & ~ ~ ? . d ' f , * - ~ , ~ " ~ ~ * * r , r r
q
.
:
;
s
.-a;bzc.+:,;
Yes
No
Number of Respondents
.,.- >.&.
t
:
#
,
.>
,A
,
.,.: ,,.,.
*,,
,,,,,
A+aai.p.IvIv,-
w - O . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? * ~ " . O S ~.*.-..r.--.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~iC C - C C -
;
;
-ThL+,;*:
r.cwe:em$.,,
-,
,.+~~.3G~,w~
42%
58%
249
*
-""""-s~.-:"".&w&FT
.>&.T
,xi":!*?..
A"?;%
v
x
.-,,,*,*,.
'"~ZS,,,
.*-.*z=..-;,
Organized seminars or meetings
Visiting a field office in person
Meeting a traveling field service representative
Personal phone contact with a field office
Automated phone system
E-mail
U.S. Mail
Number of Respondents
,&TST..,,.q...7-,...,?%,--.-
:;.,+F,,2xz-7,
..,;.."> .
.., *.;:
.....
:., w::.,.'*,;.,:J::y:T>.x-
~ : ~ $ > .:~~;~~x;3i5;~~,,;~+;..y~.:;,,~z;s
~ ::, $ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~
:.; .!i;zeF
M@+t'iKecent2cantaGfihetqdd!(Q:1'@)?
.
:z<
:fiJ
,;,-<. i.,.:!,?&>.*: $ $":,.\$~:~::?i::~$:
..:
!<> ,2,:*< &'>sJ&*
d<,-&5,L*,3a.*
", ...-,,,
%
q+L~'..~~yc7;G'
.b.'y.-<$,.g,;a?;.,':
?',2
:S
;,.?
b.,$h
2.'.
~<5<~~j,$.~2?:;2:*<:i>-.j:i<<>:;:;;k<4.,.~:~~>~;~:.:?
Visitivg a field office in person
Meeting a traveling field service representative
Personal phone contact with a field office
Automated phone system
E-mail
U.S. Mail
Number of Respondents
11%
2%
63%
0%
1%
24%
.
246
-.
.::ii::.:*,:ys>*
<-.... '
.. ;-. Lai;,;,Er,.
.~~~+r~e.dj~ggt~qd;$,~$~co~dg:~~1n,gf@u~g~gg1:~~sg:~(~3g~~~;;~~g+
;~3~~:~i~g;;:~:;,2~:i;~:i
...i:z:5j
,
... ....* ,..,...,
,
.,.-?',.J
wpFh7,x;.>*.+>p~~:~*L*7~?**~3*.,-
>.;* y#.75t7i,?-.-.F.<<2
...-*.--.-:-.,,$,
~~.r-*:wx:w*~<&y*lT~~
,..->e.k...,.,
-'.
v'
. a,
..-~.,*.... .
4 .
; i.*+YZ>
U.S. mail
E-mail
Phone contact
In person
Number of Respondents
a.<-:--%::~,.=~,*<;S!-J.J--Jp~"~~~<,
'.,Y.;:<
2$i;"""'ii:i%ip9r,.r
18%
3%
56%
23%
249
8'-k$F.*;?~*,w;bb*'a*~.%.:17;i:;;.
~;.,,p.ll,'i'i',~...
iiw:444;hhiqt .,,,****>SF
-~
..
ff..'%T&$
...,
---..:;
a i>
.F..IC
.
- ~.
:(
S @ ~ $ n @ , ~ ~ ~ @ ~ @ f e r ~ ~ ~ ~ @bug~ng~gi(@3~@~{i$&~?#;~&;$;
~ ~ $ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ t ~ g g ~ $ y
U.S. mail
E-mail
Phone contact
In person
InterneWVorld Wide Web
Number of Respondents
ST>,.-.,.-
$
;
3
>
:
,
.*I.-
37%
7%
35%
17%
4%
249
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX C
ATTRIBUTE TABLES BY SELECT SEGMENTS
DISABILITY SEGMENT - AGGREGATE SCORES AND IMPACTS
.;. .: .:,.
>,.y *... .-.- . - ~ , ~ ~ ~.., ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ ~ , ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ $ g ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ; y ~ < ; ~ ~ ~ ,
;:.?g"8~:<:%;;$
,
,
, .. .?YY>.z\<'-?T@p
.,,,.,.,,..,a
Custo.mme~:Satisdact~~n:1n,d.e~i~~Q2.3525-~~i~~~
.:I, ..; :,::
,,,
,.,,,,~.x;,,,,,~wp~z.Z:~3i~~L5~~~'i2~;+*.i.i~
88
Overall satisfaction with RRB disability benefit service
81
RRB compared to expectations
85
RRB compared to ideal organization
. .%;., -.<:.. .
>,<.;:
,:7>;c;
..;;7z::
,;<.:; ,,,:; -.,-yp>>:',,<.- ...--.
.,. .*: ..,,....,, ..,~.::.lz"
;*?.?,< '
,.",>*, +>2r&Lxz.. f;.,.,J,,* 3 ~2
.+>.<3<;T2;7*.,<<
;;&$si&i&&
..zgisi
Gam
...
.. plain?%
.
;(Q~@);;;.;;~~;~:~;~f2L:;.~,~;,~~z:~s~~~
;:, ts~~~~~~i32$;3;~;~&g;;.
:3>;.;;<;~i~$j;;~i5g3~3>~g~&g+&g.g2&~;&~~
5%
Complained to RRB
- , - ..,.., @ ~
~, $~~j ~~ j~
~ ~
~~ ~<
~ (&
~
$
~ ~ ~ ~ f i $ ~ @ ~ ~ & ; ~ ! ~ ; ~ ~ , @ ~ B ; ~ ( , ~ ; ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ;~ ~~~~$ ~
90
Confident RRB will do a good job in future
. . . . .-
-,..
$ \
,
- - , -...,:,,.<.:-+<<
,:,,,
.
,,
.a
c
2-
,L.?.*
.,,.;t<;;<:;;<:
+>:
-,-7:<
&,?T<
-.s
,,
,
,%'O-
,
Non-Modeled
;~!:,:.:;!3~;+-*,;--n';.+:.;,Y'
,!g$$~6,z;g$g
,Fggxggig:B
L-77
,,.y~.,z;
y<,>.L*.22;L+z;
$
&&
$
&
~
;z.=$2;
~
$
;
2
4
&
$
s
&
g
$
:
i
;
:
s
.
:
g
:
.
L
&
;
:
;
s
:
L
z
:
i
c
;
&
2
Complaint
.. .
handling
. , --..-.-:.-.:-.,
...., ..
.,.. .
.'<. ....
:,r,.
.
,+ .. -...--,
.~~lor,;E~p@~t~~l~~n$;.(Q?~f~;;~:i;.,~~,;3
..-.. ,.,~
..., .
!,.
,;$;;&~&~j~~3j~~~&~;;$$~;
Prior expectations
d,i7,%
,>-ex
I
,*-;*-,-,,",-.q2..*;~
>.,-?,.
<:
;;i;L:,;:;
'A*-
62
:Z.gLa2
I 72
Eailoaue
U.S. Mail
E-mail
Phone contact
In person
InternetNVorld Wide Web
I~arnde
Size
86
41
91
80
40
1
250
1
PERFORMANCE SCORES - OCCUPATIONAL VERSUS TOTAL AND PERMANENT
I
The clarity of the information provided to you
The accuracy of the information provided to you
- - ... .-....- ..-...-....
Prior Expectations(Q26)- I.
IPrior expectations
,
.
..
.:. , .:..:.
.
.;: ..
. . . . . , ..
.
.,
. ',
.".. .
'
,
L
+
: . .,, .
.-.. "L. . .
.. .
;..,
I
.
.
,
....$5:<:+-;;,,;;+:
:.;$:;>$
,.:;....
.
;,:-.;;+; ;:.. :s;;z.;3*2:r+$~;,:.Jj
I
75%
Yes
Yes
I
';,:.72
. ..
..;,j,:d. I.,:;':..>.. .:. . ,:. d.:. .. .~
I
-
A
85
30
89
72
31
t"
I
72
;-*:=i8 -.;&
I
I
84
85
:::i?:; .,.<>?>
;. i:.
.w ;
9.*.*.,::35
.:
,><; ..:
+
;
> .:,
3>$gLy?;&:*3J$k*;~>x?q.-.+::;:*+>~:
s2;.;;.c:
,.?? &
>
++
y<;.I.::j,&
;;.-, :i-:&
>i3$>:-~;;~;~&y.2~,;,.>9:>~
.> ,<>.<.!,,*.
::!,c,E$<$;
.
.
' .,.. ,.... .--. .,. 73
.
.r.(:;;j
~.........
. ..... . ... :;.,.?:,,:.jl
.
I
73
E i ~ i l-o ~ u e
Rate the various waysthe RRB provideia~s~~tanc;eland*~se~ib'~to
you (Q31-35);.-&-,U.S. Mail
E-mail
Phone contact
In person
InterneVWorld Wide Web
.., :.:,.:
Sam.. si*=..>:..,:-.
Weighting
I
89
91
-",-
,-> i s
-,.-.-"
.'ii'+,.x
L
:-
Yes
Yes
Yes
PERFORMANCE SCORES - USED PUBLICATIONS VERSUS DID NOT USE
PUBLICATIONS
The ease of getting in touch with the Railroad Retirement Board
The courtesy/professionalismof its personnel
The knowledge of its personnel
The responsiveness of its personnel
The clarity of the information provided to you
The accuracy of the information provided to you
88
94
93
91
89
91
84
90
86
86
84
85
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Non-Modeled
__
-
.
.
75
49
Complaint
handling
-.:,- .- , ,.,.. :.,-,--..
. ....
.,.,.....
'"
.-r*.-...wc.m:XF~ ~ ~ l @ , ~ , ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ g ~ ~ : t ~ Q 2 ~ J ; ~ ~ z ; . ~ : ; ~ ; < ; 2 ,zfzq$g7,5gg@$$4
~ ; ~ ~ ; ; ~ 3.Tz
~ ~ ; ; ; ;~~ ~ !~ ~ @ ~~ ~ ~~
$Z$gZEQFES$2
Prior expectations
75
69
I...
-c.r.,<,,
>
.
.
l
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
Epilogue
I
--
I
I
42
89
I
42
I
. .* .'- '
.:jt4J4:;:,1;::1
.?;-.:-:qOl:
:1.1::q
I
E-mail
39
92
I
Phone contact
llnternetNVorld Wide Web
I ~ a m ~ l e ~ i z ::..e ....
;
-
38
,
. .
. . .:
,
,
...>.,
::
..' .,:
;:.
.
.,,,..
..::. -:;.I "<.;.,
,,.~;<,~:~~:;rr~;?.:~:'<.;~~:~>T.~~~.~.;:
,:it,y$:.
:s. .'-z*.. .=::2..:..*3
. ...
;,:;.,I,.,<>:.;>:;.;.f:,.>:.":,:
.,:..... .:.; ..,-. .2..:. ,.,,,, ?.,.,
'
""i .
,!.:,
%.,'
.',<
I
This page intentionally lefi blank.
APPENDIX D
MEANS AND FREQUENCIES OF SURVEY QUESTIONS
Q1. - Q4. SCREENER QUESTIONS TABLES OMITTED
Valid
Yes
No
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
Total
Frequency
144
101
Percent
57.6
40.4
Valid Percent
57.6
40.4
5
2.0
2.0
250
100.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
57.6
98.0
~
100.0
Q6. Clarity of information about benefit eligil
L
Q7. Clarity of information about the application process
1
Valid
Poor
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Excellent
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
Total
Frequency
1
2
1
3
9
10
28
42
12
35
Percent
.4
3.6
4.0
11.2
16.8
4.8
14.0
Valid Percent
.7
1.4
.7
2.1
6.3
6.9
19.4
29.2
8.3
24.3
1
.4
.7
144
57.6
100.0
.8
.4
1.2
Cumulative
Percent
.7
2.1
2.8
4.9
11.1
18.1
37.5
66.7
75.0
99.3
100.0
Q8. Hel fulness of informatic i n filing for
I
Frequency
Valid
Poor
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Excellent
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
Total
1
1
1
2
10
7
14
39
17
51
Valid Percent
Percent
.4
.4
.4
.8
4.0
2.8
5.6
15.6
6.8
20.4
I
.7
.7
.7
1.4
6.9
4.9
9.7
27.1
11.8
35.4
Frequency
Poor
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Excellent
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
Total
.7
1.4
2.1
3.5
10.4
15.3
25.0
52.1
63.9
99.3
1 00.0
Q9. Clarity of information ab rt the advani ages of a Di: ability Freeze (i
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
5
3
4
9
20
14
16
22
7
28
2.0
1.2
1.6
3.6
8.0
5.6
6.4
8.8
2.8
11.2
16
6.4
144
57.6
Valid Percent
3.5
2.1
2.8
6.3
13.9
9.7
11.1
15.3
4.9
19.4
!. entitlement t
Cumulative
Percent
3.5
5.6
8.3
14.6
28.5
38.2
49.3
64.6
Q10. Ease of filing ap~lication
Frequency
Valid
Poor
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Excellent
Total
Percent
7
4
7
8
35
18
35
40
22
74
250
Frequency
Poor
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Excellent
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
Total
I
Cumulative
Percent
2.8
4.4
7.2
10.4
24.4
31.6
45.6
61.6
70.4
100.0
2.8
1.6
2.8
3.2
14.0
7.2
14.0
16.0
8.8
29.6
100.0
2.8
1.6
2.8
3.2
14.0
7.2
14.0
16.0
8.8
29.6
100.0
111. Guidance provided du ~gapplicatic
Valid
Valid Percent
process f~ rn the RRB...
Percent
5
4
4
5
16
6
19
34
32
124
2.0
1.6
1.6
2.0
6.4
2.4
7.6
13.6
12.8
49.6
1
.4
250
100.0
Valid Percent
2.0
1.6
1.6
2.0
6.4
2.4
7.6
13.6
12.8
49.6
Cumulative
Percent
2.0
3.6
5.2
7.2
13.6
16.0
23.6
37.2
50.0
99.6
100.0
Ql la. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means 'Strongly Disagree' and 10 means 'Strongly Agree', please rate
how much you agree or disagree with the following: The time required to complete the application process
was reasonable
Frequency
Valid
Strongly
Disagree
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Strongly
Agree
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
Total
L
Valid Percent
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
14
5.6
5.6
5.6
4
9
4
26
9
28
45
22
1.6
3.6
1.6
10.4
3.6
11.2
18.0
8.8
1.6
3.6
1.6
10.4
3.6
11.2
18.0
8.8
7.2
10.8
12.4
22.8
26.4
37.6
55.6
64.4
35.2
99.6
.4
100.0
88
35.2
1
.4
250
100.0
~
100.0
Q l l b. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means 'Strongly Disagree' and 10 means 'Strongly Agree', please rate
how much you agree or disagree with the following: The amount of information required to complete the
application process was reasonable
Frequency
Valid
Strongly
Disagree
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Strongly
Agree
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
9
3.6
3.6
3.6
6
10
9
27
9
29
49
18
2.4
4.0
3.6
10.8
3.6
11.6
19.6
7.2
2.4
4.0
3.6
10.8
3.6
11.6
19.6
7.2
6.0
10.0
13.6
24.4
28.0
39.6
59.2
66.4
84
33.6
33.6
100.0
250
100.0
100.0
D12. Did you have a specialized medical examination scheduled b y RRB?
Valid
Yes
No
I D 0 NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
Total
Frequency
104
145
Percent
41.6
58.0
I
.4
250
100.0
Valid Percent
41.6
Cumulative
Percent
41.6
99.6
.4
100.0
I
100.0
Q12a. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means 'Poor' and 10 means 'Excellent', please rate the following:
Courtesy of the personnel scheduling you
Valid
Poor
02
03
05
07
08
09
Excellent
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
Total
Frequency
3
2
1
5
11
14
13
54
Percent
1.2
.8
.4
2.0
4.4
5.6
5.2
21.6
Valid Percent
2.9
1.9
1.O
4.8
10.6
13.5
12.5
51.9
Cumulative
Percent
2.9
4.8
5.8
10.6
21.2
34.6
47.1
99.0
1
.4
1.o
100.0
104
41.6
100.0
Q12b. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means 'Poor' and 10 means 'Excellent', please rate the following:
Clarity of the information about the specialized examination
Valid
Poor
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Excellent
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
Total
Frequency
3
3
1
2
11
7
12
14
9
41
Percent
1.2
1.2
.4
.8
4.4
2.8
4.8
5.6
3.6
16.4
Valid Percent
2.9
2.9
1.O
1.9
10.6
6.7
11.5
13.5
8.7
39.4
Cumulative
Percent
2.9
5.8
6.7
8.7
19.2
26.0
37.5
51.O
59.6
99.0
1
.4
1.o
100.0
104
41.6
100.0
Q12c. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means 'Poor' and 10 means 'Excellent', please rate the following:
Convenience of the location of the specialized examination
Frequency
Valid
Poor
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Excellent
Total
4.8
10.6
12.5
15.4
23.1
26.0
35.6
51.9
55.8
100.0
4.8
5.8
1.9
2.9
7.7
2.9
9.6
16.3
3.8
44.2
100.0
2.0
2.4
.8
1.2
3.2
1.2
4.0
6.8
1.6
18.4
41.6
5
6
2
3
8
3
10
17
4
46
1 04
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Q13. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means 'Poor' and 10 means 'Excellent,' please rate the following:
Length of time until you received a disability decision letter
Frequency
Valid
Poor
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
9
6
4
9
33
14
26
45
26
Percent
Valid Percent
3.6
2.4
1.6
3.6
13.2
5.6
10.4
18.0
10.4
3.6
2.4
1.6
3.6
13.2
5.6
10.4
18.0
10.4
100.0
100.0
Excellent
DON'T
KNOW
Total
Cumulative
Percent
3.6
6.0
7.6
11.2
24.4
30.0
40.4
58.4
68.8
Q14. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means 'Poor' and 10 means 'Excellent,' please rate the following: Ease
of understanding informatio contained within the disability decision letter
Q15. Please indicate whether you have had contact with the Railroad Retirement Board in the following ways:
[READ LIST SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)
-
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Organized
seminars or
meetings
15
6.0
6.0
6.0
Visiting a field
office in person
66
26.4
26.4
32.4
4
1.6
1.6
34.0
128
51.2
51.2
85.2
4
1.6
1.6
86.8
1
30
.4
12.0
.4
12.0
87.2
99.2
2
.8
.8
100.0
250
100.0
100.0
Meeting a
traveling field
service
representative
By personal
phone contact
with a field office
Automated
phone system
By e-mail
By U.S. mail
(DO NOT READ)
DON'T KNOW
Total
(216. Please indicate your most rece t means of c ~ntactwith the Railroad Reti ement Board:
Frequency
1 Valid
Visiting a field
office in person
26
Meeting a
traveling field
service
representative
I
Percent
A
Valid Percent
7
L
Cumulative
Percent
10.4
4
By personal
phone contact
with a field office
154
Automated
phone system (IF
NEEDED RRB'S HELP
LINE
1
By e-mail
By U.S. mail
(DO NOT READ)
DON'T KNOW
2
59
4
Total
250
(217. Consider the most recent contact you have had with the Railroad Retirement Board concerning your
disability benefits. On a scale from 1 t o 10 where 1 means 'Poor' and 10 means 'Excellent,' please rate the
Railroad Retirement Board on the following: The ease of getting in touch with RRB
...
Frequency
Valid
Poor
02
04
05
06
07
08
09
Excellent
Total
3
2
3
13
5
23
35
29
137
250
Percent
1.2
.8
1.2
5.2
2.0
9.2
14.0
11.6
54.8
100.0
Valid Percent
1.2
.8
1.2
5.2
2.0
9.2
14.0
11.6
54.8
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
1.2
2.0
3.2
8.4
10.4
19.6
33.6
45.2
100.0
(218. The courtesy/professionalism of the personnel
Percent
Frequency
Valid
Poor
02
03
04
05
07
08
09
Excellent
(DO NOT
READ)
REFUSED
Total
Q19. The knowledge of its personnel
Freque
ncy
Valid
Poor
02
03
04
05
06
07
' 08
09
Excellent
I
Total
1
320. The responsiveness
5
1
2
3
3
4
4
36
33
159
250 1
...
Poor
02
03
04
05
07
08
09
Excellent
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
Total
Cumulative
Percent
2
1
2
2
4
6
24
34
174
.8
.4
.8
.8
1.6
2.4
9.6
13.6
69.6
.8
.4
.8
.8
1.6
2.4
9.6
13.6
69.6
.8
1.2
2.0
2.8
4.4
6.8
16.4
30.0
99.6
1
.4
.4
100.0
250
100.0
100.0
...
Valid Percent
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
2.0
.4
.8
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.6
14.4
13.2
63.6
100.0
2.0
.4
.8
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.6
14.4
13.2
63.6
100.0 1
2.0
2.4
3.2
4.4
5.6
7.2
8.8
23.2
36.4
100.0
I
its personnel...
Percent
Valid
Valid Percent
1.2
.4
.4
2.4
3.2
4.0
12.8
14.0
61.2
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
2.0
Q21. The clarity of in rmation provided to yo1
Valid
Poor
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Excellent
3
3
8
2
17
40
40
133
Percent
1.2
.4
1.2
1.2
3.2
.8
6.8
16.0
16.0
53.2
Valid Percent
1.2
.4
1.2
1.2
3.2
250
100.0
100.0
Frequency
3
1
Total
Poor
02
03
05
06
07
08
09
Excellent
...
Percent
1.6
1.6
.4
1.6
.8
5.6
15.6
13.6
58.4
Frequency
4
4
1
4
2
14
39
34
146
1.6
2.8
4.0
7.2
8.0
14.8
30.8
46.8
100.0
.8
6.8
16.0
16.0
53.2
Q22. The accuracv of informationprovided to you
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
1.2
m
Valid Percent
1.6
1.6
.4
1.6
.8
5.6
15.6
13.6
58.4
Cumulative
Percent
1.6
3.2
3.6
5.2
6.0
11.6
27.2
40.8
99.2
Q23. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means 'Not at All Satisfied' and 10 means 'Extremely Satisfied,' how
satisfied are you with services provided by the Railroad Retirement Board in connection with your disability
Frequency
Valid
Not at All
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
3
1.2
1.2
1.2
2
2
8
7
14
.8
.8
3.2
2.8
.8
.8
3.2
2.8
45
29
5.6
18.0
11.6
5.6
18.0
11.6
2.0
2.8
6.0
8.8
14.4
32.4
44.0
140
56.0
56.0
100.0
250
100.0
100.0
(224. Using a 10-point scale on which 1 now means 'Does Not Meet Expectations' and 10 means 'Exceeds
Expectations,' to what extent have the services provided by the Railroad Retirement Board in connection to
your disability application fallen short of or exceeds expectations
...
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Does Not Meet
Expectations
7
2.8
2.8
2.8
02
03
04
2
2
4
.8
.8
1.6
3.6
4.4
05
06
07
08
09
16
8
24
48
31
.8
.8
1.6
6.4
3.2
9.6
19.2
12.4
6.4
3.2
9.6
19.2
12.4
108
43.2
43.2
250
100.0
100.0
Exceeds
Expectations
Total
6.0
12.4
15.6
25.2
44.4
56.8
100.0
(225. Forget for a moment your experiences with the Railroad Retirement Board. Now, magine an ideal
organization that handles applications for disability benefits. How well do you think t h ~Railroad Retirement
Board compares with that ideal organization?
...
I
I
I
I
Valid
I
I
I
I
Cumulative
Percent
.4
3.2
3.6
6.8
8.0
18.0
37.6
52.4
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
8
3
25
49
37
Percent
.4
2.8
.4
3.2
1.2
10.0
19.6
14.8
104
41.6
41.6
94.0
15
6.0
6.0
100.0
250
100.0
100.0
02
L
Very Close to
Ideal
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
Total
Valid Percent
.4
2.8
.4
3.2
1.2
10.0
19.6
14.8
I
Frequency
1
7
1
Q26. Most of the questions I have been asking you are about your recent experiences with the Railroad
Retirement Board. Now, Iwould like you to think about your expectations of the Railroad Retirement Board's
services before you filed for disability benefits How would you rate your prior expectations of the overall
quality of the disability benefits services orovided by RRB?
...
Frequency
Valid
Very Low
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Very High
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
(DO NOT
READ)
REFUSED
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
8
1
7
8
28
12
27
61
19
64
3.2
.4
2.8
3.2
11.2
4.8
10.8
24.4
7.6
25.6 I
3.2
.4
2.8
3.2
11.2
4.8
10.8
24.4
7.6
25.6
3.2
3.6
6.4
9.6
20.8
25.6
36.4
60.8
68.4
94.0
14
5.6
5.6
99.6
1
.4
.4
100.0
250
100.0
100.0
Q27. NO QUESTION 27 ON SURVEY
Q28. Since you recently began receiving your disability benefits, have you complained to the Railroad
Retirement Board about its service providing your benefits?
Frequency
Valid
Yes
No
(DO NOT
READ)
REFUSED
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
14
235
5.6
94.0
5.6
94.0
5.6
99.6
1
.4
.4
100.0
250
100.0
100.0
Q29. Using a 10-point scale on which 1 means 'Handled Very Poorly' and 10 means 'Handleci Very Well,'
please rate how well your complaint was handled
....
Frequency
Valid
Handled Vety
Poorly
05
06
07
08
09
Handled Vety
Well
Total
I
I
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
2
.8
14.3
14.3
2
2
2
14.3
14.3
28.6
42.9
3
2
.8
.8
.8
1.2
.8
14.3
21.4
14.3
57.1
78.6
92.9
1
.4
7.1
100.0
14
5.6
100.0
I
I
I
Q30. Using a 10-point scale o n which 1 means 'Not At All Confident' and 10 means 'Very Confident,' how
confident are you that the Railroad Retirement Board will do a good job i n providing disability benefits in the
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Not At All
very
Confident
(DO NOT
READ)
REFUSED
Total
1.2
1
-.
150
I
.
60.0
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
1.2
1
.
60.0
1.2
1
(231. Consider the value you place on the various ways the Railroad Retirement Board currently provides
assistance and service to you. Rate the following services using a 10-point scale where 1 means 'Not At All
Valuable' and 10 means 'Very Valuable.' U.S. mail
Frequency
Valid
Not At All
Valuable
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Very
Valuable
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
(DO NOT
READ)
REFUSED
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
4
1.6
1.6
1.6
2
.8
.8
2.4
1
4
.4
.4
2.8
1.6
1.6
4.4
14
5
5.6
2.0
5.6
2.0
10.0
12.0
9
3.6
17.2
3.6
15.6
17.2
32.8
11.6
11.6
44.4
135
54.0
54.0
98.4
3
1.2
1.2
99.6
1
.4
.4
100.0
250
100.0
100.0
43
29
Q32. E-mail
Frequency
Valid
Not At All
Valuable
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Very
Valuable
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
(DO NOT
READ)
REFUSED
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
61
24.4
24.4
24.4
3
2
1.2
1.2
25.6
5
8
4
2.0
3.2
2.0
3.2
28.4
31.6
1.6
1.6
33.2
.8
.8
26.4
5
2.0
2.0
35.2
9
11
3.6
4.4
3.6
4.4
38.8
43.2
24
9.6
9.6
52.8
109
43.6
43.6
96.4
9
3.6
3.6
100.0
250
100.0 I
100.0
Frequency
Valid
Not At All
Valuable
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Very
Valuable
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
(DO NOT
READ)
REFUSED
Total
!34. In person
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
.4
.4
.4
1
1
1
5
1
11
45
28
.4
.4
.4
2.0
.4
4.4
18.0
11.2
.4
.4
.4
2.0
.4
4.4
18.0
11.2
.8
1.2
1.6
3.6
4.0
8.4
26.4
37.6
154
61.6
61.6
99.2
1
.4
.4
99.6
1
.4
.4
100.0
250
100.0
100.0
...
-
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Not At All
Valuable
16
6.4
6.4
6.4
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
2
2
2
15
7
5
30
18
.8
.8
.8
6.0
2.8
2.0
12.0
7.2
.8
.8
.8
6.0
2.8
2.0
12.0
7.2
7.2
8.0
8.8
14.8
17.6
19.6
31.6
38.8
110
44.0
82.8
41
16.4
99.2
2
.8
100.0
250
100.0
Very
Valuable
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
(DO NOT
READ)
REFUSED
Total
(235. InternetMlorld Wide Web
...
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Not At All
Valuable
73
29.2
29.2
29.2
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
4
1
1
11
2
7
14
11
1.6
.4
.4
4.4
.8
2.8
5.6
4.4
1.6
.4
.4
4.4
.8
2.8
5.6
4.4
30.8
31.2
31.6
36.0
36.8
39.6
45.2
49.6
26
10.4
10.4 1
60.0
95
38.0
38.0
98.0
5
2.0
2.0
100.0
250
100.0
100.0
Very
Valuable
(DO NOT
READ)
DON'T
KNOW
(DO NOT
READ)
REFUSED
Total
(236. Of all the service options that the Railroad Retirement Board could offer you, which wou 1 be your most
-
preferred method for conducting future business? (IF NEEDED CHANGE OF ADDRESS, OR I IAKING A
CHANGE TO YOUR DIRECT DEPOSIT INFORMATION)
Percent
Frequency
Valid
I
U.S. mail
E-mail
Phone contact
In person (IF
NEEDED - A
VISIT TO A
FIELD OFFICE
OR MEETI...
InternetMlorld
Wide Web (IF
NEEDED BENEFIT
ONLINE
SERVI...
(DO NOT READ)
REFUSED
Total
1
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
45
7
139
18.0
2.8
55.6
18.0
2.8
55.6
18.0
20.8
76.4
57
22.8
22.8
99.2
1
.4
.4
99.6
250
I
100.0
100.0
100.0
(237.Which would be your second most preferred method for conducting future business? (IF NEEDED
change of address or, making a change to your direct deposit information)
Percent
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
U.S. mail
E-mail
Phone contact
In person (IF
NEEDED - A
VISIT TO A FIELD
OFFICE OR
MEET1...
InternetMlorld
Wide Web (IF
NEEDED BENEFIT ONLINE
SERVI...
Total
System
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
93
18
86
37.2
7.2
34.4
37.3
7.2
34.5
37.3
44.6
79.1
43
17.2
17.3
96.4
9
3.6
3.6
100.0
99.6
.4
100.0
100.0
249
1
250
I
-
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2006-12-07 |
| File Created | 2006-12-07 |