U.S. Export Assistance Centers: Customer Service Enhanced, But Potential
to Improve Operations Exists (Testimony, 07/25/96, GAO/T-NSIAD-96-213).

GAO discussed opportunities to improve U.S. Export Assistance Centers'
(USEAC) operations. GAO noted that: (1) staff and customers at the four
USEAC surveyed believe colocating agency staff and nonfederal partner
organizations improved export delivery services by increasing customer
access to federal export promotion services; (2) although customers are
highly satisfied with individual agencies' services, they believe
cooperation among agency staffs could be improved; (3) 40 percent of the
customers who used a second USEAC agency found the agency on their own
without help from their USEAC contact, even though some of these
customers expressed a need for another agency's services; (4) some USEAC
staff are reluctant to recommend other agencies' services because they
are not familiar with those agencies' performance in service delivery;
(5) to improve teamwork, USEAC directors believe they need to have input
to staff performance appraisals with regard to intra-USEAC teamwork, a
USEAC-wide client tracking system, adequate authority over USEAC
expenditures, and a USEAC-wide accounting system; (6) three federal
agencies are considering ways to give USEAC directors input to staff
appraisals and plan to install an off-the-shelf client tracking system;
and (7) the three agencies have agreed to allocate USEAC expenses based
on a formula that reflects the limited capabilities of the International
Trade Administration's accounting system, but they are working on a
separate financial management system for USEAC.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-NSIAD-96-213
     TITLE:  U.S. Export Assistance Centers: Customer Service Enhanced, 
             But Potential to Improve Operations Exists
      DATE:  07/25/96
   SUBJECT:  Exporting
             Sales promotion
             Business assistance
             International trade
             Interagency relations
             Customer service
             Federal agency accounting systems
             Personnel evaluation systems
             Management information systems
             Data bases
IDENTIFIER:  Baltimore (MD)
             Chicago (IL)
             Long Beach (CA)
             Miami (FL)
             TPCC National Export Strategy
             USEAC Export-Trade Assistance Partnership Program
             ITA Commercial Information Management System
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Subcommittee on Procurement, Exports and
Business Opportunities, Committee on Small Business, House of
Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m., EDT
Thursday,
July 25, 1996

U.S.  EXPORT ASSISTANCE CENTERS -
CUSTOMER SERVICE ENHANCED, BUT
POTENTIAL TO IMPROVE OPERATIONS
EXISTS

Statement of JayEtta Z.  Hecker, Associate Director, International
Relations and Trade Issues, National Security and International
Affairs Division

GAO/T-NSIAD-96-213

GAO/NSIAD-96-213T


(280112)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DEAC - District Export Assistance Center
  Eximbank - Export-Import Bank of the United States
  ITA - International Trade Association
  SBA - Small Business Administration
  TPCC - Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee
  USEAC - U.S.  Export Assistance Center

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to testify before this Subcommittee on
our work regarding efforts by the Department of Commerce, the U.S. 
Export-Import Bank (Eximbank), and the Small Business Administration
(SBA) to create a nationwide network of "one-stop shops," called U.S. 
Export Assistance Centers (USEAC).  My testimony will address both
the benefits realized at the first four USEACs established as well as
opportunities for improving their operations.  As part of our review,
we visited each of the four original USEACs\1 for a period of 1 week
during May-June 1995 and obtained information, using interviews and
surveys, from USEAC staff members, selected customers, and officials
of nonfederal partner organizations that work closely with them. 
(See the appendix for more detailed information on our surveys.)


--------------------
\1 In Baltimore, Chicago, Long Beach, and Miami. 


   SUMMARY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Staff and customers of the four USEACs we visited believed that
co-locating agency staff helped to improve the provision of federal
export services.  For example, about 80 percent of USEAC staff
responding to our survey said that establishment of the USEACs had
substantially increased customer access to the full range of federal
export promotion services.  Services provided by the USEACs include
export finance services as well as export promotion services, such as
providing trade leads and lists of overseas agents and distributors. 
Similarly, respondents to a survey of these USEACs' "best customers"
indicated a high level of satisfaction with the services of
individual agencies.  However, these customers also saw room for
improvement in USEAC agency efforts to work as a unit to deliver
services to clients. 

Approximately 40 percent of the customers surveyed who stated that
they had used more than one USEAC agency also indicated that they had
found the second agency on their own, rather than through their USEAC
contact.  Several told us in interviews that USEAC staff member(s)
they regularly work with did not inform them of the full range of
services provided by the USEACs, even after they had expressed a need
for the services of another USEAC agency.  Staff we interviewed at
certain USEACs stated that they were reluctant to recommend the
services of another agency, even to clients who expressed a need,
because they were unfamiliar with that agency's performance in
delivering the service. 

Currently, USEAC directors do not have the basic management tools to
assure that creation of the USEACs substantially improves federal
export promotion services.  For example, they do not have (1) the
ability to contribute to the performance appraisals of all USEAC
staff with regard to intra-USEAC teamwork, (2) a USEAC-wide client
tracking system with information on clients and the services provided
to them, and (3) adequate authority over USEAC expenditures and a
USEAC-wide accounting system that would permit USEACs to accurately
identify and allocate costs and better manage expenditures. 

With this overview, let me provide some background to put these
points into the proper context and then go into more detail about the
benefits being derived from the USEACs, the opportunities to
strengthen USEAC operations, and our recommendations. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Creation of the USEAC network can be best understood in the context
of sweeping efforts made during this decade to strengthen federal
delivery of export promotion services.  During 1991-93, we conducted
a number of reviews of federal export promotion activities.  We then
reported on a governmentwide effort that cost over $2.7 billion and
that was fragmented among several agencies with no overarching
strategy or explicit set of priorities.  Among our specific findings,
we reported that U.S.  firms seeking export assistance were likely to
become confused and discouraged by the multiple networks of domestic
offices maintained by federal agencies for delivering export
services.\2

Partially in response to our work, Congress enacted the Export
Enhancement Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-429, Oct.  21, 1992), which
created in statute the interagency Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee (TPCC) and tasked it with developing a strategic plan for
strengthening federal export promotion services.  This legislation
also directed the U.S.  & Foreign Commercial Service\3 --the Commerce
Department agency responsible for managing its domestic field
network--to utilize its district offices as "one-stop-shops." These
shops would be able to (1) provide exporters with information on all
U.S.  government export promotion and export finance services, (2)
assist exporters in identifying which federal programs may be of
greatest assistance, and (3) help exporters make contact with those
federal programs. 

TPCC, on September 30, 1993, issued its first National Export
Strategy report, which contained 65 recommendations for federal
action to help U.S.  exporters.  Among these, the strategy
recommended the creation of "one-stop shops" that would integrate
primarily representatives of the Department of Commerce and SBA--two
federal agencies with extensive export promotion field networks--and
Eximbank.  It further recommended that the agencies establish four
pilot "one-stop shops" in Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Miami. 
As envisioned by the strategy, these "one-stop shops" would exceed
the minimum requirements of the 1992 Export Enhancement Act in that
they would actually contain the staff of the three agencies rather
than simply have Commerce staff provide information about these and
other agencies' export programs. 

In commenting on the National Export Strategy, we presented our views
on the process for creating the network of "one-stop shops." We
stated that, before establishing an expansive network, the
participating agencies should first evaluate the results of the four
pilots to determine whether providing the full range of export
promotion services in an integrated way can increase the value to the
business community of federal export promotion assistance.  We
further stated that the aim of the USEAC network should not simply be
to co-locate or even coordinate, but "to integrate and make more
accessible a range of export services aimed at small- to medium-sized
export-ready firms."\4 (Emphasis added.)

With Commerce taking the lead, the three agencies by January 1994 had
established the four pilot "one-stop shops"--now called U.S.  Export
Assistance Centers.  Although the TPCC's export strategy stated that
these USEACs would go through a rigorous evaluation process, Commerce
and its partner agencies decided to move forward with expanding the
network before such evaluations could be concluded.  By late February
1996, the three agencies had expanded the network to 14 USEACs, along
with 10 District Export Assistance Centers (DEAC), which have only
Commerce staff and are connected to the USEACs in a hub-and-spoke
system.  Commerce and its partner agencies opened four additional
DEACs by June 1996 and have plans to further expand the network in
the future. 


--------------------
\2 See One-stop Shops (GAO/GGD-93-1R, Oct.  6, 1992). 

\3 Now called the "Commercial Service."

\4 See Export Promotion:  Governmentwide Plan Contributes to
Improvements (GAO/T-GGD-94-35, Oct.  26, 1993), Export Promotion: 
Initial Assessment of Governmentwide Strategic Plan (GAO/T-GGD-93-48,
Sept.  29, 1993), and Export Promotion Strategic Plan:  Will it be a
Vehicle for Change?  (GAO/T-GGD-93-43, July 26, 1993). 


   BENEFITS BEING DERIVED FROM
   USEACS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

USEAC staff and customers, and officials of nonfederal partner
organizations told us that, because of the USEACs, U.S.  firms are
more knowledgeable about and have access to a broader range of
federal and nonfederal export services.  Customers, however, also
indicated that USEACs can improve the delivery of those services to
the U.S.  export community. 

Approximately 63 percent of the USEAC staff responding to our survey
said that establishment of the USEACs had increased the overall
quality of export services to a great or very great extent.  About 80
percent of our respondents stated that the USEACs had, in particular,
substantially increased customer access to the full range of federal
export promotion services to a great or very great extent. 
Eighty-two percent of the survey respondents also cited significant
increased cooperation among the staffs of the three participating
agencies, which we believe would help to expand the availability of
federal export services as USEAC staff work collaboratively or refer
clients to partner agencies. 

During our visits to the four USEACs, we learned of some specific
examples of USEAC staff taking the initiative to enhance the value of
their services to exporters by working closely with federal and
nonfederal partner organizations.  These examples demonstrate the
potential benefits that can be derived from creation of the USEACs. 

  -- At the Baltimore USEAC, the Commerce staff made an effort, as
     part of their counseling activities, to generate clients for the
     Maryland Industrial Development Financing Authority, a state
     agency that provides export financing. 

  -- At the Long Beach, California, USEAC, the director introduced
     the "Export-Trade Assistance Partnership" program,\5

which sought to utilize the skills and knowledge of federal and
nonfederal partner organizations to increase the export know-how of
firms that are not yet ready to export. 

  -- At the Chicago and Miami USEACs, the Eximbank and SBA staffs
     closely coordinated their outreach efforts.  These individuals
     were familiar with the financing services of both agencies and
     referred clients when appropriate. 

We surveyed the four USEACs' 60 "best customers" (15 for each USEAC)
who had received services from more than one USEAC agency, as
identified by

the USEAC directors.  Of the 40 "best customers" who responded to our
survey, a majority stated that they were very satisfied with the
export services provided by the USEACs.  Their satisfaction was based
on such factors as timeliness, staff knowledge, and usefulness of the
services obtained. 

However, the customers responding to our survey also saw room for
improvement in USEAC agency efforts to work as a unit in the delivery
of services.  Of the 28 customers who acknowledged receiving services
from a second USEAC agency, 11 (40 percent) indicated that they had
found the second agency by themselves, rather than through their
USEAC contact.  We also found that, of the 17 customers who did
acknowledge receiving services from the second agency as a result of
their USEAC contact, 12 stated that they had received useful services
from more than one government agency.  Several of the customers we
interviewed told us that the USEAC staff member(s) they regularly
worked with did not inform them of the full range of services
provided by the USEACs, even after they had expressed a need for the
services of another USEAC agency. 


--------------------
\5 Firms chosen to participate in this program are to receive
training from members of the local export assistance community that
is suited to their needs.  They are expected to translate that
training into concrete business decisions before moving to the next
level of training. 


   OPPORTUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN
   USEAC OPERATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

The decision by Commerce and its partner agencies to co-locate staff
(rather than just meet the minimum requirements of the 1992 Export
Enhancement Act) presented an opportunity to substantially improve
the delivery of federal export promotion services.  On the basis of
our site visits, surveys, and discussions with USEAC staff,
customers, and nonfederal partners, we identified certain basic
interagency mechanisms that, if established, could better ensure an
improved delivery of services. 


      INTRA-USEAC COOPERATION AND
      TEAMWORK
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Despite the increased cooperation among agency staffs, we found
during our interviews with USEAC staff that they did not consistently
work as a team.  For example, we learned that individuals at certain
USEACs were reluctant to recommend the services of another agency,
even to clients who expressed a need, because they were unfamiliar
with that agency's performance in delivering the service. 

To better promote teamwork, USEAC directors told us they needed
authority to contribute to USEAC staff appraisals with regard to
intra-USEAC teamwork.  To do this, the agencies would need to include
on their appraisals a performance factor on intra-USEAC teamwork and
develop relevant performance measures.  These performance measures
could specify, for instance, the number of referrals among USEAC
staffs and, possibly, how often such referrals led to export
promotion or financing services. 

Currently, each agency appraises its own staff.  The appraisal forms
for Commerce and SBA staff contain at least one factor directly
relating to intra-USEAC teamwork.  Commerce officials informed us
that the agency informally permits USEAC directors (i.e., those who
are not Commerce employees) to contribute to appraisals of Commerce
staff with regard to several USEAC-related factors.  SBA officials
informed us that the agency has formally given USEAC directors (i.e.,
those who are not SBA employees) authority to contribute to
appraisals of SBA staff with regard to one USEAC-related factor.  The
Eximbank has this issue under consideration as part of a major
restructuring of the agency's performance appraisal system. 


      USEAC-WIDE CLIENT TRACKING
      SYSTEM
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

To further improve the quality of services to customers, USEAC
directors and staff acknowledged their need for a USEAC-wide,
computer-based client tracking system.  With such a system, USEAC
staff would be able to readily obtain information that another agency
might have on a potential client or determine whether it has already
received services from another USEAC agency.  We believe that having
this ability would help ensure that USEAC staff do not suggest
inappropriate services or make duplicate requests for information. 
Such a system could also serve as a source for identifying potential
clients to pursue in marketing export services. 

At the time of our visits, the agencies at each of the four USEACs
used a separate client tracking system.  Commerce staff used the
agency's "Commercial Information Management System"--a worldwide data
base that links Commerce headquarters, its domestic field network,
and overseas offices.  Eximbank staff used an off-the-shelf computer
program for maintaining information on customers.  SBA staff used
mostly paper filing systems but sometimes employed the Commerce or
Eximbank data bases. 

Commerce had offered to make its system available to all USEAC staff
but staff we spoke with did not support such a move.  They generally
characterized the Commerce system as slow, cumbersome, and otherwise
not able to meet their needs.  Some also expressed concern that
placing proprietary business information on a worldwide data base
could compromise its confidentiality.  Although Commerce staff are
required to use this system, we found that they have done so to
widely varying degrees.  These ranged from using it as a true client
data base, with detailed information on each customer and Commerce
services received, to using it as nothing other than a list of
contacts. 

Commerce, Eximbank, and SBA officials recently told us that they see
the development of a client tracking system as a high priority for
the USEACs.  They plan to install at all the USEACs an off-the-shelf
client tracking system that is currently under development. 


      USEAC FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
      AND PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

Some USEAC directors also saw the need for (1) adequate authority
over USEAC expenditures and (2) a USEAC-wide accounting system that
would permit USEACs to accurately identify and allocate costs and
better manage expenditures.  With regard to the former, our review
indicated that USEAC directors did not have authority to make routine
expenditures for such things as printing marketing brochures, using
temporary employees to fill in for staff on long-term leave, or
buying copiers or other office equipment.  USEAC directors and staff
told us that, to make purchases, they currently must use Commerce's
procurement approval process.  They characterized this process as
being very lengthy and time- consuming, due largely to paperwork
requirements and multiple layers of review.  USEAC staff told us that
they saw themselves devoting too much time to these purchases, which
often were made long after the need arose. 

With regard to the need for a USEAC-wide accounting system, USEAC
directors told us that they could not identify the costs associated
with creating and maintaining the USEACs and allocate these costs
among the three participating agencies.  They told us that, if they
had an adequate system, they could also better assess the relative
cost-effectiveness of various tools used by USEACs to reach and
deliver export services to U.S.  firms.  For example, USEAC directors
may use a variety of ways to market their services, including
mailings to exporters, participation in trade events and export
shows, and/or through making cold telephone calls to exporters. 
Knowing the relative cost of these activities, as well as the
results, would help in determining which of these (either singly or
in combination) is most cost-effective.  Currently the USEACs do not
have such information. 

Further, we learned that under memorandums of understanding
negotiated by the three agencies, Commerce's International Trade
Administration (ITA) was to cover all USEAC-related expenditures,
allocate them among the participating agencies, and seek
reimbursement.  Eximbank and SBA officials told us that Commerce had
been unable to allocate USEAC-related costs among the three agencies
and, as a result, had not provided them with an adequate accounting
of USEAC costs.\6 Instead, ITA forwarded invoices for "USEAC
expenses" that lacked detail.  Commerce, Eximbank, and SBA officials
recently told us that they have agreed to allocate expenses based on
a formula that reflects the limited capabilities of ITA's financial
accounting system.  This agreement is to be reflected in a revised
memorandum of understanding, which has not yet been signed by all
USEAC agencies. 

To obtain whatever financial data might be available on the USEAC
network, we asked the three agencies to compile information on their
USEAC-related expenditures.  Commerce sought to get the information
requested from the individual USEACs, who themselves had no common
accounting mechanism to track costs.  The Eximbank and SBA relied on
centralized financial management systems for the requested
information.  The data Commerce officials provided to us was heavily
qualified and could not be reconciled with Eximbank and SBA data. 
Therefore, the actual cost of creating and maintaining the USEAC
network was not known. 

The agencies recently told us that they are currently piloting a
separate financial management system for the USEACs.  They anticipate
that this system will provide a more precise accounting of
expenditures. 


--------------------
\6 Work performed by Commerce's Office of the Inspector General and
our office regarding ITA's overall ability to manage its finances
found that ITA lacked the financial management system needed to
accurately account for its expenditures.  See Semiannual Report to
the Congress, U.S.  Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector
General (Washington, D.C.:  U.S.  Government Printing Office, Mar. 
31, 1994).  Our office communicated its findings to Commerce in a
letter dated August 11, 1995. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

Based on our review, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce,
working with the Chairman of the Eximbank and the Administrator of
SBA

  -- give all USEAC directors the authority to contribute to the
     performance appraisals of all USEAC staff with regard to
     intra-USEAC cooperation and teamwork (including development of
     an appropriate performance factor for staff appraisals and
     performance measures),

  -- establish a USEAC-specific customer tracking system that
     contains information on clients and services provided to them,
     and

  -- set up an accounting system that accurately tracks the full
     costs of creating and operating the USEAC network and, as part
     of that process, incorporate ways to give USEAC directors
     greater authority over USEAC expenditures. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5.1

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement.  I will be happy
to answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have. 


SCOPE AND RESULTS OF U.S.  EXPORT
ASSISTANCE CENTER STAFF AND
CUSTOMER SURVEYS
==================================================== Appendix Appendix

During our week-long visits to each of the four pilot USEACs (in
Baltimore, Chicago, Long Beach, and Miami) in May-June 1995, we
administered two survey instruments.  One survey sought the views of
USEAC staff and focused on various operational issues such as
cooperation among USEAC agency staff (as well as with nonfederal
partners) and the quality of services delivered.  The other survey
sought the views of USEAC customers and focused on a number of
dimensions of program delivery such as access to export services,
USEAC staff knowledge, and the timeliness and usefulness of the USEAC
services obtained. 


   SURVEY OF USEAC STAFF
-------------------------------------------------- Appendix Appendix:1

We surveyed and interviewed the USEAC directors and every member of
the staff that was available during the time of our visit. 
Individuals to be surveyed were determined jointly by the USEAC
directors and our staff.  The surveys were completed anonymously.  In
all, we received 44 replies, which represented a response rate of
about 85 percent.  Highlights of our survey results follow. 

  -- The overwhelming majority of USEAC staff believed that the
     establishment of the USEAC had increased cooperation among the
     USEAC agencies (82 percent "to a great/very great extent") and
     substantially increased customer access to federal export
     promotion services (80 percent).  With respect to other factors,
     USEAC staff believed the USEACs had (1) improved the quality of
     services they personally deliver (63 percent), (2) increased
     export-ready customers' ability to export (58 percent), and (3)
     improved cooperation with nonfederal partners (50 percent). 

  -- USEAC staff rated their USEACs on progress toward integrating
     operations across several dimensions using a 10-point scale
     (with a score of 10 representing complete integration).  They
     gave referrals an average integration score of 7.0 (out of a
     possible 10).  Other dimensions were given a lower score, such
     as administrative resources (an average score of 4.5) and
     customer tracking systems (an average score of 4.2). 

  -- Overall, USEAC staff gave high satisfaction ratings (e.g.,
     "very" or "somewhat" satisfied) for various factors, including
     responsiveness of agencies to each others' referrals (97
     percent), accessibility of other USEAC agencies (93 percent),
     and quality of referrals from other USEAC agencies (85 percent). 
     The officials were less satisfied with such factors as
     information-sharing with nonfederal partners (66 percent), the
     relationship between USEAC agency officials and the agency
     officials at local regional offices (56 percent), and the
     recognition they received for their efforts at promoting the
     USEACs (37 percent). 


   SURVEY OF USEAC CUSTOMERS
-------------------------------------------------- Appendix Appendix:2

In surveying the USEAC customers, we asked the USEAC directors to
identify their 60 "best customers" (15 from each USEAC) who had
received services from more than one USEAC agency.  We surveyed all
15 clients at each USEAC and selected 5 clients to interview, based
largely on availability and proximity to the USEAC.  We received 40
survey responses (13 customers of the Baltimore USEAC, 11 from
Chicago, 8 from Long Beach, and 8 from Miami) for a response rate of
67 percent.  Of the 40 survey respondents, 12 indicated that they had
not received a service from a second USEAC agency.\1 Highlights of
our survey results follow. 

  -- The customers who replied to our survey expressed high levels of
     satisfaction with the individual agencies from which they had
     received services.  For example, 83 to 93 percent of the
     respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the
     timeliness, staff knowledge, and usefulness of the services
     provided by the first USEAC agency.  Of the 28 customers who
     acknowledged receiving services from a second USEAC agency, 17
     received services from the second agency as a result of the
     USEAC contact, and 12 of these stated that they had received
     useful services from more than one government agency. 

  -- Customers gave the USEAC agencies high marks (92 percent
     generally high to very high) for projecting a business image and
     for providing follow-up.  The USEAC agencies did not receive as
     high a mark for promoting their services (75 percent). 

  -- Customer responses regarding USEAC agency referrals to another
     USEAC agency showed that referrals were not always made when
     services were desired.  Of those customers who acknowledged
     receiving services from more than one USEAC agency, about 40
     percent said that they had learned about the second agency
     themselves or through a non-USEAC source and had initiated the
     contact. 


--------------------
\1 Our interviews discovered that several of the 12 customers who
recalled receiving services from only one USEAC agency, in fact, had
limited contact with another USEAC agency.  However, because of the
brevity of that contact, customers did not believe they had received
a service from the second agency. 


*** End of document. ***