ACSI Report

American Customer Satisfaction Index
Railroad Retirement Board
Survivors Segment
Customer Satisfaction Study

August 2012

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

This page intentionally left blank.

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Methodology
Customer Satisfaction (ACSI)
Benchmarks
Customer Satisfaction Model
Drivers of Customer Satisfaction
Outcomes
Preferences
Segments: Spouse to Widow and Initial Widow
Summary and Recommendations

3
4
5
6
8
13
14
15
16

Appendix A: Questionnaire
Appendix B: Non-Modeled Questions
Appendix C: Score Tables
Appendix D: Response Rate

17
23
27
33

August 2012

1

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

This page intentionally left blank.

August 2012

2

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Introduction and Methodology
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).

Customer Background
The Railroad Retirement Board chose the Survivor Segment to measure in 2012, which is comprised of
Initial Widows and Spouse to Widows. These segments were measured initially in 2005. Comparisons
between 2012 and 2005 results, where applicable, are provided in this report.

Data Collection
The Railroad Retirement Board provided sample lists of Survivors. This included a list of Initial Widows
and a list of Spouse to Widows. A total of 645 Initial Widows and 2079 Spouse to Widows were included
th
in the sample. Data were collected via telephone by the professional interviewers of ASVA from July 9
th
through July 12 , 2012. Interviewers worked under monitored supervision from a central phone room.
Interviewers used CATI (computer-assisted-telephone-interviewing) terminals programmed for the
specific questionnaire. The response rate for the survey was 15%. A total of 250 interviews were
conducted with 125 for each segment. Of these 247 were valid for modeling purposes; 3 were omitted
from analysis for missing data. In order for the customer satisfaction scores to accurately depict the RRB
population, responses were weighted two-thirds spouse-to-widow and one-third initial widow. Response
rate information and calculations can be found in Appendix D.

Reporting
The questionnaire used is shown in Appendix A. The questionnaire was developed through a
collaborative effort between CFI Group and the Railroad Retirement Board to measure overall satisfaction
with RRB for Survivors. The survey instrument was initially designed in 2005 and minimal changes were
made in order to compare against the baseline measure.
Most of the questions in the survey asked the respondent to rate items on a 1 to 10 scale. Results to
these questions are reported on a scale of 0 to 100 and are included in Appendix C. Aggregate scores
are included in these tables as well as comparisons of scores by benefit segment. Responses to nonmodeled questions such as multiple-choice questions and yes/no were included for background
information on the respondents. The results for these non-modeled questions are included in Appendix B.
An explanation of the response rate is provided in Appendix D.

August 2012

3

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Customer Satisfaction (ACSI)
The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) is a weighted average of three questions 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 (Q23); Satisfaction compared to
expectations (Q24); and Satisfaction compared to an ‘ideal’ organization (Q25). The model assigns the
weights to each question in a way that maximizes the ability of the index to predict changes in agency
outcomes.
The 2012 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) for RRB Survivor Segment is 90. Satisfaction has not
changed since the last measure in 2005. A score of 90 indicates a very high level of satisfaction and is 23
points above the latest federal aggregate satisfaction index (67). Satisfaction benchmarks are provided
on the next page.

Customer Satisfaction Index
2012 compared to 2005

90
Customer Satisfaction Index
90

92

Overall satisfaction with RRB survivor benefit service
92

90
RRB compared to ideal organization
89

89
RRB compared to expectations

87

July 2012

July 2005

N=247

August 2012

4

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Benchmarks
The Railroad Retirement Board Survivor segment compares favorably to other federal government
beneficiary providers. With a score of 90, only PBGC Retirees segment is on par with this score. Most
agencies providing benefits have satisfaction in the 70s to low 80s. The latest overall satisfaction index
for all of federal government is 67.

RRB Survivors

90

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Retirees

90

RRB Unemployment/Sickness

81

Rural Development, USDA Community
Facilities Program Participants

77

Office of Community Service, ACF, HHS,
Assets for Independence Participants

75

Rural Development, USDA, Grant
Recipients
Overall Government

August 2012

5

73

67

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Customer Satisfaction Model
2012 RRB Survivor Segment - Customer Satisfaction Model

Application
Process

87
3%

1.7

Customer
Service

93

1.6

Award
Letter

90

Complaints

Customer
Satisfaction
Index

-2.6

Confidence in
RRB

90

94

3.5
1.2
87

Publications
N/A
N=247
RRB can use the scores (in circles) and impacts (in rectangles) from the model shown above 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.
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 for Application Process increased
by 5 points (87 to 92), Customer Satisfaction would increase by the amount of its impact, 1.7 points, (from
90 to 91.7). Similarly, if Customer Satisfaction were to increase by 5 points, ‘Confidence in RRB’ would
increase by 3.5 points from 94 to 97.5. 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.

August 2012

6

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

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.
Since only 18% of respondents answered the Publications questions, this component was not included in
the model for the purposes of calculating an impact. Scores indicating performance on a 0 to 100 scale,
were calculated for Publications.

August 2012

7

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Drivers of Customer Satisfaction
The following section provides comparisons of scores from the 2012 survey to those from the last wave of
the survey in 2005.

Application Process
Impact 1.7
The Application Process has a strong impact on satisfaction with an impact of 1.7. Scores changed very
little since 2005 with no significant changes, as the overall rating for Application Process is down just 1
point to 87. The amount of supporting documentation required is rated as not being burdensome with a
score of 88, while the overall survivor benefit process is not problematic with a score of 87.

Application Process
2012 compared to 2005

87
Application Process
88

88

Amount of supporting documentation required
87

87
Ease of survivor benefit process
88

July 2012

July 2005

N=247

August 2012

8

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Customer Service
Impact 1.6
Customer Service has a considerable impact on Customer Satisfaction with an impact value of 1.6. There
were no significant changes from 2005 in any of the Customer Service scores. It continues to be an area
of strength for RRB with a rating of 93. This is off just 1 point from the 2005 measure. Personnel are
highly professional (95) and courteous (94). They are very responsive (94) and provide accurate (94) and
clear (93) information. RRB personnel remain easy to get in touch with (87).

Customer Service
2012 compared to 2005
93

Customer Service

94

95

Professionalism of personnel

96
94

Courtesy of personnel

96

94

Accuracy of information provided

94
94

Responsiveness of personnel

94
93

Clarity of information provided

91

87

Ease of getting in touch with the RRB

89
July 2012

July 2005

N=247

August 2012

9

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Most respondents have recently had contact with RRB through personal phone contact with a field office
(93%). Two-thirds (67%) had recent contact with RRB by U.S. Mail and 45% had contact via automated
phone system. This is up from just 11% in 2005.
As far as the most recent method of contact used, 61% mentioned personal phone contact with a field
office and 28% mentioned U.S. Mail.

July 2005
Percent

July 2012
Percent

Contact Method~
Personal phone contact with a field office
U.S. Mail
Automated phone system
Visiting a field office in person
Meeting a traveling field service representative
Organized seminars or meetings
Internet
E-mail
Number of Respondents

90%
41%
11%
9%
3%
1%
0%
0%
238

93%
67%
45%
13%
1%
1%
9%
5%
247

Most recent contact method
Personal phone contact with a field office
U.S. Mail
Visiting a field office in person
Automated phone system
E-mail
Meeting a traveling field service representative
Number of Respondents

75%
19%
3%
1%
1%
2%
236

61%
28%
5%
4%
1%
0%
247

~ Multiple responses allowed. Includes all contact methods used.

August 2012

10

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Award Letter
Impact 1.2
Most respondents received an Award Letter as 91% of respondents reported receiving one. The Award
Letter is rated highly (90), which is up 3 points from 2005. This is the one component that had a
statistically significant improvement from 2005. Most notably, customers are having an easier time
understanding the letter. Ease of understanding letter improved a significant 5 points. Additionally, the
rating for length of time to receive was up, although not significantly, with a score of 88.

Award Letter
2012 compared to 2005

90
Award Letter
87

92

Ease of understanding letter
87

88
Length of time waited to receive letter
86

July 2012

July 2005

N=193

August 2012

11

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Publications
Impact N/A
Only 18% of respondents used publications to help file their application. Because only a small percentage
of respondents use publications, impacts were not computed in the model. Although the score for
Publications is 2 points lower than the 2005 measure, this is not a significant change. Accuracy of
Information remains the highest rated attribute (92). Publications are rated as being very helpful (89) and
its information is rated as being very useful (88). While Ease of understanding publication remains the
lowest rated Publication attribute, it still scores 82. Such a score would indicate that respondents are not
having issues understanding publications.

Publications
2012 compared to 2005

87
Publications

89

92
Accuracy of information
93

89
Helpfulness of the publication
88

88
Usefulness of information
91

82
Ease of understanding publication

83

July 2012

July 2005

N=41

August 2012

12

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Outcomes
There were two outcomes measured, complaints and confidence in RRB doing a good job in the future.
Complaints remain low at just 3%. In 2005, only 4% complained to RRB. There may be an opportunity to
improve complaint handling, which was rated 47 on a scale of 0 to 100. However, it should be noted that
this score is based on the ratings of just 8 responses, as 8 of the 9 respondents who complained rated
this area.
Confidence in RRB doing a good job remains high at 94. This is up slightly, but not significantly from 2005
(92). Satisfaction has a high impact on confidence in RRB, with an impact of 3.5 on this outcome.

Confidence in RRB
2012 compared to 2005
94

Confidence in RRB
92

94
Confident RRB will do a good job in future

92

July 2012

July 2005

N=244

August 2012

13

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Preferences
Respondents were asked about their most preferred method for conducting business and the second
most preferred method. Phone contact remains the most preferred with 67% still mentioning it as their top
choice. U.S. Mail remains the second most preferred method with 40% selecting it. Since 2005, there has
not been a significant change in the percentage that mention e-mail as their most preferred method as
only 3% would prefer conducting future business via e-mail.

July 2005
Percent
Frequency
Preferred method for conducting future business
Phone contact
U.S. mail
In person
Self service through toll-free number
E-mail
Internet/World Wide Web
Number of Respondents

67%
24%
7%
0%
2%
0%

Second most preferred method for conducting future business
U.S. mail
In person
Phone contact
E-mail
Self service through toll-free number
Internet/World Wide Web
Number of Respondents

51%
15%
28%
5%
0%
0%

August 2012

168
57
22
0
5
0

July 2012
Percent
Frequency
67%
13%
9%
6%
3%
2%

252

14

247

121
40
70
14
0
1
246

163
33
25
14
7
5

40%
20%
18%
10%
6%
6%

94
47
49
28
15
14
247

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Segments: Spouse to Widow and Initial Widow
The Spouse to Widow segment (91) rate satisfaction slightly, but not significantly higher than Initial
Widows (89) segment.
There were very few significant differences between the ratings from Spouse to Widow and Initial Widow
segments. Only at the question level were significant differences found; scores at the component level in
the chart below show no significant differences.
Both groups rate Award Letter highly. However, Spouse to Widow rate the length of time to receive the
Award Letter significantly higher than Initial Widows with a score of 90 compared to 85 for Initial Widows.
In the area of Customer Service while both groups rate RRB highly, there are two attributes where the
Spouse to Widow segment rated RRB significantly higher. Spouse to Widow found ease of getting in
touch with RRB to be better than Initial Widows did (89 compared to 83) and rated the accuracy of
information a significant 5 points higher (96 compared to 91).
See Appendix C for the table comparing all scores by question for these two segments.

Scores by Segment
Spouse to Widow compared to Initial Widow
91
89

Customer Satisfaction Index

85

Publications

90
89

Application Process

85
91
89

Award Letter

94
91

Customer Service

Complaints

2%
5%
94
93

Confidence in RRB
56

Complaint Handling

39
86

Prior Expectations

81
92
90

Overall Quality
Spouse to Widow

Initial Widow

Note: All numbers above represent scores on a 0 to 100 scale with the exception of Complaints, which
represent percentages.

August 2012

15

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Summary and Recommendations
Survivors remain highly satisfied with the Railroad Retirement Board as the customer satisfaction index
remains unchanged from the 2005 score of 90. This is 23 points above the latest federal government
average. There was no significant difference in satisfaction between the Initial Widow (89) and Spouse to
Widow (91) segments. Also, as would be expected with no change in satisfaction, there were very few
significant changes in scores from 2005.
Customer Service continues to be the strength of RRB with a score of 93. RRB personnel are highly
professional and very courteous in servicing customers. They are very responsive and provide accurate
and clear information to callers. Only one item in the area of Customer Service scored below 90, ease of
getting in touch with RRB. However, with a score of 87 access to RRB should not be considered an issue.
Most respondents contacted RRB by personal phone contact with a field office as 93% used this method,
up slightly from 2005 when 90% did so. U.S. Mail was used by 67% of respondents to contact RRB,
which was up from 41% in 2005. Most notably, many more customers are using the automated voice
system in 2012. Close to half (45%) used the automated voice system this year, while only 11% did so in
2005.
The Application Process along with Customer Service are the main drivers of customer satisfaction. The
Application Process was also rated highly (87), the benefit process was rated as being easy for
customers and the amount of supporting documentation was not burdensome.
Most respondents (91%) received the Award Letter. This was one of the areas where a significant
improvement from 2005 was realized. Its score of 90 is a significant three-point improvement from 2005.
This improvement was driven by an increase in ease of understanding letter. While the length of time to
receive the letter was not an issue for either customer type, the Spouse to Widow segment rated it five
points higher than Initial Widows.
Publications remain a highly rated area (87). Information contained in them is accurate, useful and helpful
to customers. Because only 18% of respondents used publication in filing their application, its impact on
satisfaction was not computed.
Customers still mostly prefer conducting business by phone with two-thirds selecting it as their preferred
method. U.S. Mail remains the second most preferred method with 40% selecting it. In the seven years
since the previous study, there has not been a shift toward preferring e-mail as a method of conducting
business as only 3% mentioned it as their preferred method.
With such high satisfaction and high scores in the driver areas RRB should focus on maintaining
performance at this time. In order to maintain the high levels of satisfaction, continuing to provide
excellent customer service will be key. There does not appear to be any deficiencies or obvious areas for
training as reps are functioning at a high level in both their demeanor and their communication of
information. Likewise, the Application Process is working well for customers and is not burdensome, so
there does not appear to be a need to make changes to the process at this time. The Award Letter is
timely and appears to be even clearer to readers in 2012 than it was in 2005. Any changes that may have
been made during the interim appear to be for the better.
While fewer than one-fifth of customers use the publications in filing, there may be an opportunity for
improvement in making them easier to understand. Users find the information accurate and helpful, but
ease of understanding was a lower rated area with a score of 82, and Spouse to Widows only rated it 79.
Exploring if there are particular areas which are problematic may be beneficial.
Another possible area to target is complaint handling, since only 3% complained it is not a widespread
issue. However, those making a complaint rating their handling quite low (47).

August 2012

16

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

APPENDIX A : Survey Questionnaire

August 2012

17

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

This page intentionally left blank.

August 2012

18

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)
Survivor Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire
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)

Introduction (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 __________?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

(If speaking to the right person skip to Q3)
(If holding for the right person continue to Q2 when person comes to phone)
Person not available (Schedule a call back)
No Such Person “Thank you and have a nice day!”
Refusal/Hung Up

Q2. Hello. The Railroad Retirement Board has hired my company, [Data Collection Company], to call on
their behalf. My name is _____________.
Q3. We are conducting research on how satisfied users are with services provided by federal
government agencies as part of the American Customer Satisfaction Index. 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. This survey does not solicit
personal information regarding your annuity, 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. 1090-0007. This interview will take between 8 to 10 minutes. Is now a good time?
1) Yes (Continue)
2) No “Can we schedule a time that is more convenient for you?”
For all questions, please include choices 98 = Don’t Know and 99 = Refused/Hung Up
Screening Questions (Do not read)
Q4. The Railroad Retirement Board has told us that you are currently receiving survivor benefits. Is this
correct?
1) Yes
2) No (TERMINATE “Thank you for your time. Have a nice day!”)
98) Don’t Know (TERMINATE “Thank you for your time. Have a nice day!”)
99) Refusal/Hung up (TERMINATE “Thank you for your time. Have a nice day!”)

Publications (Do not read)
To begin, please think about the publications you may have consulted for information on applying for and
receiving your survivor benefits.
Q5. Did you use the publications to help you file your application?
1) Yes (Continue)
2) No (Skip to Application Process)

August 2012

19

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Thinking about the publications you received with your application, please rate the following on a scale
from 1 to 10 where 1 means “Poor” and 10 means “Excellent”:
Q6.
Q7.
Q8.
Q9.

Ease of understanding the information in the publications
Accuracy of the information
Usefulness of the information
Helpfulness of the publications in filing your application for benefits

Application Process (Do not read)
Now, think about the process that you went through to obtain your survivor benefits. On a scale from 1 to
10 where 1 means “Poor” and 10 means “Excellent,” please rate the following:
Q10. Ease of survivor benefit process
Q11. Amount of supporting documentation required

Award Letter (Do not read)
Now, please think about your Award Letter, which was the first letter you received to notify you of your
benefits.
Q12. Did you receive an Award Letter?
1) Yes (Continue)
2) No (Skip to Customer Service)
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means “Poor” and 10 means “Excellent,” please rate the following:
Q13. Length of time you waited to receive your letter
Q14. Ease of understanding information contained within the letter
Customer Service (Do not read)
Now, think about the ways you have recently contacted the Railroad Retirement Board about your
survivor benefits.
Q15. Please indicate whether you have had contact with the Railroad Retirement Board in the following
ways: (Interviewer: read List, select all that apply)
1) Organized seminars or meetings
2) Visiting a field office in person
3) Meeting a traveling field service representative on Customer Outreach Program Service (e.g., in
a place other than the field office.)
4) By personal phone contact with a field office
5) Automated toll-free phone system (e.g., RRB’s Help Line Services)
6) Internet (e.g. Benefit Online Services at RRB.gov)
7) By e-mail
8) By U.S. mail
Q16. Please indicate your most recent means of contact with the Railroad Retirement Board:
1) Organized seminars or meetings
2) Visiting a field office in person
3) Meeting a traveling field service representative on Customer Outreach Program Service (e.g., in
a place other than the field office.)
4) By personal phone contact with a field office
5) Automated toll-free phone system (e.g., RRB’s Help Line Services)
6) Internet (e.g. Benefit Online Services at RRB.gov)

August 2012

20

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

7) By e-mail
8) By U.S. mail
Consider the most recent contact you have had with the Railroad Retirement Board concerning your
survivor 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.
Q18.
Q19.
Q20.
Q21.
Q22.

The ease of getting in touch with the Railroad Retirement Board
The courtesy of its personnel
The professionalism of its personnel
The responsiveness of its personnel
The clarity of the information provided to you
The accuracy of the information provided to you

ACSI 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 services provided by the Railroad Retirement Board in paying your
survivor 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 paying your survivor benefits 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 pays survivor 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 survivor 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 survivor benefits services provided by the Railroad Retirement Board?
Overall Quality (Do not read)
Q27. Now, please consider all your experiences and impressions since you filed for your survivor
benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board. Using a 10-point scale on which 1 means “Very Low”
and 10 means “Very High,” how would you rate the overall quality of the survivor benefits services
provided by the Railroad Retirement Board?
Outcome Measures (Do not read)
Next, I want you to think about your interaction with the Railroad Retirement Board since you started
receiving your survivor benefits.
Q28. Since you recently began receiving survivor benefits, have you complained to the Railroad
Retirement Board about its service providing your benefits?
1) Yes
2) No (skip to Q30)
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.

August 2012

21

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

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 survivor
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 – Q35 will be randomly rotated)
Q31.
Q32.
Q33.
Q34.
Q35.

U.S. mail
E-mail
Phone contact with a field service representative
Self service through the automated toll-free number (e.g. RRB’s Help Line)
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)
Q36. Internet (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…
Q37. 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)
1) U.S. mail
2) E-mail
3) Phone contact with a field service representative
4) Self service through the automated toll-free number (e.g. RRB’s Help Line)
5) 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)
6) Internet (e.g., Benefit Online Services at RRB.gov)
Q38.

Which would 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)
1) U.S. mail
2) E-mail
3) Phone contact with a field service representative
4) Self service through the automated toll-free number (e.g. RRB’s Help Line)
5) 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)
6) Internet (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!

August 2012

22

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

APPENDIX B: Non-modeled Questions

August 2012

23

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

This page intentionally left blank.

August 2012

24

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

July 2005
Percent
Frequency
Use publications to help file your application
Used publications
Did not use publications
Number of Respondents

25%
75%

Receive an Award Letter
Received Award Letter
Did not receive Award Letter
Number of Respondents

92%
8%

Contact Method~
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
Internet
E-mail
U.S. Mail
Number of Respondents

1%
9%
3%
90%
11%
0%
0%
41%

Most recent contact method
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

3%
2%
75%
1%
1%
19%

Complained to RRB
Did Not Complain
Complained
Number of Respondents

96%
4%

Preferred method for conducting future business
U.S. mail
E-mail
Phone contact
Self service through toll-free number
In person
Internet/World Wide Web
Number of Respondents

24%
2%
67%
0%
7%
0%

Second most preferred method for conducting future business
U.S. mail
E-mail
Phone contact
Self service through toll-free number
In person
Internet/World Wide Web
Number of Respondents

51%
5%
28%
0%
15%
0%

58
162

July 2012
Percent
Frequency
18%
82%

220

233

213
16

91%
9%

229

196
21
217

3
30
7
216
26
0
1
102

1%
13%
1%
93%
45%
9%
5%
67%

238

2
38
3
231
117
24
13
173
247

10
4
173
1
2
46

5%
0%
61%
4%
1%
28%

236

13
0
148
11
3
72
247

243
9

97%
3%

253

238
9
247

57
5
168
0
22
0

13%
3%
67%
6%
9%
2%

252

33
7
163
14
25
5
247

121
14
70
0
40
1
246

46
187

40%
10%
18%
6%
20%
6%

94
28
49
15
47
14
247

~ Multiple responses allowed.

August 2012

25

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

This page intentionally left blank.

August 2012

26

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

APPENDIX C: Score Tables

August 2012

27

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

This page intentionally left blank.

August 2012

28

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Aggregate: Scores and Impacts
July 2005

July 2012

Scores
Sample Size
Application Process
Ease of survivor benefit process
Amount of supporting documentation required
Award Letter
Length of time waited to receive letter
Ease of understanding letter
Customer Service
Ease of getting in touch with the RRB
Courtesy of personnel
Professionalism of personnel
Responsiveness of personnel
Clarity of information provided
Accuracy of information provided
Customer Satisfaction Index
Overall satisfaction with RRB survivor benefit service
RRB compared to expectations
RRB compared to ideal organization
Complaints
Complained to RRB
Confidence in RRB
Confident RRB will do a good job in future

Aggregate
Impact

254
88
88
87
87
86
87
94
89
96
96
94
91
94
90
92
87
89
4
4
92
92

247
87
87
88
90
88
92
93
87
94
95
94
93
94
90
92
89
90
3
3
94
94

1.7
--1.2
--1.6
------N/A
----2.6
-3.5
--

89
83
93
91
88
36
36
83
83
91
91

87
82
92
88
89
47
47
84
84
91
91

N/A
----N/A
-N/A
-N/A
--

Other Questions

Publications
Ease of understanding publication
Accuracy of information
Usefulness of information
Helpfulness of the publication
Complaint Handling
Complaint handling
Prior Expectations
Prior expectations
Overall Quality
Overall quality

August 2012

29

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Significant Difference: 2005 compared to 2012
July 2005

July 2012

Scores
Sample Size
Application Process
Ease of survivor benefit process
Amount of supporting documentation required
Award Letter
Length of time waited to receive letter
Ease of understanding letter
Customer Service
Ease of getting in touch with the RRB
Courtesy of personnel
Professionalism of personnel
Responsiveness of personnel
Clarity of information provided
Accuracy of information provided
Customer Satisfaction Index
Overall satisfaction with RRB survivor benefit service
RRB compared to expectations
RRB compared to ideal organization
Complaints
Complained to RRB
Confidence in RRB
Confident RRB will do a good job in future

254
88
88
87
87
86
87
94
89
96
96
94
91
94
90
92
87
89
4
4
92
92

247
87
87
88
90
88
92
93
87
94
95
94
93
94
90
92
89
90
3
3
94
94

89
83
93
91
88
36
36
83
83
91
91

87
82
92
88
89
47
47
84
84
91
91

Significant
Difference

↑
↑

Other Questions

Publications
Ease of understanding publication
Accuracy of information
Usefulness of information
Helpfulness of the publication
Complaint Handling
Complaint handling
Prior Expectations
Prior expectations
Overall Quality
Overall quality

August 2012

30

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

Significant Difference: Spouse to Widow compared to Initial Widow

Sample Size
Application Process
Ease of survivor benefit process
Amount of supporting documentation required
Award Letter
Length of time waited to receive letter
Ease of understanding letter
Customer Service
Ease of getting in touch with the RRB
Courtesy of personnel
Professionalism of personnel
Responsiveness of personnel
Clarity of information provided
Accuracy of information provided
Customer Satisfaction Index
Overall satisfaction with RRB survivor benefit service
RRB compared to expectations
RRB compared to ideal organization

Spouse to
Initial Widow
Widow
Scores
122
125
89
85
89
84
89
85
91
89
90
85
92
91
94
91
89
83
95
93
96
94
95
92
94
90
96
91
91
89
92
92
90
86
93
86

Significant
Difference

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Other Questions

Publications
Ease of understanding publication
Accuracy of information
Usefulness of information
Helpfulness of the publication
Complaints
Complained to RRB
Confidence in RRB
Confident RRB will do a good job in future
Complaint Handling
Complaint handling
Prior Expectations
Prior expectations
Overall Quality
Overall quality

August 2012

85
79
89
85
87
2
2
94
94
56
56
86
86
92
92

31

90
84
95
91
90
5
5
93
93
39
39
81
81
90
90

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

This page intentionally left blank.

August 2012

32

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

APPENDIX D: Response Rate

August 2012

33

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

This page intentionally left blank.

August 2012

34

CFI Group

Survivors Segment

2012 Customer Survey Results

ACSI AAPOR Definition
Code Code
U

I
P
I+P

RQ

UE

NER

QF
U
NER
QF
EU

n

UNIVERSE OF SAMPLED TELEPHONE NUMBERS

1529

1 Interviews
1.1 Total completed interviews
1.2 Partial interviews
Total interviews

250
6
256

2 Eligible cases that are not interviewed (Non-respondents)
2.1 Break-offs
2.11 Refusal, qualified cases
Total qualified cases refusals

0
137
137

3 Cases of unknown eligibility (Unknown eligibility/No contact—Non-interview)
3.9 Cases of unknown eligibility (Unknown eligibility/No contact—no answer, answering machine, busy)

1017

3.9 Foreign language/hard of hearing
Total unknown eligibility

14
1031

Cases that are not eligible (Non-eligible Respondents)
4.32 Disconnect/out of service
4.2 Computer/FAX
Wrong number
Filter
Other Non-eligible respondent
Total Non-eligible Respondents

30
7
42
26
0
105

Quota Filled so respondent not eligible for interview
4.8 Case of quota-filled subgroup
4.8 Scheduled for callback, but subgroup quota filled or interview period ended
Total Quota Filled Respondents

0
0
0

Universe of Sampled Numbers
Less Non-eligible Respondents
Less Quota Filled Respondents
Universe of Eligible Numbers

1529
105
0
1424

COOPERATION RATE (AAPOR (2)) = I/(I+P)+RQ

63.6%

e = (I+P+RQ+QF)/(I+P+RQ+QF+NER)

78.9%

RESPONSE RATE (AAPOR RR(3)) = I+COOP(QF)/(I+P+RQ+QF+NER+e(UE))

August 2012

35

CFI Group

15.4%