320 Nelson Street, P.O. Box 778, Tiffin, OH 44883
Phone (419) 448-3200 Fax (419) 447-3274
General E-Mail: adtrib@bright.net
Newsroom E-Mail: atnews@bright.net

'Customer' is really master of government

The federal government this week released what it fatuously claims is a "customer satisfaction" survey, and of course it found even the most hated agencies enjoying middling satisfaction ratings. Programs that hand out money or direct services, such as Head Start, naturally ranked high, with ratings approaching 100 percent. The IRS ranked lowest, at 51 percent. No agency got a failing grade. The so-called "customer" survey looks a bit like a Potemkin Village built for the benefit of the consultants who ran the survey.

Indeed, it turns out that each agency got to choose which of its "customers" would be surveyed, and in some cases the sampling methods, as it were, are laughable.

NASA, for example, spends $100 million a year on educational programs &emdash; a mere 1 percent of its budget. Naturally, it surveyed the 80 teachers who no doubt were delighted to have been selected to participate in special programs at a NASA center. The 80 teachers symmetrically rated NASA at a mere 80 percent, the ingrates.

And let's not forget the government's "customer" conceit. The government does not have customers, not one. The government confiscates taxes and fees to pay for certain services over which it has asserted monopoly power. That is the nature of government. Customers by definition have choices of other providers of goods and services. Those who use government services with few exceptions (parcel post comes to mind) have no other choice because the government has outlawed competition (first-class mail or air traffic control).

This "satisfaction" survey is nothing more than a public relations exercise that gives agencies a chance to pat themselves on the back during the traditionally slow news cycle surrounding Christmas. The primary beneficiaries of the survey are the consultants &emdash; Arthur Andersen and the American Society for Quality &emdash; who will pocket $1.8 million.

A much more worthwhile exercise would be ongoing performance review of core agency services, and the regular shedding of non-core services. But that would involve a concept totally foreign to agency politics: accountability.