Expand existing “customer experience” (CX) efforts to include “civic experience” (CivX) principles
Response to OMB RFI “Methods and Leading Practices for Advancing Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through Government”
Docket Number: OMB_FRDOC_0001-0291
This post was excerpted in the POPVOX Foundation’s joint response to the above OMB Equity RFI on July 6th, 2021.
In recent years, the Federal Government has prioritized customer experience (“CX”) metrics for public-facing services. The narrow construct of “citizen as customer,” however, can have detrimental effects on the advancement of equity in governing processes. This submission describes the growth of CX practices within the Federal Government and how a narrow CX focus can negatively impact equity. We then offer recommendations to help OMB guide agencies toward more inclusive engagement metrics like civic knowledge, public trust, and political efficacy in addition to conventional “customer experience” measures.
In furtherance of the goals of Area 1, “Equity Assessments and Strategies,” the Office of Management and Budget should encourage federal agencies to:
Expand existing “customer experience” (CX) efforts to include “civic experience” (CivX) principles
Apply an inclusive and equity-centered design to user-centered evaluations
In recent years, the Federal Government has prioritized customer experience (“CX”) metrics for public-facing services. The narrow construct of “citizen as customer,” however, can have detrimental effects on the advancement of equity in governing processes. This submission describes the growth of CX practices within the Federal Government and how a narrow CX focus can negatively impact equity. We then offer recommendations to help OMB guide agencies toward more inclusive engagement metrics like civic knowledge, public trust, and political efficacy in addition to conventional “customer experience” measures.
Customer Experience in the Federal Government
The discussion of citizens as “customers” is not a recent phenomenon. “New Public Management” efforts in the 1990s focused on bringing citizens closer to the governing process. In 1993, the Clinton administration began pushing federal agencies to establish a customer service standard based on the National Performance Review. By 2010, The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act (GPRMA) required federal agencies to set performance goals that included customer feedback surveys, leading to the launch of Performance.gov in August of 2011.
In 2015, the Veteran’s Administration created the Federal Government’s first customer service office, the Veterans Experience Office (VEO). As a CX leader, the VA has shared its experience through a series of reports and toolkits to help other agencies embrace CX and user-oriented approaches.
In 2018, OMB issued guidance directing agencies to incorporate CX practices into their workflows. The guidance requires agencies to track and publish CX scores and establish a baseline for managing customer experience in the public sector. Around the same time, the General Services Administration (GSA) renamed the Single Customer Experience Office the Office of Customer Experience (OCE).
In 2020, the Trump Administration’s President’s Management Agenda (PMA) identified “Improving Customer Experience With Federal Services” as one of its Cross-Agency Priorities. At the time of writing, the Biden administration has yet to release its own PMA, while several CX-related bills have been introduced in Congress, including the Federal Agency Customer Experience (FACE) Act and the Trust in Public Service (TIPS) Act, which would create the role of the first-ever chief customer experience officer of the United States.
As CX practices become more prevalent in government, it is important to assess its impact on other agency priorities, including the goal of advancing equity and support for underserved communities. Increasing the efficiency and ease by which people interact with government services is, without question, a very good thing. However, an exclusive focus on CX optimization without a broader consideration of civic efficacy and access may exacerbate historic inequalities or overlook the experiences of underserved communities. But, there is good news. The strides made over the past several decades in introducing CX concepts and methods for measuring the “experience” of those interacting with government provide a solid foundation for what could become an expanded practice of assessing and optimizing for the needs of members of historically or currently underserved communities.
CX Metrics and Disparate Access
In 2001, political scholar Jane Fountain reflected on the increasing adoption of “New Public Management” in the U.S. federal government and its emphasis on what then-VP Gore called—a “new customer service contract with the American people.” Fountain argued that while a customer service approach may improve some aspects of agency delivery and service, its paradoxes could weaken the public’s sense of connection to fundamental democratic responsibilities of trusteeship and increase political inequalities.
These concerns were illustrated by “digital divide” issues that arose as many government services moved online—even as some communities lagged in technology adoption due to lack of broadband connectivity, economic challenges, or lack of comfort with technology. A recent post from the OMB Customer Experience Team describes how the tedious process of replacing a social security card can be made much more efficient if paper-based requirements are eliminated. Most Americans would, without hesitation, opt for an online digital process for this kind of basic service. They would likely indicate a high level of satisfaction with a “frictionless” experience that required no human or paper-based interaction. But, what about those who often do not find themselves in the same situation as “most Americans”? A person with a disability, someone living in a rural area or on tribal lands that lack reliable connectivity, a family experiencing homelessness, and other historically and currently “underserved” communities are often underserved precisely because their situation differs from the majority of the population. As user experience experts have cautioned, concepts like frictionless design can often lead to “frictionless racism.”
CX Metrics and Disparate Power in Underserved Communities
A narrow CX approach may fail to acknowledge that some “customers” have more influence than others in a governing system. Customer satisfaction surveys are often answered by those who have more influence, more experience, or who trust the government more, potentially leading to responses that skew towards more privileged voices and further diminish the experience of those who are already underserved.
Metrics that are limited to “customer” experience often imply that all “customers” share similar needs or interests and should be treated equally. A-11 Section 280 defines a customer as “individuals, businesses, and organizations (such as grantees, state and municipal agencies) that interact with a Federal Government agency or program, either directly or via a Federal contractor or even a Federally-funded program.” Those “customers,” however, are very different from each other and often have competing interests. Individuals living in a poor neighborhood downstream from industrial effluence, environmental activist groups, and businesses regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency are all legitimate “customers” of the agency. However, their needs, interests, understanding of the regulatory process, and ability to engage are very different. “Customer satisfaction” may have very different meanings and outcomes for each.
In 1997, the then-Director of the GAO Office of Acquisition Management, Joseph Pegnato, cautioned against an exclusive use of customer service approaches in government because achieving “high customer satisfaction” for one group could come “at the expense of inappropriate compromise of due process protections of other customers.” Pegnato recognized the potential for customer service approaches to improve the Federal Government’s public image, but was concerned that these efforts would disadvantage specific populations.
More Than Customers
Of course, the “People” in a democracy are much more than customers. Georgia State University Professor John Clayton Thomas describes three potential roles that an individual could assume in interactions with government: citizens, customers, and partners. People act as citizens when information or public acceptance is needed to reach or implement a decision (e.g., voting, contacting lawmakers, participating in public comment opportunities). People act as partners when assistance is desired from the public to be effective for services or programs (e.g., vaccinations, citizen science projects). And people are more akin to customers when the goal is purely transactional services (e.g., veterans’ health care, student loans). An exclusive prioritization of only one role in public interactions with government (i.e., customer) can undermine the sense of agency and empowerment that comes with being treated as a “citizen” or “partners.”
These roles intersect and overlap. For example: a veteran seeking care at a veteran’s facility does so as a client or “customer” to access the privilege that he or she earned through military service. If that care is substandard or lacking, a “customer” may decide to act in their role as a “constituent” by contacting a Member of Congress to request assistance or report unsatisfactory conditions. Congressional offices often intervene on behalf of constituents to elevate or request resolution of claims and are frequently able to get answers or prompt action from agencies that an individual in the “customer” model could not. Similarly, if the Department of Veterans’ Affairs invites the veteran to contribute ideas for improving services, the veteran’s experience is more akin to that of a partner. These kinds of experiences provide opportunities for increasing participants’ understanding of government processes, trust in government institutions, and the sense that they are valued and respected.
When members of the public engage as “partners,” it is important both to recognize their service and contribution and demonstrate that their participation is meaningful—this is especially true for underserved communities. Those who have not felt welcome at the metaphorical table in the past will necessarily be more reluctant to participate as partners, even though their experiences and voices are crucial to helping agencies understand how to address historical inequities. As agencies develop plans for addressing equity in their work, creating opportunities for and viewing individuals as “partners” (rather than simply as “customers”) will be essential.
These different potential roles carry distinctive levels of empowerment and agency. While all Americans theoretically possess the same ability to act in a “constituent” mode and request assistance or share concerns to elected officials — or demonstrate displeasure at the ballot box if assistance is not forthcoming — not all feel empowered to do so.
A sense of empowerment to engage with government is often referred to as “political efficacy,” individuals’ personal belief in their own ability to participate and the degree to which they believe such participation is worthwhile. Measures of political efficacy are frequently used by political scientists and researchers to evaluate the civic health of an organization or community. Conditions such as poverty, poor health, and unemployment are associated with lower levels of efficacy, resulting in diminished civic engagement and participation. Personal interactions with the government, however — especially service-based interactions — can impact feelings of efficacy. Expanding CX assessment strategies to include metrics of individuals’ perceived efficacy following interactions with government could help agencies tailor processes and policies to better address the needs of underserved communities.
Recommendations
We offer the following recommendations as guidance that OMB could incorporate into its work and provide to agencies to incorporate into existing practices to more fully address equity in agency performance assessments.
Area 1: Equity Assessments and Strategies
“What are some promising methods and strategies for assessing equity in internal agency practices and policies?”
Recommendation 1: Expand existing “customer experience” (CX) metrics efforts to include “civic experience” (CivX) principles.
As described above, one promising method for ensuring that equity is included in assessments of internal agency practices is to broaden agencies current narrow focus on “customer experience” to a broader set of metrics that include political efficacy, access, and public trust.
Our team at the POPVOX Foundation has produced a toolkit to assist agencies and other governing institutions in their efforts to apply these civic experience or “CivX” principles to existing practices and policies.
“How might agencies collect data and build evidence in appropriate and protected ways to reflect underserved individuals and communities and support greater attention to equity in future policymaking? How might agencies build capacity and provide training and support for teams conducting this work?
Recommendation 2: Apply an inclusive and equity-centered design to user-centered evaluations
Agencies are already taking steps to apply user-centered approaches to understand and improve individuals’ experience interacting with agencies and accessing government services. To support greater attention to equity in future policymaking and service design, we caution viewing the public as a “customer” of the agency in default when exploring these experiences. We use the example of journey mapping to demonstrate.
Journey mapping is a concept developed by user-centered designers to identify typical users of services and map their ‘journeys’ through the process. The Federal Customer Experience Initiative team at the OMB has advocated for the use of customer journey mappings to help agencies understand people’s interactions with their products and services across agencies.
There is no doubt that these user-experience methods will improve the ease and efficiency of transaction services for people across agencies. However, we challenge agencies to look at people’s role in Government in more ways than just the customer. What would a journey mapping process look like if people identified within the map can take other roles like a partner or a constituent?
GSA already offers some great tools for accessibility and inclusion for the Government, but these values are not fully reflected in the Federal Government’s metrics for performance. For example, the Customer Experience team at the GAO wrote a blog post detailing tips on using Customer Experience in government. One recommendation is to “Informally Talk To Users That You Know,” such as friends, family, etc. This recommendation goes against the advice of many equity proponents because researchers will generate biases that focus only on people in their surrounding environment.
Some great resources for more information on designing for equity include the Microsoft Design Inclusive Design Toolkit (cited on the GSA’s accessibility suggestions), the Creative Reach Lab’s Equity-Centered Community Design Field Guide, and the Equity Design Collaborative. Other government entities have great resources such as the city of Seattle have a Racial Equity Toolkit and the city of Portland’s Digital Equity Action Plan.