1. Metrics for 211 Centers and Systems
Policy Dialogue with Maribel Marin
Executive Director, 211 LA County – CAIRS President
29th I&R Annual Training and Education Conference
May 7, 2007

2. Policy Objectives
Identify a specific set of metrics that all 211 centers can measure and track.
Provide a clear definition of each metric so that they measure “apples to apples.”
Communicate a clear scope for 211 service to the public and for funders.
Enable regional, statewide, and national calibration, evaluation, and assessment of 211 services.

3. What is a metric and what is it’s value?
A metric is a measure of activity or performance that enables the assessment of outcomes.
Metrics can help to answer key questions about operational effectiveness:
Are long term goals and objectives being achieved?
What does success look like?
How satisfied are callers with services?
How important is the service to the community?
How effective are managers and specialists?

4. What are the Benefits?
Enhanced decision making – goals can be set for desired results, results can be measured, outcomes can be clearly articulated.
Improved internal accountability – more delegation and less “micro-management” when individuals are clear about responsibilities and expectations.
Goals and strategic objectives are meaningful – tracking progress enables the evaluation of planning efforts and can aid in determining whether a plan is good or not.
Source: Wayne Parker, Strategic Planning 101 – Why Measure Performance? Workstar Library 2003

5. Why Metrics Matter for 211?
Most 211s collect or have the ability to collect voluminous amounts of data through their Call Management Systems (CMS), Automated Call Distribution systems (ACDs), and/or their I&R software.
Much data is collected for purposes of complying with AIRS standards, particularly for agency accreditation or reporting to boards, funders, and/or contracts.
We have yet to realize the full value of this data for benchmarking (comparing performance against goals/mission and/or industry peers) and for its potential for aggregation across regional, state, and national levels.

6. Why Metrics Matter for 211?
Through benchmarking and aggregation of data across the field, a story can be told about the value of 211 service as a social safety net for the entire nation on a daily basis and during times of crisis and disaster.
The national 211 business plan clearly calls out the need for creating a unified system through the development of industry standards in order to avoid misuse of 211 (too broadly or too narrowly defined) and create “sustainability for the total system.”
Funding, funding, funding – aggregate data and demonstrable performance outcomes enable pursuit of system-wide funding strategies.

7. AIRS Data Requirements: Reports and Measures
Service Requests
Referrals Provided
Service Gaps
Demographic Data
Zip Code
City
Age
Gender
Language
Target Population
First Time/Repeat Caller
Follow up

8. AIRS Standards National Reporting
Total Calls Answered/Handled
Services Requested

9. Commercial Call Center Metrics
Call center trade journals* consistently identify the following Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as leading performance metrics or benchmarks:
Service Level (% of calls responded to within a specified timeframe such as 80% in under 60 seconds)
Speed of Answer (time caller waits in queue before live answer)
First-Call Resolution (% of callers helped with one call not requiring repeat call on same issue)
Adherence to Schedule (actual and scheduled work by time of day and type of work – handling calls, attending meetings, coaching, breaks, etc.)
Forecasting Accuracy (measured on 2 levels: actual vs. forecasted call volume for hiring/recruiting and for existing staff schedules)
Handle Time (includes talk time, hold time, and after call work)
Customer Satisfaction
Cost per Call
Abandonment Rate (calls in queue disconnected by caller)
*ICMI Call Center Magazine, Contac Professional, Benchmark Portal, Customer Operations Performance Center Inc. (COPC Inc.) incoming.com,

10. Govt/Non-Profit Gold Standard
Metric
Avg
Best
Service level (80% of calls answered)
62.8 sec
21.3 sec
Avg Speed of Answer
59.4 sec
18.6 sec
Avg Handle Time
7.1 min
6.9 min
First Call Resolution
49.1%
65.3%
Abandonment Rate
9.18%
5.46%
Schedule Adherence
70.1%
73.3%
Cost per Call
$6.31
$3.52
Metric
Avg
Gold
Speed of Answer
40 sec
31 sec
Avg Call Length
7.04 min
4.44 min
% Very Satisfied
52%
75%
Benchmark Portal (2005) Govt & NonProfit industry benchmark report: Best-in-class call center performance”
Benchmark Portal (2003) Govt & NonProfit Industry Benchmark Report

11. Best Practices Study on Customer Service – City of Los Angeles

12. Common 211 Metrics Quanity of Service Quality of Service
Number of Calls Handled/Answered
Referrals Provided to Callers
Call Length
Service Gaps
Quality of Service
Speed of Answer/Service Level
Abandonment Rate/Dropped Calls
Follow up Rate
Caller Satisfaction

13. 211 Recommended Best Practices
Agency Accreditation (AIRS Standards compliance)
CIRS/CRS certification
24/7 service
Universal Access – cell, TTY, cable, web
Service provided by a live, trained I&R Specialist without being required to leave a message or hang up and dial a separate number.
Multilingual service
Call monitoring

14. 211 LA County Metrics Metric Target Actual
(1st Qtr 2007)
Service Level/Speed of Answer
80% in 60 sec
92%
Abandonment Rate
< 10%
3.5%
Satisfied with Services
95%
93%
Follow-up Rate (non-crisis 211)
3 calls/CRA per month
3+/CRA/mo
Average calls monitored
2 calls/CRA per week
2/CRA/wk
# of new programs/services added to database each year (for FY 06-07)
10% increase per year
3.6%
Annual Survey Response Rate
(figures for June-July fiscal year -
1 qtr remaining in process)
1st Mailing: 60%
2nd Mailing: 20%
Phone Contact: 20%
49.96%
18.44% 9%
# of agency site visits per year 50 20
% of eligible CRAs AIRS certified
100%
81%
Employee turnover rate
7.7%

15. Standardizing 211 Metrics
Attempts to generate national reports on performance and service outcomes to support funding requests have been challenged by the lack of common definitions for basic measurements.
Many 211 systems are attempting to bridge the differences through data standardization processes – just a few referenced here:
Texas I&R Network: Dr. Sherry Bame, Texas A&M University
United Ways of Ontario, Canada: Michael Milhoff, consultant
WIN 211 (Washington and Oregon): Karen Fisher, Associate Professor, University of Washington Information School (211 Outcomes Registry project)
IN 211 (Indiana): through it’s 211 operations manual development process
AIRS Accreditation Committee: through 2007 revised standards led by Faed Hendry, chair and Manager of Training and Outreach at Findhelp Information Services of Toronto.

16. Challenges to Standardization
Limited data collection/reporting capability
Lack of common terms and definitions
Lack of standard call types/needs lists
Inconsistent measurement/reporting frequencies
Too much variation in data collection fields among I&R software systems
Varying data sources: I&R software vs. CMS/ACD
Too much data collection not enough data analysis

17. Key Consistency Questions
How is a call defined?
Are demographics taken on caller or client?
Are multiple clients on one call counted as a single transaction? A single call?
Is age data collected by number of years, age range/group, birth date?
Is location data related to caller or client? Is it location of call or location of residence?
Data reported daily, monthly, quarterly, annually?

18. Why Metrics Matter What you don’t measure doesn’t count.
What gets measured gets done.
If you don’t measure results, you can’t tell success from failure.
If you can’t see success, you can’t reward it.
If you can’t reward success, you’re probably rewarding failure.
If you can’t see success, you can’t learn from it.
If you can’t recognize failure, you can’t learn from it.
If you can demonstrate results, you can win public support.
Source: Aiming to Improve, Audit Commission, Reinventing Government, Osborne and Gaebler

19. Next Steps
Join 211 North America Metrics Project
Share findings of your region’s work
Weigh in on which metrics should be collected by 211s
Voice your position on how the scope of 211 service should be defined
Participate in discussions on:
Common definitions and terms
Standard call types/needs lists
Measurement/reporting frequencies
Demographic data best practices

20. Sources and References
Websites
(Queue Tips)
Customer Operations Performance Center Inc. (COPC Inc.) is a leading authority on operations management and performance improvement for buyers and providers of customer contact center services.
- The Interagency Working Group (IAWG) on U.S. Government-Sponsored International Exchanges and Training created in 1997 for improving the coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness of United States Government-sponsored international exchanges and training.
Section on 211 Standards

21. Sources and References
Reports
National 211 Benchmark Survey – conducted by 211 San Diego ( in 211 standards section)
Devising, Implementing, and Evaluating Customer Service Initiatives (1/30/2007) – Office of Citizen Services & Communications: US GSA
Agency Experiences with Outcomes Measurement – United Way of America (2000)
WIN Performance Evaluation and Cost-Benefit Analysis of I&R Systems – University of Washington, Information School – Karen Fisher/Matt Saxton (2005)
National 211 Business Plan – AIRS/UWA (2002)
211 Data Entry & Database Coding for TIRN – Texas A&M University – Dr. Sherry I. Bame
211 Across California by 2010 – Business Plan: 211 California Partnership with Sadlon & Associates, Inc.
AIRS Standards for Professional Information and Referral, Version 5.1 (2006)
Operations Manual – Indiana 211 Partnership, Inc. - First Approved 7/09/02; last revision 5/9/06
COPC-2000 CSP Gold Standard Release 4.1 (January 2007)

22. Real People. Real Answers. Real Help. www.211LACounty.org
Contact Information: Maribel Marin Executive Director 211 LA County (626)
Real People. Real Answers. Real Help.
 INFORMATION AND REFERRAL FEDERATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Serving Los Angeles County since 1981