Background

The American public depends on the U.S. Postal Service to deliver its mail timely. The Postal Service has service standards against which it measures its performance — such as for First‑Class and Priority Mail, as examined in this report — so it can track how timely it is delivering for the American public. While the Postal Service has strived for service excellence, financial challenges since 2006 have made this more difficult. The Postal Service attributes its difficulties and financial strains to a combination of factors, including declining mail volume, inefficient operational practices, unattainable service standards, and delivering six days a week at uniform and affordable rates. In response, the Postal Service developed its Delivering for America plan, which involved making major changes to its network and lowering service standards to support cost cutting initiatives with the intent to balance service with being financially self-sustaining.

What We Did

Our objective was to assess the Postal Service’s First‑Class Mail and Priority Mail service performance since fiscal year (FY) 2022. The review looked broadly at service performance changes, trends, failure points, and causes.

What We Found

Challenges implementing major changes to the Postal Service network over the last few years has negatively impacted service performance. Despite lowering standards, the amount of First‑Class Mail and Priority Mail delivered on time decreased since FY 2022. The Postal Service is operating in a transitional state, with many additional changes still to be implemented. It is likely service will continue to be suppressed during this time, even with the Postal Service reducing its target for First‑Class Mail delivered on time by 4.5 percent in FY 2025. We identified opportunities to enhance operational performance, decrease cost, and improve service.

Recommendations and Management’s Comments

We made seven recommendations to address the issues identified in the report. Postal Service management agreed with five recommendations and disagreed with two. Management’s comments and our evaluation are at the end of each finding and recommendation. We consider management’s comments responsive to recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, as corrective actions should resolve the issues identified. Management disagreed with recommendations 2 and 6, and we will pursue those recommendations through the formal audit resolution process.